China resettles 250,000 Tibetans

[Hater Depot]

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/world/17185682.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_world

In a massive campaign that recalls the socialist engineering of an earlier era, the Chinese government has relocated some 250,000 Tibetans - nearly one-tenth of the population - from scattered rural hamlets to new "socialist villages," ordering them to build new housing largely at their own expense and without their consent.

The government calls the year-old project the "comfortable housing program," and its stated aim is to present a more modern face for this ancient region, which China has controlled since 1950.

It claims that the new housing on main roads, sometimes only a mile from previous homes, will enable small farmers and herders to have access to schools and jobs, as well as better health care and hygiene.

But the broader aim seems to be remaking Tibet - a region with its own culture, language and religious traditions - in order to have firmer political control over its population. It comes as China prepares for an influx of millions of tourists in the run-up to next year's Summer Olympic Games.

[vsoy]

I found this part disturbing:
It's created a building boom," said Melvyn C. Goldstein, a social anthropologist and expert on Tibet at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. "I think it's phenomenally successful, more than I would've believed."

Human Rights Watch's witnesses told a different story. Peasants must take out loans of several thousand dollars to pay for the houses, which cost an average of $6,000, even though annual rural incomes hover around $320 in this deeply impoverished region.

"None of those interviewed reported being given the right to challenge or refuse participation in the campaign," the advocacy group said.

Local officials frequently embezzle allocated funds, the group said, and some land that peasants have vacated is being used for mining and other projects. Farmers who can't repay their bank loans forfeit the right to occupy the homes.

Probably the strongest criticism of the program concerns the way it came about - without consultation or consent. The campaign has come with no public debate, a throwback to past eras when rural people served as pawns on a development chessboard.

From an economist point of view, the Tibetans are get a "higher standard of living" but at what expense?

[SamuraiJack]

I love how white people always point to China without looking in their own backyard.

[ZhuBaJie]

if the article had framed it in the context of just the social costs of the relocation, then it would seem a lot less bias. but, like much of Western media, it must frame it in the context of the Chinese government being out to destroy Tibetan society.

[cattygurl]

I think that Western media does definitely have a bias against China. That said, I do think that Chinese govment, along with most governments on this planet, has little regard for maintaining minority populations intact and not fucking them over. The US is no exception- the Native americans still get screwed royally. That's not to say that the Chinese gvmnt (not the people- the gvmnt) isn't doing something very similar- which they are.

[wuwei]

yawns, so China is what? 200 years late to what the whites did to the Indians? on a much smaller scale?

[atlasien]

I don't think any kind of cultural imperialism should get a pass.

- Chinese versus Tibetans
- what the Japanese did to the Koreans, Chinese (Manchukuo) and just about every other Asian country
- What white settlers did to Native Americans

The Western media bias that I have a problem with is unquestioning regard for Tibetan Buddhism. I have nothing against the Dalai Lama, I think he's great. However, historically, Tibetan Buddhism has had some very exploitative tendencies. Much like the Catholic church in feudal Europe, the monasteries ruled the peasants with the iron fist of theocracy and appropriated all their wealth.

[cattygurl]

So you're saying it's okay because it's on a smaller scale and whites have done it first? I'm just curious. What's your point?

[lycheng]

The Western media bias that I have a problem with is unquestioning regard for Tibetan Buddhism. I have nothing against the Dalai Lama, I think he's great. However, historically, Tibetan Buddhism has had some very exploitative tendencies. Much like the Catholic church in feudal Europe, the monasteries ruled the peasants with the iron fist of theocracy and appropriated all their wealth.

I totally agree with you. You know, the Dalai Lama has almost become the default spokesman for Asian spirituality in Western media, even though there are probably other Buddhists who are more articulate in English.

Going off topic a bit ...

I once watched a Larry King show on the existence of God where he had an evangelical preacher, a catholic priest, a rabbi, an atheist and the Dalai Lama. Whenever the Dalai Lama was asked about God, his answers were really cryptic. Of course that's because Buddhists aren't interested in "God", but the fact that the Dalai Lama couldn't really convey this as articulately as the other guys (all he did was laugh) made him look bad, and hence Asian philosophy/religion lacking.

lycheng

[ZhuBaJie]

i wouldn't say the Chinese government's role in Tibet is always justified or without social costs. but really, if it wasn't modernising the region, Western media would be writing about how poor Tibet is and how the evil Chinese government isn't doing anything about it.

just like if the Three Gorges Dam wasn't being built, there would be articles about how the evil Chinese government is not doing anything about renewable energy, and just like if there was no One Child Policy, there would be articles about how the evil Chinese government is letting overpopulation go rampant.

but Western media don't give the same treatment to Asian countries that are allies of the US and the Anglosphere. for example, selective abortion of female fetuses is a problem in countries like South Korea and India, too - and they don't have a One Child Policy like China does.

[wuwei]

So you're saying it's okay because it's on a smaller scale and whites have done it first? I'm just curious. What's your point?


The point is these things are inevitable, especially when whites already did it first, so others have to follow suit.

It's like if one store cuts their prices, other stores have to follow suit to stay in business. So until the whites decide to give the Americas back to the native, they are in no position to complain about the Tibet situation.

[cattygurl]

So basically, if someone starts exploiting, everyone has to follow suit, and everyone can point out to the original exploitation as excuse/reason for why they do it?

So in your reasoning, any kind of oppression anywhere is peachy keen as long as it's not white people doing it?

[Hadouken]

The point is these things are inevitable, especially when whites already did it first, so others have to follow suit.

It's like if one store cuts their prices, other stores have to follow suit to stay in business. So until the whites decide to give the Americas back to the native, they are in no position to complain about the Tibet situation.

Actually, what's inevitable is that those with power will always exploit those who are weaker. It's been happening since the beginning of the human race, and whites do not hold the monopoly on this. Nobody started it first. Whites, blacks, browns, yellows...they've all been doing it to their own kind long before they crossed paths with each other. I'm not trying to excuse whites for their suppression, but there shouldn't be excuses for anybody else who chose to follow such base instincts.

[wuwei]

Actually, what's inevitable is that those with power will always exploit those who are weaker. It's been happening since the beginning of the human race, and whites do not hold the monopoly on this. Nobody started it first. Whites, blacks, browns, yellows...they've all been doing it to their own kind long before they crossed paths with each other. I'm not trying to excuse whites for their suppression, but there shouldn't be excuses for anybody else who chose to follow such base instincts.

sure, but whites do hold the record in terms of scale, and reach, and consequences, it's not really even close.

[wuwei]

So basically, if someone starts exploiting, everyone has to follow suit, and everyone can point out to the original exploitation as excuse/reason for why they do it?

So in your reasoning, any kind of oppression anywhere is peachy keen as long as it's not white people doing it?

For the first sentence, it's sad, but unfortunately true in so many cases. It's like nuclear proliferation, once one country builds nuclear missiles, the other countries who are its competitors basically have no choice but to follow suit in order to maintain deterrence.

And where did ever I say that I think what some of the things that the Chinese government did or doing in Tibet are okay? I was just saying that *whites* are in no position to talk on these issues until they give back the Americas, Australia, parts of Africa to the natives (not taking into consideration that a lot of these natives are extinct now), because like I explained, their actions are a direct cause of China's territorial disputes. And it's ironic that whites are the most vocal on this issue re:Tibet, I can't remember the last time I've heard of a native American complain about free Tibet, maybe because they are thinking, "um, free us first instead?"

[Hadouken]

sure, but whites do hold the record in terms of scale, and reach, and consequences, it's not really even close.

I agree, but isn't one of the points of this website is to educate Asians so they don't go following in the white man's footsteps? How will things change for the better if, say, in the future if China becomes like the U.S.-arrogant, unilateral, with military bases all over the world, pillaging other countries' resources and engaging in reckless nation-building?

[Hadouken]

For the first sentence, it's sad, but unfortunately true in so many cases. It's like nuclear proliferation, once one country builds nuclear missiles, the other countries who are its competitors basically have no choice but to follow suit in order to maintain deterrence.

And where did ever I say that I think what some of the things that the Chinese government did or doing in Tibet are okay? I was just saying that *whites* are in no position to talk on these issues until they give back the Americas, Australia, parts of Africa to the natives (not taking into consideration that a lot of these natives are extinct now), because like I explained, their actions are a direct cause of China's territorial disputes. And it's ironic that whites are the most vocal on this issue re:Tibet, I can't remember the last time I've heard of a native American complain about free Tibet, maybe because they are thinking, "um, free us first instead?"

I agree that a lot of the human rights issues brought up against China are politically driven. But what you're suggesting has already been tried during the Cold War, when the whole world was divided between the U.S. and the USSR, and everybody lived under the constant terror of nuclear destruction. The problem right now isn't that there's nobody to replace the USSR, it's that the U.S. still behaves under the pretense of a superpower. And it's starting to backfire on them, according to current world opinion, and from what everyone can see in the Middle East. What China's been doing in the last few years is the exact opposite: good diplomacy and trade. Whatever the U.S. pushes away with their strongarm tactics, countries like China and India will gain through smart politics.

[wuwei]

I agree that a lot of the human rights issues brought up against China are politically driven. But what you're suggesting has already been tried during the Cold War, when the whole world was divided between the U.S. and the USSR, and everybody lived under the constant terror of nuclear destruction. The problem right now isn't that there's nobody to replace the USSR, it's that the U.S. still behaves under the pretense of a superpower. And it's starting to backfire on them, according to current world opinion, and from what everyone can see in the Middle East. What China's been doing in the last few years is the exact opposite: good diplomacy and trade. Whatever the U.S. pushes away with their strongarm tactics, countries like China and India will gain through smart politics.

meh, no one knows what's gonna happen, neither the U.S. nor China is what I would consider a rational/predictable country.

[Lum]

Historically the difference between Western imperialism and that of the rest of the world is a matter of ethics. England was driven by a religious dogma that facilitated a mission with no theoretical end. Taken to extremes, any doctrine which views the Earth as a prison, proselytizing as mandated and the afterlife as a muti-tiered reward system will yield a bottomless pit of colonialism similar to a war on "terror". It is true that no form of imperialism deserves a pass, be it an extension of borders or a holy crusade, especially when the result is violence. But if you're looking for a distinction it's there.

[cattygurl]

Hadouken, Lum, great posts.

I think it's hypocritical for whites, not because they're not giving back land that no longer belongs to them back to Native Americans (as lots of homewoners/landowners/businessowners in the US aren't white, and many whites in this country moved here after Indian Removal Acts) - but because a lot of them don't have concerns for what's going on in their own back yard with minorities on the home front, and they USE the Tibetan cause not out of genuine concern, but to bolster their feeling of cultural superiority. I don't care as long as people that have real concern- faux concern is actually insulting to the people that actually give a fuck.

[Anansasem]

Almost identical to what the Chinese are doing in Africa, which just about every western country has already done to some degree.

[zhangfei]

The first monk I saw in Tibet was a teenager who was talking on his cellphone and wearing a Budweiser Beer T-Shirt. Not exactly what I had imagined.

I wouldn't jump into any conclusion based on one article.

[Heyyu]

Actually, what's inevitable is that those with power will always exploit those who are weaker. It's been happening since the beginning of the human race, and whites do not hold the monopoly on this. Nobody started it first. Whites, blacks, browns, yellows...they've all been doing it to their own kind long before they crossed paths with each other. I'm not trying to excuse whites for their suppression, but there shouldn't be excuses for anybody else who chose to follow such base instincts.

Beautifully written. I agree here. Again, it's not so much of a "race" problem as it is a "homosapien" problem. Greed, lust, envy, pride, wrath, sloth, gluttony... long before the seven sins were written down in the bible, people all over the world were doing it for as long as human kind has existed. As long as people are people, they will act accordingly. Africans exploited their own, Native Americans exploited their own, Asians exploited their own, Europeans exploited their own, Aboriginals exploited their own... the only difference with the Europeans was that their exploitation was achieved on a world-wide seven-continental scale.