Thread: is this what western people think of chinese?wth`

Well, it's official, we're going to have to boycott the Olympics when it comes to Nepal.

lol, the blood hasn't even dried in their civil war between the Nepalese government and Maoist guerillas since (which had been going since 1995...) your surprised Nepal is associated with China? lol.

Before you start dissasociating Nepal with China, you just wait until their current interim government decides if its going to be socialist or democratic.

Originally Posted by martyr3810

... Do you not know your history Mojo?

India and China have been some of the largest countries in the world throughout history in terms of population, thats a stupid statement, and they've been growing - almost on par -with the west throughout history. Half the time -with- western influence.

Does the Persian Empire ring a bell? You know? The Magadha Empire? Maybe some of the Islamic Sultanates? No?
Maybe a date like 221 BC? You know, when the Chinese unified and they crowned an Emperor and standardized much of China's language? Any of the Chinese Dynasties? Maybe?

They didn't need to mess with Tibet then, its stupid to say Tibet 'has' to be involved with them now. As stated before... theres nothing there. Except as a gateway to other countries or that they took it because they -could- take it and for no other reason.

The U.S. is the most powerful and largest economy in the world... are you telling me that means Mexico can't help but become a world power? Oh lets see... No.

China itself was isolated from the West until the 1800s, and it did very well on its own. Your examples of Persia, the Magadha, and the Islamic Sultanates are moot.
Back in 221 BC, China was still expanding its borders, taking over all the neighboring kingships and lands. Them taking over Tibet was just the same thing: expansion. Sure they didn't NEED to mess with Tibet, but then again, Britain didn't NEED to mess with North America, and the United States didn't NEED to expand from coast to coast. By your logic, we would have many more little hamlets and city-states rather than big countries like we do now. And sure, Tibet is a gateway to other countries, which is why it's valuable to China. China wants to keep this land. They've let the Tibetan people rule themselves; it's classified as an autonomous region. The relationship is a little similar to what the United States and Puerto Rico have.
And right now, both India and China are growing faster than the rest of the West. In 50-100 years, China will be the power to be reckoned with, not America. India's economic growth outstrips the United States' by at least tenfold. Situated between the world's two fastest growing countries, Tibet would be left far in the dust and crumble from within if it were not part of China.

Congratulations Mojo, I didn't expect to see it in my lifetime, but you've managed a post that has absolutely no logic in it and as far as I can tell you managed to get only one single fact right. Congratulations, a singularly weak foray into the realms of discourse.

Your the one who included India. You can't include it in any of your arguements if your not willing to accept arguements against it.

Lets go through where your outright WRONG. Not misled or misunderstood, outright wrong.

It was the French, not the British in North Africa. Except for their military occupation of Egypt - and they DID it wasn't just because they could or felt like it. They had to do that, to keep their shipping intact they needed to make sure the Suez canal remained friendly.

Your example with America is totally baseless and idiotic. If the Native Americans had ever actually formed a unified nation then yeah maybe this would work but it doesn't.

Let the Tibetan people rule themselves? Are you stupid?

Let me state this again, maybe you'll listen.

Let me quote this

According to this Agreement between the Tibetan and Chinese central governments, the Dalai Lama-ruled Tibetan area was supposed to be a highly autonomous area of China.

- So far, technically true, as you've said... BUT...

Is that why the PRC (People's Republic of China) despite saying they hold a secular stance has claimed the power to approve the naming of high reincarnations in Tibet? Not the Tibetans or the Buddhists, lord no, the government gets to choose who their high priests are.

So the area is autonomous... and yet the PRC is choosing who leads? Hmmmm.... Not seeing some small discrepancy?

And right now, both India and China are growing faster than the rest of the West. In 50-100 years, China will be the power to be reckoned with, not America. India's economic growth outstrips the United States' by at least tenfold. Situated between the world's two fastest growing countries

I actually doubt that will hold true. Yes, China and India will have economies to rival the U.S....
Hell as it is right now China has more than half of our economies GDP (Purchasing power parity) 13 trillion to 7 trillion. ... but our GDP (per capita) is 7x theirs.
but they'll still have 200x the people. And all of the problems associated with that - and unlike America, they have a next door neighbor just as strong as them to worry about. War and disaster will keep it down.

Are you going to want to live there? No. China has such a bright and pleasant present and future that more than 100,000 immigrants come from China to the U.S. every year. Both legal and not - and those are just the ones with the connections and money who can afford to come.

Originally Posted by martyr3810

They didn't need to mess with Tibet then, its stupid to say Tibet 'has' to be involved with them now. As stated before... theres nothing there. Except as a gateway to other countries or that they took it because they -could- take it and for no other reason.

Avoiding any comparisons to past incidents (such as the aforementioned Native Americans). Tibet is a part of China for the same reason Kurdistan is a divided between Turkey, Iraq and Iran and most of Palestine is occupied by Israel.

What other reason do they really need to have other than that they can and no body else really has a problem with it?

What other reason do they really need to have other than that they can and no body else really has a problem with it?

Mojo was spouting the official chinese party line about how it was for the good of the Tibetans, to bring them out of the Dark Ages - and bringing out a whole host of innaccurate facts and poorly reasoned excuses to support the claim.

Its an insult to intelligence. They did it because they could and because it opens new routes of sociopolitical intrigue.

It was the French, not the British in North Africa. Except for their military occupation of Egypt - and they DID it wasn't just because they could or felt like it. They had to do that, to keep their shipping intact they needed to make sure the Suez canal remained friendly.

The fact remains and still stands. It can be used with any European power going into any foreign land. And for the record, I said Britain + North America, not North Africa.

Your example with America is totally baseless and idiotic. If the Native Americans had ever actually formed a unified nation then yeah maybe this would work but it doesn't.

Iroquois Nation? Cherokee Nation? Not to mention countless other loosely confederated tribes?

So the area is autonomous... and yet the PRC is choosing who leads? Hmmmm.... Not seeing some small discrepancy?

If the Dalai Lama ruled Tibet, he would just turn it into a theocracy like it was before. Is that so much better than a secular government?

I actually doubt that will hold true. Yes, China and India will have economies to rival the U.S....
Hell as it is right now China has more than half of our economies GDP (Purchasing power parity) 13 trillion to 7 trillion. ... but our GDP (per capita) is 7x theirs.
but they'll still have 200x the people. And all of the problems associated with that - and unlike America, they have a next door neighbor just as strong as them to worry about. War and disaster will keep it down.

Are you going to want to live there? No. China has such a bright and pleasant present and future that more than 100,000 immigrants come from China to the U.S. every year. Both legal and not - and those are just the ones with the connections and money who can afford to come.

Chinese people immigrate to the United States because it's crowded back home.
And the number is not 100,000. The US INS puts severe restrictions on Chinese immigration. The number would most probably be closer to 10,000, if not less.
GDP is not the best measure of wealth, per se. Take into account that goods in China are much cheaper than in America. 5-10 times cheaper, from my own firsthand experience. So factor that in with the GDP disparity and it comes out to be pretty even. I never said China was on America's level right now, but, given its vast economic potential and current speed of growth, it is only a matter of time.
And frankly, I don't think China and India will have too much conflict between them. I imagine it to be more like China's relationship with America. Sure, they'll compete for resources, but they'll cooperate and compromise for mutual benefit.
And why wouldn't you want to live in China? Even now, the rapid urban development has seen very modern and very comfortable residential options spring up like bamboo shoots. The Chinese market has over a billion consumers, providing plenty of opportunities to make money and the government is making great efforts to curb pollution.
I'm not regurgitating party lines, I don't even know them. I'm just providing what I've seen and experienced living in and visiting China.

The fact remains and still stands. It can be used with any European power going into any foreign land. And for the record, I said Britain + North America, not North Africa.

Lol, Britain sent its UNWANTED to North America, much like they did with Australia (except this was unwanted religion rather than unwanted criminals) and later on they did it for the same reason anyone does it... because there was trade and resources. Something you can't say for Tibet. China has neither sent anyone there, nor is there any material gain in acquiring Tibet (theres not even potential gain, theres no resources and no people interested in trade xD)

Iroquois Nation? Cherokee Nation? Not to mention countless other loosely confederated tribes?

Your confusing the word with the actual thing. How much do you know about the Iroquis or Cherokee Nation? They weren't nations the way we describe them. Confederated tribes comes closer (and in fact, the reason they were so fractious and disparate is the reason we could defeat them easily to begin with, disease helped, but them playing both sides, fighting each other did the trick).

And the number is not 100,000. The US INS puts severe restrictions on Chinese immigration. The number would most probably be closer to 10,000, if not less.

I said legal AND illegal including the illegal immigration, the number is MORE than 100,000. 100,000 is just a nice round number. Welcome to the real world Mojo. Blind much?

I'm not regurgitating party lines, I don't even know them. I'm just providing what I've seen and experienced living in and visiting China.

I'm guessing your 'experiences' are limited to Hong Kong and Beijing then. The nice comfortable places for Westerners. I assure you, those are not indicative of how things are in most of China. It would be like assuming New York is representative of the rest of America - when its the minority.

Originally Posted by martyr3810

Lol, Britain sent its UNWANTED to North America, much like they did with Australia (except this was unwanted religion rather than unwanted criminals) and later on they did it for the same reason anyone does it... because there was trade and resources. Something you can't say for Tibet. China has neither sent anyone there, nor is there any material gain in acquiring Tibet (theres not even potential gain, theres no resources and no people interested in trade xD)

Tourism. Right now, everybody and their mother wants to climb Everest. Chinese people are trekking over to Lhasa in droves in tour groups. Tourism has recently exploded along with the new middle-class in China. Tourism revenue keeps Tibet afloat.

Your confusing the word with the actual thing. How much do you know about the Iroquis or Cherokee Nation? They weren't nations the way we describe them. Confederated tribes comes closer (and in fact, the reason they were so fractious and disparate is the reason we could defeat them easily to begin with, disease helped, but them playing both sides, fighting each other did the trick).

Well, Tibet was never exactly unified, either. It was and always will be a backwater of loosely connected monasteries. So, in effect, China basically did the same thing as America.

I said legal AND illegal including the illegal immigration, the number is MORE than 100,000. 100,000 is just a nice round number. Welcome to the real world Mojo. Blind much?

100,000 seems very implausible. 100,000 from all East Asian countries, maybe, but not just China.

I'm guessing your 'experiences' are limited to Hong Kong and Beijing then. The nice comfortable places for Westerners. I assure you, those are not indicative of how things are in most of China. It would be like assuming New York is representative of the rest of America - when its the minority.

[/quote]
While it's true that I spend most of my time in Shanghai, I travel into the countryside a lot. I know what it's like, and yes, there is a great disparity of wealth. But that's to be expected, is it not? Rural communities are always poorer than urban ones. And unlike America, the Chinese countryside is rapidly developing along with the rest of the country. The only reason one would think it's backwards is because the development has only just started recently (i.e. a few decades ago).

Originally Posted by MojoMunkeez

And unlike America, the Chinese countryside is rapidly developing along with the rest of the country.

Ouch. I guess I better get off my laptop, disconnect my broadband, and get back to plowing the fields.