China vs. Tibet

Yesterday's Washington Post published an article about the Olympic torch hoo-raw and the whole China vs. Tibet issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/09/AR2008040900591.html

It engendered lots of reader comments--including one from me:

I just read through all the comments, which were as fascinating--and revealing--as the article itself. Three observations:

1. You can't refute an argument by changing the subject. The most common form of changing the subject is to impeach your opponent's motives--i.e., "How dare you accuse China of mistreating Tibet when you (America) mistreat Iraq."

But my motives are only relevant if my argument rests on my character (i.e., "trust me"). It has nothing to do with the facts I reference or the logic I use. Changing the subject to the accuser's motives may be the single most common fallacy used to stifle dissent.

Christ did say to adultress's accusers "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It's a point well taken--that we shouldn't put ourselves on a pedestal unless we've earned it.

For example, it is true that America invaded, colonized and assimilated Hawaii around 1900 much as China invaded and colonized Tibet in 1950, and has been assimilating it ever since.

But that doesn't mean China didn't invade Tibet, now, does it? Nor does it mean that China isn't gradually replacing Tibetans with Han Chinese. And it doesn't mean that I can't point that out. I just can't do it from a pedestal.

Nor can I assert that all demographic changes and national boundaries should be rolled back to some arbitrarily chosen point in time. After all, the only place on Earth where humans are truly indigenous is the highlands of East Africa.

But I can assert that all humans should be treated at least as fairly has America has proven possible. We are, faults notwithstanding, the most successfully assimilated multicultural nation on Earth.
China is one of the least, with all non-Han Chinese minorities brutally suppressed if they call for any kind of regional autonomy. Sure, China has all sorts of nice-sounding laws on the books. But in a system with no system of checks and balances those laws are enforced at the whim of the ruling communist autocracy.

And you can see from the Tibetans' actions what they think of the communist Chinese imperial rule.

2. I observe with these letters how some Americans honestly hate their own country, and take an article about China and Tibet to go off on America, when America has never played even a minor role in the subject at hand. I can only assume, given the inappropriateness of their remarks, that these people had tyrannical parents and have transferred their seething resentment to all other authority figures, including their nation. I feel sorry for them.

3. I also observe how many Chinese respondents have a major chip on their shoulder. If only their regard for "face" extended to anyone else. I know from personal experience that Chinese tourists in Indonesia are among the most disliked there. They treat the locals like dirt, and only think a bargain is "fair" if they win and the poor shopkeeper loses. They have no concept of "win-win." And after they leave a shop it takes the shopkeeper an hour to clean up, because they toss the merchandise around so much. They show zero respect for local culture and customs--just as they show no respect for Tibetan culture and customs.

At least they're consistent.

As to China having any sort of legitimate claim to sovereignty over Tibet--that's pure Han Chinese propaganda. Look it up. The Tibetans are racially, culturally, linguistically, historically, and geographically distinct. They've put up with Chinese imperialism for the same reason that countries like Hungary put up with Soviet imperialism. Because they had to. But they always tried to play off their big neighbors--China, India, and the British Raj--off against each other, trying to preserve their country.

Communist China invaded and occupied Tibet in 1950. Don't let any Chinese apologist try to tell you otherwise, or try to rewrite history to give their Han imperialism any legitimacy beyond "might makes right."

And yes, Tibet was a backward, autocratic country. Now it's more modern, but the Han settlers there are the main beneficiaries of that modernism, as actual Tibetans get pushed aside. That's why they're so angry.

At the very least the Tibetans wanted to get the advantages of being part of a big, powerful country, as the Hawaiians and Puerto Ricans have. Instead they've gotten butkas. People don't riot in the face of overwhelming, brutal force for nothing. They only do so if the powers that be make their lives intolerable.

In Han Chinese culture family, friends, and country are everything. Everyone and everything else is nothing. The Tibetans know it. Now the rest of the world is learning it. If you think America is an imperfect superpower, wait 'till you see what China will be like.