俨's profile磁盘碎片PhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
|
|
27/07/2009 Love is unconditionalI hate politics, that include politics in China, in US and in whatever other countries. Most of time, I just keep silent and pretend all those things are irrelevant to me. Unfortunately, this has already been my second time when I really can't keep silent anymore. But I'm still not going to talk about politics, although politics is the true cause of the last riot in Urumqi and all the other riots. I don't think I can change that part, because the politicians have never stop fighting in any part of the world, and perhaps won't stop in future either. Truth is just a loose word to politicians. I just want to talk about love. If anyone is going to teach me about love, Rebiya Kadeer is the last one. Think about all those people who died without even a tiny piece of fault from themselves, who died leaving not even a whole corpse, who lost their family without even a chance to say goodbye... If Rebiya Kadeer is qualified to talk about love, Bin Laden was as well. I got the title of this essay after I saw the Australian documentary film of Rebiya Kadeer, named "the 10 Conditions of Love". I haven't got a chance to watch this film yet so I can't really comment. As a documentary film, I hope it tells the unbiased truth, although I know it is probably too hard. But I do think it has a unreasonable title. There are lots of things in this world that require conditions. However love, real love, is unconditional. I can't imagine why she needs as many as ten conditions to love. Apparently, she won't see my blog and won't care even if she sees. But I still want to say, there are no difference between people. If you love only a part of them, that is not love. MJ's famous song best decribes my feeling right now: There are people dying If you care enough for the living Make a better place for you and for me 16/04/2008 CNN (Cheat News Network)http://youtube.com/watch?v=2j2bvOq3fLA 刚刚从mailing list上收到的。 其实我不想这么愤青，更从来不会骂人，可是这个家伙太过分了。 如果他说中国人是a bunch of goons and thugs我还一定程度上能接受，毕竟客观存在他把美国人也同样定义为a bunch of goons and thugs的可能。 但是他说the same bunch of goons and thugs as they were in the past 50 years，我就忍无可忍了，这五十年，我们变没变，变了多少，这是多么明显的事。只是过去我们穷的时候他们懒得理我们，现在我们来跟美国人抢工作抢市场这些伪君子们就义愤填膺了，添油加醋无中生有的找茬——"你们凭什么，你们50年来都只是一伙落后无知的暴徒！" 9/04/2008 My opinion about TibetI have classes and meetings today and was not able to go to San Francisco. This afternoon I sat in in my office and thought about what happened in London and what was happening at that time in San Francisco. I've seen the general masses in US and other countries believe Tibet should be an independent country based on nothing but a few medias like CNN. Assuming what those medias talked about Tibet before are somehow persuasive, I'm so shocked that people still believe the story after all the violence. I'm angry. Thus I decide to write a short essay about my naive opinion in my bad English, just to make the foreign people around me, especially those who believe CNN, to think again about Tibet. My opinion is naive but also straightforward. Truth is often simple and straightforward. BTW, everyone is welcome to fix my language and my opinion.
1. History
Nationality and country are two different concepts. One can respect a nationality but can not change a historically established country. Back to the ancient time, the way to define a country is simply to dominate the land and people, usually, by force regardless of the nationality of people living on that land. At sometime, I think after WW II, people decided this is not a good way and wanted to protect human rights. So let's look at Tibet before WW II. In Qing Danasty (actually even earlier, but Qing is early enough for my argument), the central government of China sent governer to Tibet, which is an obvious sign of Tibet governed by China. Then in Republic of China, even the appointment of Panchen Lama needed to be approved by the central government. After PR China was established, Dalai Lama met Mao in Beijing and admitted Tibet as a part of China. In short, Tibet had been a part of China for at least hundreds of years before people claimed about human rights. If the original conquest of Tibet by Yuan Dynasty happened now, we can blame the use of force by Yuan. But it is absolutely ridiculous for Tibet to claim independence after being included in China for such a long time. In this sense I do feel okay with Taiwan as a matter of fact. Taiwan has been an independent country since Nationalists' retreat. It is nothing wrong to claim Taiwan is independent as far as they don't start a war for that. However, how independent they can actually be is another matter. 2. Economy
A country fundamentally lives on economy, not military force or religion. It is impossible for a country that can not raise its own people to be independent. In principle, a country could get help to develop and become independent in future. But unfortunately Tibet is such a special place that no natural resources could support its development. The soil is so impoverished that they can not raise their growing population. The very limited forrest resource is shrinking dramatically. They have a few minerals which can not price much more than the cost of transportation. Most people living outside Tibet get really serious health problem when they go to Tibet because of the altitude stress so the tourism is highly limited. All these facts decide it is impossible for Tibet to be truely independent. Or in other words, assuming it becomes a country, it will still rely on other countries to survive. Then the problem is who is going to support Tibet? China? China is close and capable. But what would be the difference between now and then? How about US, UK or other rich countries? Fine. Then Tibet will be controlled by some other country as a threat to China. In conclusion, neither the other part of China or Tibet could benefit from this "freedom". And it is clear why all these countries want to free Tibet. Most importantly, no real Chinese would allow this to happen. 3. Human rights
To make this long story shorter, I have three points. First, no country in the world allows violence at any time. When innocent citizens are attacked, the only thing to do is to stop the violence. It is unjustified to protect the attackers' human rights rather than to protect innocent people's lives. Second, human rights are not only religious freedom. Freedom is in the first place the chance for everyone to work out a better life. China liberate Tibet from serfdom and provide help for its development. Moreover, extremelized religion, like in old Tibet, is nothing about human rights since no one can actually think about anything different. Third, China is not doing very well in many aspects but people should allow time for changes. Any overquick change will cause instablity and therefore hurt innocent people. Actually China has defintely changed a lot over the decades. Criticism is welcome. But to provoke is not to help. To summarize, it is unreasonable and impossible to free Tibet. And all the violence caused by the exiled Tibetans can only hurt innocent people and make problem worse. So friends, if you do want to help, please think carefully rather than blindly follow either of the two sides.
I will pin this blog article to the top until I think it is truely too naive. |
|
|
