As long as you are applying this axiom to yourself as well, I will certainly have a good and peaceful day.
China's Greatest Fear: Dead and Buried Like the Soviet Union (Closed)
- Thread starter AndrewS
- Start date
- Status
solarz
Brigadier
Further proof that you do not read other people's posts, and simply rant about what you think other people said.
I said national SOVEREIGNTY, not identity. If you look those terms up on dictionary.com, you'll see that they mean different things. Identity is a personal choice, sovereignty is not.
Further proof then of your all too willing (and utterly hypocritical) slavemaster mentality. If you think the Chinese government has legitimate SOVEREIGNTY over Tibetans and Uyghurs, then you should logically agree that any conquering power that defeats China and colonizes it also has legitimate SOVEREIGNTY over Chinese people and should not be overthrown by revolution or secession. In fact they should willingly adopt whatever nationality the conqueror is. Like Japan. Or even India. Yet you have conveniently ignored this logically necessary admission this ENTIRE thread. Does such a prospect taste so sour to you? Well you should just man up, stop being hypocritical, and accept the brutality of history.
Jura The idiot
General
LOL! thanks
...:
Equation
Lieutenant General
Further proof then of your all too willing (and utterly hypocritical) slavemaster mentality. If you think the Chinese government has legitimate SOVEREIGNTY over Tibetans and Uyghurs, then you should logically agree that any conquering power that defeats China and colonizes it also has legitimate SOVEREIGNTY over Chinese people and should not be overthrown by revolution or secession. In fact they should willingly adopt whatever nationality the conqueror is. Like Japan. Or even India. Yet you have conveniently ignored this logically necessary admission this ENTIRE thread. Does such a prospect taste so sour to you? Well you should just man up, stop being hypocritical, and accept the brutality of history.
Yes stop being blind to the theocracy religious rulers of Tibetan elitist who put their people into Serdom until the People's Liberation Army came and liberated them of their suffering from their oppressive masters. That's why they celebrate Serf Emancipation Day.
[QUOTE
The theocracy’s religious teachings buttressed its class order. The poor and afflicted were taught that they had brought their troubles upon themselves because of their wicked ways in previous lives. Hence they had to accept the misery of their present existence as a karmic atonement and in anticipation that their lot would improve in their next lifetime. The rich and powerful treated their good fortune as a reward for, and tangible evidence of, virtue in past and present lives.
The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation--including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation--were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: “When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion.”Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then “left to God” in the freezing night to die. “The parallels between Tibet and medieval Europe are striking,” concludes Tom Grunfeld in his book on Tibet.....
In reality, old Tibet was not a Paradise Lost. It was a retrograde repressive theocracy of extreme privilege and poverty, a long way from Shangri-La.
][/QUOTE]
solarz
Brigadier
Further proof then of your all too willing (and utterly hypocritical) slavemaster mentality. If you think the Chinese government has legitimate SOVEREIGNTY over Tibetans and Uyghurs, then you should logically agree that any conquering power that defeats China and colonizes it also has legitimate SOVEREIGNTY over Chinese people and should not be overthrown by revolution or secession. In fact they should willingly adopt whatever nationality the conqueror is. Like Japan. Or even India. Yet you have conveniently ignored this logically necessary admission this ENTIRE thread. Does such a prospect taste so sour to you? Well you should just man up, stop being hypocritical, and accept the brutality of history.
Sounds like you just like you argue with yourself.
Sovereignty is a political matter, and politics is based on power. If the rule of the PRC was really so abhorrent to the Tibetans, then we should be seeing widespread insurgency throughout the province. This has nothing to do with identity, it's all about power dynamics.
The reality is, the only acts of terrorism in either Tibet or Xinjiang come from foreign influence. The vast majority of Chinese citizens in both provinces are content to live their lives under PRC rule. This is what the Mandate of Heaven is about.
I know the Romans never ruled the whole British island beyond Harian's Wall. That did not stop the Roman's to refer the whole island as Britannia, nor stop anybody west and east to use Britain to refer the whole island. Does it?
Roman Britannia never covered land beyond the wall. That is the only sure thing one including yourself can say. Nothing more, don't stretch it. Roman rule not covering does not equate to not referring.
The right term is Sino-centric, there is no such thing Han-centric among linguistics and historians. The difference is huge, Sino-centric includes and applies to non-Han dynasties, for example Qing is found and ruled by Manchurian emperors, not Han, but they are Sino-centric, can not be Han centric. I suspect you deliberately replaced Sino with Han is to have fact to fit your personal view. Sino is the Latin form of China, being Sino centric is being China centric, Manchu emperors being Sino centric makes them China (Chinese) centric. Doesn't it? Again defeating your equating of ethnic and statehood.
Besides Anglo-centric and Sino-centric, will you as well accuse the Swiss being Swiss centric while rejecting the German-ness, French-ness and Italian-ness? Or Austrian being Austrian-centric while the major population is German? How far are you going to accuse the whole mankind of some "centric"?
The whole foundation of your argument is that "breaking up a state along ethnic lines is a godly principle". That, I am afraid I have to say, is in principle on the edge to racism, in academics laughable, and in practice and reality disastrous.
Now, you try to separate the two forms of the same word (noun and adjective) .
No, I have not asked any person from British island the question whether they identify themselves as British or English etc. because I never see a reason to ask that as I have said that question is meaningless. Haven't I?
Now, have you ever asked a Tibetan in Tibet similar question? I guess not. So of course you just make assumptions. Please apply your logic to yourself too, that is honesty and self integrity.
The one Welsh politician who you quoted. Do you mind to give his name in your post? I hope it is not yourself? Anyway, he is like Dalai Lama who has already rejected the Britishness, in other words equates British to English only (just like you), what would I expect from him or you? Nothing.
Besides, all we are arguing back and forth can be boiled down to one question "is Statehood and Ethnical identity same thing?", my answer, many people who argues with you and the dictionaries say NO, while you insist to equate them. That is the fundamental difference between you and others, without agreeing on that, I don't see any reason for us to further argue.
The phrase "对牛弹琴" may be harsh but not insulting in Chinese language usage, and it is absolutely accurate to describe what is between you and the rest. I can only guess two reasons that make you feel insulted, 1st Chinese is not your daily language beyond family members (I guess you are ethnic Chinese), but English is, 2nd (a sinister guess) you are probably over-sensitive, surely combative or just play victim? If you prefer, here is another phrase "chicken talks to duck" which "insults" both sides, that should be acceptable to you?
Last edited:
solarz
Brigadier
He basically imagines that other people are saying such and such, when they've said nothing of the sort.
He does this over and over in his posts. He's pretty much just arguing with himself.
- Status