Why does Tibet deserve to be free?

[pockyD]

and why does anyone outside of Tibet/China even care?

I realize that a lot of people look down on China for "human rights" violations when they're trying to quell protests...

But at the same time, I'm also moderately certain that China at no point guaranteed the civil liberties that Americans take for granted (for example, the right to publicly protest to begin with); aren't the protestors in the wrong here as well?

What does Tibet gain from being "free", and why do they deserve to be "free"?

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

This seems better suited to the Debate Hall than the Pool Room.

They deserve to be free for one simple reason: They're human. What if Canada took over America and now you can't use the internet, recieve phone calls or even read the news? If you try to show any religion, spirituality, any sign of distaste towards the government or any type of individuality at all, you are severly beaten or killed. Sound good? Well move to Tibet and see why we should care.

 

[pockyD]

i didn't put it there because as of right now, i really have no personal feelings on the matter and an completely uninformed

but from everything i've read (wikipedia LOL), tibet's situation was even worse before china took them over, with their society similar to like the middle ages (lords serfs and monks lol)

and if Canada took over America by overpowering us, good for them, and they have the right to do as they please, so long as canadianized americans get the same treatment as the original canadians IMO

I don't really hear about tibetans being treated any differently than chinese citizens elsewhere; the gov't is douches to them all ... the rally should just be down with china, not free tibet

 

[Crimson King]

Do they have the right to be free? Absolutely. Should the US intervene to free them? **** no.

 

[Mugquomp]

I think it boils down to the idea of the right to self-determination, which itself grows out of the idea of nationalism. But as to what constitutes a "nation" is hard to say. Nationalism came to the foreground in the French Revolution when the bourgeoisie in several French cities fomented civil unrest and political change. They rebelled against the rule of the king, in favor of the rule of the people - the nation.

Thus, self-determination is the idea that it is a natural right for a a people (or a nation, they're more or less synonymous in this sense) to govern itself. So, it follows that the people of Tibet, if indeed they are a different nation from that of the rest of China, deserve to govern themselves.

But at point can you say people of group a are nation alpha and people of group b are nation beta? Historical precedence? Cultural difference? Ideological difference? It's a slippery slope that leads directly to anarchy. Which makes the debate over whether Tibet should govern itself very complex. And I personally have no idea if it should be considered a nation unto itself. I don't know enough about the place.

 

[Mic_129]

Do they have the right to be free? Absolutely. Should the US intervene to free them? **** no.

Define intervene. Should you get an army and go liberate them? Heck no. Should the US (and other countries) keep telling China that they need to stop the inuman treatment going on, and let them be 'free', posibly bring in sanctions, then yes.

Though personally, I feel Zimbabwe should be looked at first before Tibet. In Zimbabwe, you can be a millionaire and still be poor.

 

[espio87]

Though personally, I feel Zimbabwe should be looked at first before Tibet. In Zimbabwe, you can be a millionaire and still be poor.

The thing is, the Tibet is getting a lot of attention because of the Olympic Games. Personally I think that it's not fair for China to get their games boycotted, specially because most world leaders that want to do it are occupying Irak or another country and sinking them into a bigger chaos. It's hipocresy at its best moment.
Now to the question: Does Tibet deserve to be free? It only depends if its people want to be free, which in this case it looks that way. But they must fight for their freedom alone, or else it won't have the same meaning.

 

[Mugquomp]

The thing is, the Tibet is getting a lot of attention because of the Olympic Games. Personally I think that it's not fair for China to get their games boycotted, specially because most world leaders that want to do it are occupying Irak or another country and sinking them into a bigger chaos. It's hipocresy at its best moment.

True, the Olympics are garnering more attention for Tibet, but it has always been more in the spotlight than other countries around the world. How many Free Tibet concerts have there been over the years? But as far as the Olympic boycott goes, as far as I understand it the countries are only boycotting the opening ceremony, not the entire Olympic games like what occurred in 1980 in response to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. So it's not really that big of a deal. It's like spitting in China's face instead of sucker punching them from behind. It's still demeaning, but not nearly so much as boycotting the entire games. It's just politics. And hypocrisy is the name of the game when it comes to politics.

 

[Dodongo]

And hypocrisy is the name of the game when it comes to politics.

I think that sums everything up nicely enough.

 

[Varuna]

but from everything i've read (wikipedia LOL), tibet's situation was even worse before china took them over, with their society similar to like the middle ages (lords serfs and monks lol)

Does a society really NEED to advance if, for the most part its people are happy and peaceful?

and if Canada took over America by overpowering us, good for them, and they have the right to do as they please, so long as canadianized americans get the same treatment as the original canadians IMO

Where does the will of the conquered nation fit into this? Is it not cudgel-to-the-face obvious that if America doesn't want to be taken over that it shouldn't be, and it shouldn't have to go through decades of war or slavery or cultural oppression to express this desire? Do you think that effort, gumption, and initiative justify everything?

I don't really hear about tibetans being treated any differently than chinese citizens elsewhere; the gov't is douches to them all ... the rally should just be down with china, not free tibet

Thats like, someone just randomly gets in your car one day at a stop light, but you play it cool and minutes later he gets off his phone saying "We have a problem."
my response : "What's this 'We' ****?"

If Tibet doesn't want to be ruled by china then it doesn't identify with china, doesn't concern itself with china's problems and certainly doesn't think its fair that china's problems are now their problems.

 

[lycrof]

everyone deserves freedom

 

[pockyD]

i can understand why tibet itself wants to be "free" (sort of, anywaY); i DON'T understand why it gets any international attention as far as being rightfully so though

and from what i can tell, tibet was even poorer and crappier before china came in, and the general population was just as unhappy

 

[digitalmaster287]

I think all of this is just misdirected. I mean Tibetians are treated pretty much with the same injustice as Chinese citizens. What people should be protesting about is a change in the Chinese government system, not the freeing of Tibet.

 

[KevinM]

Keep in mind, people are not only boycotting the olympics because of Tibet, a lot of the distance runners and stuff refuse to go on principle of the pollution being so bad that just being over there could ruin their lungs. China is going through an industrial revolution as fast as Russia under Stalin or American states like Pittsburg if anyone remembers what that looked like forty years ago.

 

[Dodongo]

Freedom is the ability to be poor and crappy in your own way of life rather than one imposed on you.

 

[pockyD]

think we should "free" native americans? maybe we should "free" south carolina again

 

[espio87]

think we should "free" native americans? maybe we should "free" south carolina again

heheh, before talking about freedom we should think about the people we conquered in the past. We cannot promote freedom if we are the ones that destroy it.
This discussion will end bad.

 

[pockyD]

i personally think there's nothing wrong (ok not nothing, but there are plenty of situations where this is acceptable) with "annexing" another country/society so long as you treat its citizens as your own...

...which china does... they just mistreat all their citizens though lol

 

[Crimson King]

i personally think there's nothing wrong (ok not nothing, but there are plenty of situations where this is acceptable) with "annexing" another country/society so long as you treat its citizens as your own...

...which china does... they just mistreat all their citizens though lol

No. NO NO NO NO NO.

There is A LOT wrong with simply annexing another country. Take Poland. When Nazi Germany annexed the country, a lot of people celebrated because Germany was flourishing under Hitler. Of course, anyone who opposed him was put in death camps, but the point is he annexed the country and left a lot of peasants alone. Then look at what Russia did with the USSR, and Japan with China.

I cannot think of a single incident where annexing a country has been good for both countries and not just the one doing the annexation.

 

[The Executive]

No. NO NO NO NO NO.

There is A LOT wrong with simply annexing another country. Take Poland. When Nazi Germany annexed the country, a lot of people celebrated because Germany was flourishing under Hitler. Of course, anyone who opposed him was put in death camps, but the point is he annexed the country and left a lot of peasants alone. Then look at what Russia did with the USSR, and Japan with China.

I cannot think of a single incident where annexing a country has been good for both countries and not just the one doing the annexation.

The Republic of Texas in 1845. Sorry.

 

[pockyD]

texas's annexation was completely voluntary, so it's not quite the same thing

regardless, you're just choosing examples where you (and the general american population) already think of the invading country as evil and are already biased to think that way

on the other hand, I look at the greek and roman empires (towards which westerners have few, if any prior negative impressions) and I would say that the people they conquered were better off for it

 

[Mugquomp]

I cannot think of a single incident where annexing a country has been good for both countries and not just the one doing the annexation.

What about when the United States annexed the Republic of Vermont?