The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Godfree Roberts Archive
China's Environment Today
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Ga’er Monastery in the Sanjangyuan Region, Tibet. Photo by Kyle Obermann.

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Only those who are authentic, true and real can fully realize their own nature. If they can fully realize their own nature, they can fully realize human nature. If they can fully realize human nature, they can fully realize the nature of things. If they can fully realize the nature of things, they can take part in the transforming and nourishing process of Heaven and Earth. If they can take part in the transforming and nourishing process of Heaven and Earth, they can form a trinity with Heaven and Earth. Confucius, Doctrine of the Mean.

Though more numerous today than ever, the Chinese thrive on land that they have tilled for five thousand years, land that hosts ten percent of world’s plant species and fourteen percent of its wild animals, thanks to their assumption that, since man and Mother Nature are mutually dependent, man must care for his Mother.

The world’s first ecological legislation, banning tree-felling in Spring and fishing in July, was passed in 2000 BC. In 700 BC, the noted Taoist, Guan Zhong, advocated a state monopoly of natural resources, “A king who does not protect the environment does not deserve to be called king”. In 400 BC, the Law of Fields ruled that river courses must not be blocked and vegetation must not be burned off in winter. In 200 BC, Yang Fu advocated protecting an exhaustive list of endangered species and, in 200 AD, Taoists chose twenty-four mountain sites as the first nature reserves in history, set detailed rules for the protection of their animals, plants, water, and mineral resources, and taught local people survival skills so that they could live without hunting or large scale agriculture. Their practice of boiling water (for sanitation) and steeping leaves in it (for enjoyment) gave birth to tea.

In 1030 AD, Confucian Zhang Zhai[1]Zhang, who had studied Daoism, said all things are composed of a primordial substance, qi, that includes matter and the forces that govern interactions between matter, yin, and yang. In its dispersed, rarefied state, qi is invisible and insubstantial, but when it condenses it becomes a solid or liquid and takes on new properties. All material things are composed of condensed qi: rocks, trees, even people. There is nothing that is not qi. Thus, in a real sense, everything has the same essence. confessed, “Heaven is my father and Earth is my mother and even such a small creature as I finds an intimate place in their midst. Therefore, that which extends throughout the universe I regard as my body and that which directs the universe I consider as my nature. All people are my brothers and sisters and all things are my companions”. By 1200 AD, China counted one hundred and fifty nature reserves that have served as the settings for legends of animal deities and immortals, and all of which still exist and still harbor rare and endangered animals and plants. Historian Jonathan Schlesinger says the First Qing Emperor practiced environmentalism five hundred years ago:

I think of Changbaishan. It’s a volcano on the border between North Korea and China and the Manchus considered the lake inside the crater to be holy territory because it was the birthplace of the Manchus. The court had special rules on collecting ginseng or trapping sable and other fur-bearing animals on the mountain. When British explorers first climbed the mountain in the late 1800s, they referred to its untouched and unspoiled nature. In fact, it was very much touched. People had poached on the land, but the court had been using its resources to protect that territory. The People’s Republic of China has now converted the space into a nature reserve[2]The 400,000-acre Changbaishan Biosphere Reserve is located in the northeast of China on the border with the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea..

In 1909, concerned about America’s deteriorating soil health, Franklin King[3]Chinese Peasants Taught the USDA to Farm Organically in 1909. By Lina Zeldovich JSTOR Daily. May 21, 2019, chief of the USDA’s Division of Soil Management, found Chinese farmers growing crops in the same soil year after year with no loss of fertility and called their technique ‘permanent agriculture.’ We call it ‘permaculture’.

In 1950, proclaiming that everyone has a democratic right to land since no one created it, Mao eliminated private land ownership. Thanks to public awareness of Western catastrophes, China avoided the environmental disasters that created our Superfund sites–on private land but repaired at public expense–and benefited from our fight for clean air.

In 1952, air pollution killed twelve thousand Londoners on one weekend and hospitalized one hundred thousand more, an London’s NOx levels still exceed Beijing’s. The Chinese devoured Silent Spring, Rachel Carson’s depiction of the impact of chemical runoff on American wildlife and learned that the Cuyahoga River was once so polluted that it caught fire. They watched newsreels of Tokyo traffic police wearing oxygen tanks in 1970 and their sailors found Japanese seas oily black miles from shore. Though developing countries rarely focus on the quality of economic growth but China, forewarned by our experience, never lost awareness of its environment.

• • •

From seventy-four percent in 2006, coal now accounts for fifty-eight percent of their energy consumption and, though air quality in some cities once approached Western levels, it is falling twice as fast. Sulfur dioxide and NOx emissions and water pollutants like ammonia and nitrogen peaked ten years ago and are falling steadily. China’s share of global carbon dioxide emissions doubled from fourteen percent in 2001 to twenty-eight percent in 2011, but has not increased since and the country is on track to reach its 2030 Paris Climate Agreement goals before the West and will complete its postindustrial cleanup three times faster and, by 2060, the country will be carbon neutral.

Between 1980-2015, the economy grew sixtyfold while energy consumption grew fivefold[4]Energy intensity level of primary energy (MJ/$2011 PPP GDP) fell from 21.2 in 1990 to 6.7 in 2015 (World Bank)–an eighty percent decline in energy intensity–while renewable power consumption should reach twenty percent of total consumption by 2025. When London’s Environmental Investigation Agency reported that dozens of Chinese companies were still using toxic CFC-11 to make foam, the government phased out production of 280,000 tonnes of ozone-depleting substances and set quotas on the manufacture, import, and use of polluting chemicals like carbon tetrachloride. In 2015, the Pearl River Delta Industrial Trial Spot became the first region to reach America’s EPA air quality standard and, by 2017, ninety percent of China’s cities had reached their targets.

The World Health Organization says that, between 2013-2016, the sixty biggest Chinese cities lowered particulate emissions by thirty percent[5]A Review of 20 Years’ Air Pollution Control in Beijing. United Nations Environment Programme, 2019 ISBN: 978-92-807-3743-1 and, between 2014-2017, wealthy Beijing used using ultra-Low Emissions (ULE) coal-fired power stations and natural gas plants to reduce[6]Clearing the air in China. Valerie J. Karplus. Nature Energy 2019 pollutant emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter by sixty-five percent annually. In 2016, the mayor promised to reduce particulate density by one-third and deliver fifty-six percent good air quality days by 2020–and made it on schedule. Internal combustion engines will be gone by 2025 and, by 2030, renewables will provide ninety percent of Beijing’s energy.

The ecosystem has improved[7]Sugden, A. M. China’s National Ecosystem Assessment. 2016. Science. Ecosystems services are the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being. too, since the government launched its ‘ecological civilization,’ reforms. The Loess Plateau, 250,000 square miles of yellow soil, had lost so much tree cover by 1902 that it was called ‘China’s Sorrow’ for its cycles of flooding, drought, and famine. Sparse vegetation, loose soil and intense, heavy rains made it the most eroded area on earth and its billions of tons of its yellow sediment gave the Yellow River its name. In 1978, volunteers began planting a hundred billion trees along the Great Green Wall[8]NASA reports, “China alone accounts for 25% of the global net increase in leaf area with only 6.6% of global vegetated area. The greening in China is from forests (42%) and croplands (32%).” Chi Chen et al., Nature Sustainability vol. 2, pp 122–129 (2019), a three-thousand-mile windbreak to stop the encroaching Gobi Desert. By 2018, they had reduced[9]China reduces total rocky desert area by 1.93m hectares By WANG KEJU | chinadaily.com.cn Dec 13, 2018 dust storm frequency and shrunk rocky desert by fifteen hundred square miles, cut local poverty by twenty percent annually, lowered sediment runoff by ninety percent[10]Revegetation in China’s Loess Plateau is approaching sustainable water resource limits. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3092, lifted forest cover from nineteen to twenty-five percent and welcomed the return of almost forgotten birds and animals.

Since 2015, the Environment Ministry has created ten pilot national parks[11]China’s Attempt to Create the World’s Largest National Park System. Conservation China. by Kyle Obermann. supChina.com. May 22, 2020 with two-thirds the area of America’s venerable system. Four zones of ‘protected areas with Chinese characteristics with national parks as the main body’ range from stringent–all human activity outlawed–to lenient, designed to spur ecological tourism and public visits. Each has 2025 goals ranging from concentrating flagship species, to increasing forest cover, to reducing the number of mines. At the headwaters of the Yellow, the Yangtze, and the Mekong rivers, Sanjiangyuan National Park, on the Tibetan Plateau, is stabilizing the population of nomadic herders, providing skills training, and encouraging them to live and work in townships while raising incomes inside the park’s borders.

In a 2017 TV address, President Xi referenced the environment eighty-nine times, “We want our modernization characterized by harmonious co-existence between man and nature–because any harm we inflict on nature will eventually return to haunt us. Since limpid waters and lush mountain forests are invaluable, we must seek a simple, moderate, green, low-carbon lifestyle in eco-friendly communities”. He consolidated seven agencies into a Ministry of Ecological Environment, made it responsible for the entire natural domain, and promised not to export pollution through investment or foreign policy.

The new Ministry immediately placed a fishing ban on the entire Yellow River basin, its tributaries and lakes and, invoking[12]How China cut its air pollution. By J.P. The Economist. Jan 25th 2018 the new environmental standards, levied pollution penalties and initiated an immense emissions trading scheme[13]China’s Unconventional Nationwide CO2 Emissions Trading System. By Goulder, Xianling Long, Jieyi Lu, Richard D. Morgenstern. NBER Working Paper 26537 that taxes pollution at its source and recycles the tax revenues into sustainable projects.

China has embarked on what promises to be the world’s largest carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions trading system (ETS). When fully implemented, this nationwide system will more than double the amount of CO2 emissions covered worldwide by some form of emissions pricing. China will rely on a tradable performance standard (TPS) as its emissions pricing instrument for reducing emissions. This mechanism differs in important ways from the emissions pricing instruments used in other countries, such as cap and trade and a carbon tax. Our numerical model yields results that are consistent with the analytical model’s predictions, supplementing the qualitative results of the theoretical model with a unique quantitative assessment closely geared to China’s power sector. Key findings of the numerical model are as follows. China’s forthcoming nationwide CO2 emissions trading system has the potential to make a very substantial contribution to the world’s efforts to confront global climate change. The system will take the form of a tradable performance standard and will focus on the power sector in its first phase.

Iron ore from Australia, for example, will be taxed on the carbon used to extract, ship, smelt, and refine the ore, and to deliver the finished steel to consumers. Says Australia’s Peter Castellas[14]China’s emissions trading scheme puts Australian companies on notice. The Guardian. Bianca Nogrady.3 Oct 2017., “Our energy-intensive exports sit directly in the supply chain of the world’s largest carbon market. Their regulations on supply chain emissions mean that Australians–and all of China’s trading partners–will have to clean up our emissions since they regulate and tax emissions that are generated outside the direct control of Chinese businesses”. Mining giant Rio Tinto struck a deal with Baowu Steel to reduce steelmaking’s carbon emissions and curb end-users’ emissions.

Energy-intensive industries, like smelting and cement, lost preferential electricity rates while eco-friendly businesses, like sewage treatment, electric vehicle charging, and water desalination, gained them. Wealthy Guangdong Province’s successful Trial Spot canceled all sewage charges and began levying environmental taxes on air pollutants and water contaminants and was quickly replicated across the country. Four hundred thousand companies have begun paying taxes on their noise, air, water, and solid waste pollutants since passage of the Environmental Protection Tax Act in 2018.

By 2019, the Supreme People’s Court had ruled on half a million environmental civil cases, eleven-thousand environmental damage compensation trials, fourteen-hundred public interest environmental litigation[15]Why the Supreme People’s Court is harnessing the NGO “genie”. January 26, 2015. Supreme People’s Court Monitor suits, and NGOs filed hundreds of high profile cases[16]Environmental Whistleblower Sues Police for Unlawful Detention. Sixth Tone. Qian Zhecheng. Mar. 31, 2018, “A young environmental activist sued police for detaining her earlier this month after she spoke out about what she claims is illegal mining and water pollution. The district court accepted her case on Friday”. Friends of Nature, an NGO, won a landmark action against three soil polluters who were jailed and paid a multimillion-dollar remediation penalty. Three Xi’an officials were also jailed for tampering with air quality monitoring equipment and seven were sentenced for falsifying environmental reports. Both violators and those who fail to report violations now incur daily penalties that accumulate as long as the violations continue. A friend of the author[17]Robert Vannrox, Executive Director / CEO Smoking Lion Contract Manufacture & Engineering. describes the environmental enforcement process:

China is the manufacturer for the world, not just the USA. In fact, the USA accounts for 11% of Chinese exports by value. So it should be no surprise that the concentration of factories would spew into the atmosphere, just like they did in Blackstone Valley in Massachusetts, and in the Love Canal in New York and Petrolia in Pennsylvania.

China had started to place restrictions on pollution, requirements on companies, and had regional meetings as early as 2003, but not too much was getting done. Then suddenly, in 2013, Xi Jinping started a ‘clampdown,’ and I had a front-row-seat. He sent out two teams of ‘specialists’ working in tandem. The first was the Pollution Police. They weren’t really ‘police’ as we would consider them, but rather government compliance inspectors. They would go to a factory, check the status of the factory on all numbers of pollution, social, environmental, and other issues. They would talk with the factory owners about making changes, and then they would come up with a timetable to implement those changes. Usually, it required immediate implementation of certain practices and, if large capital expenditures were required, a longer timetable, but one where the regulators would work with local banking and financial interests to assure that the funds for the capital expenditures would be obtained.

The second group was the ‘corruption police,’ a paramilitary organization. It had armored vehicles, trained police forces, SWAT teams, and detectives. They also (like the USA IRS) had their very own court system and enforcement techniques. Of course, as you might expect, when they first hit the ground, they were ignored. There were some minor wrist slaps and fines. Nada action, really. Then all Hell broke out around 2015. They started making one-on-one raids to selected non-complying factories. Not only did they shut the entire factory down, but arrested the owners, their top management, and the supervisory staff. They were then all carted off for re-education.

In 2016, they organized into teams and utilized Blitzkrieg tactics. They would descend on a manufacturing region and park there for two weeks. They would observe, interview, and set in place corrective actions. Their idea and intention was to work with factories. If the factories could not meet the requirements, they would be shut down. During this time, I saw many of my coating factories go underground. They only operated in the middle of the night. Factories conducting PPT coatings or metal finishing started to clean up their acts in order to meet the demand, as it increased for them as the lesser factories shut down. In general, they had about two years to meet the clean air standards or face shutdown.

Of course, these capital expenditures cost money to buy and implement. So, back in 2017, many factories started to increase their prices–often by 20%. I can name a number of factories that did this, and I well remember one in Zhongshan that was frustrated that they had to do it but their German and English clients would not go along with this increase–while at the same time praising them for their “green policies”. That battle continues to this day. The European manufacturing interests (our clients) want green-police but refuse to pay for it. Sigh. It’s my life, don’t you know?

All in all, the pollution in China is greatly abated. I live in Zhuhai and it’s almost always blues skies and fresh air. When I lived in Dongguang, it was always white skies and burning eyes. It’s a big difference and a big change. China is doing things. Things are happening. And this is what I have observed as someone in the industry. It’s a true shame that none of this is being reported in the West.

Since most Chinese understand that their competitive advantage depends on managing resources, waste, and pollution effectively, planners make environmental protection profitable by prioritizing clean technologies and economic growth simultaneously, with the result that China dominates research, sales and exports of all renewable technologies.

Stanford’s Professor of Environmental Science, Gretchen Daily says, “China has gone further than any other country–as strange as that sounds given all the devastation that we read about on the environment front there. In the face of a deepening environmental crisis, China has eagerly incorporated science into its environmental program and funded far-reaching efforts that could serve as models for other countries. It has become very ambitious and innovative in its new conservation science and policies and has implemented them on a breathtaking scale”.

Godfree Roberts publishes the weekly newsletter, Here Comes China!

Notes

[1] Zhang, who had studied Daoism, said all things are composed of a primordial substance, qi, that includes matter and the forces that govern interactions between matter, yin, and yang. In its dispersed, rarefied state, qi is invisible and insubstantial, but when it condenses it becomes a solid or liquid and takes on new properties. All material things are composed of condensed qi: rocks, trees, even people. There is nothing that is not qi. Thus, in a real sense, everything has the same essence.

[2] The 400,000-acre Changbaishan Biosphere Reserve is located in the northeast of China on the border with the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea.

[3] Chinese Peasants Taught the USDA to Farm Organically in 1909. By Lina Zeldovich JSTOR Daily. May 21, 2019

[4] Energy intensity level of primary energy (MJ/$2011 PPP GDP) fell from 21.2 in 1990 to 6.7 in 2015 (World Bank)

[5] A Review of 20 Years’ Air Pollution Control in Beijing. United Nations Environment Programme, 2019 ISBN: 978-92-807-3743-1

[6] Clearing the air in China. Valerie J. Karplus. Nature Energy 2019

[7] Sugden, A. M. Chinas National Ecosystem Assessment. 2016. Science. Ecosystems services are the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being.

[8] NASA reports, “China alone accounts for 25% of the global net increase in leaf area with only 6.6% of global vegetated area. The greening in China is from forests (42%) and croplands (32%).” Chi Chen et al., Nature Sustainability vol. 2, pp 122–129 (2019)

[9] China reduces total rocky desert area by 1.93m hectares By WANG KEJU | chinadaily.com.cn Dec 13, 2018

[10] Revegetation in China’s Loess Plateau is approaching sustainable water resource limits. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3092

[11] China’s Attempt to Create the World’s Largest National Park System. Conservation China. by Kyle Obermann. supChina.com. May 22, 2020

[12] How China cut its air pollution. By J.P. The Economist. Jan 25th 2018

[13] China’s Unconventional Nationwide CO2 Emissions Trading System. By Goulder, Xianling Long, Jieyi Lu, Richard D. Morgenstern. NBER Working Paper 26537

[14] China’s emissions trading scheme puts Australian companies on notice. The Guardian. Bianca Nogrady.3 Oct 2017.

[15] Why the Supreme People’s Court is harnessing the NGO “genie”. January 26, 2015. Supreme People’s Court Monitor

[16] Environmental Whistleblower Sues Police for Unlawful Detention. Sixth Tone. Qian Zhecheng. Mar. 31, 2018

[17] Robert Vannrox, Executive Director / CEO Smoking Lion Contract Manufacture & Engineering.

 
• Category: Economics, Science • Tags: China, Environment, Pollution 
Hide 340 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. This is like talking about a NBA basketball player not very good at shooting the 3 ball, and worked on it hard for 2 years, coming out equal to Steph Curry !! Yet he still goes home beating his wife !!

    If the point is to say that [1] we know that the CPC is smart and capable, “YES THEY ARE”; [2] They are really good and diligent in carrying out the needed improvement, “YES THEY ARE” ..

    BUT THEY ARE STILL THE MOST EVIL FORCES ON EARTH !! BECAUSE THEY DO NOT DEDICATE THOSE TALENT AND DILIGENCE ON IMPROVING WHAT THEY SHOULD ALSO DO .. BE A MORAL AND VIRTUOUS ACTOR FOR THE GOOD OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE, AS WELL AS THE WORLD ..

  2. sarz says:

    Godfree, it’s a bit thick starting out with a picture of Tibet and then going on about China. Tibet is a totally different civilisation. They don’t do Confucius in Tibet.
    Then you go on about ecology and what a wonderful record the Chinese have in preserving their wildlife. Sure. How many tigers do they have left in the wild? India’s tigers keep ending up as special Chinese dong medicine.
    You haven’t for some reason ever gone there. But many others have reported there is not a bird to be seen anywhere in China.
    Get real.

  3. Avibase – Bird Checklists of the World

    Country or region: China:

    Number of species: 1378
    Number of endemics: 54
    Number of breeding endemics: 14
    Number of globally threatened species: 102
    Number of introduced species: 2
    Date last reviewed: 2018-12-14
    Last modified: 2020-08-02
    See also: http://www.chinabirdnet.org/document/china_bird_list_jun2010.pdf

    Country or region: United States:

    Number of species: 1146
    Number of endemics: 74
    Number of breeding endemics: 13
    Number of globally threatened species: 99
    Number of extinct species: 30
    Number of introduced species: 67
    Date last reviewed: 2018-07-15
    Last modified: 2020-08-02

    • Thanks: Mary Marianne
    • Replies: @sarz
  4. Mao ordered Chinee to kill all tigers. He no good.

    • Replies: @Lin
    , @AnonCN
  5. Jmaie says:

    In the first half of 2020, China built more than half of the world’s new coal-fired power plants, accounting for 90% of new planned capacity.

    https://supchina.com/2020/08/03/coal-is-back-in-china/

    Zhuhai is as far south as you can get, on the water. Dongguang is in the north, well inland with a lot of heavy industry to the west. Not surprising there’s a difference in air quality. I’ve no doubt China has been trying hard to improve air quality, but your own chart shows per-capita CO2 emissions increasing in China vs. dropping in the US.

  6. Anonymous[351] • Disclaimer says:

    Searching the web really quickly, I can’t find any sources to support your claims of china publishing the first ecological law, or national parks.

    • Replies: @Anon
  7. sarz says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    How much of ‘China’ is actually Tibet, Eastern Turkestan snd Mongolia? What sense to make of this abstract ‘Avibase’? Since you focus on charts of God-knows-what provenance, you might not have heard of the great sparrow-killing campaign as it was going on. Sparrows were enemies because they eat grain. There was a great csmpaign to bang dishes and keep making noise so sparrows were too frightened to sit down and kept flying till they collapsed. There was not a single sparrow to be seen in major cities. Okay, you did hear of it but this was a special message by Chairman Mao to poor folk to not be bullied from eating anything they like. And what, you will say, about the passenger pigeon in America?

  8. It’s all musical chairs

    • Thanks: Agent76
  9. jsinton says:

    An incredibly filthy and abused environment and ecosystem like China had no place left to go except get a little better perhaps. So much propaganda these days.

    • Replies: @alan2102
  10. Avianthro says:

    All sounds very impressive and heartening, but is China also targeting steady-state economics (Herman Daly) or incessant economic growth (GDP increase) and even at increasing rates? How about calling for an end to further technological “progress”? Tao Te Ching (Lao Tze) ch. 80:

    A small country has fewer people.
    Though there are machines that can work ten to a hundred times faster than man, they are not needed.
    The people take death seriously and do not travel far.
    Though they have boats and carriages, no one uses them.
    Though they have armor and weapons, no one displays them.
    Men return to the knotting of rope in place of writing.
    Their food is plain and good, their clothes fine but simple, their homes secure;
    They are happy in their ways.
    Though they live within sight of their neighbors,
    And crowing cocks and barking dogs are heard across the way,
    Yet they leave each other in peace while they grow old and die.

    Who really is China’s, the CCP’s, leading philosopher? Lao Tze or Confucius?

  11. Great indeed if China does all this.

    But the Yangze River Dolphin went extinct relatively recently and that’s a shame.

  12. @sarz

    There is no such place as East Turkestan and Tibet, and Mongolia have been part of China longer than Wales has been part of the UK.

    Sparrows (passer domesticus) are Passeridae, and found in most parts of the world. They are and flourishing again in China, just as Sea Otters are again common in California.

    • Replies: @sarz
    , @loren
  13. @Avianthro

    China government policy is to establish sustainable, moderate prosperity. They have the means, the motive and the public support to do it, too.

  14. alan2102 says:
    @sarz

    “others have reported there is not a bird to be seen anywhere in China”

    https://www.google.com/search?q=birds+in+china

    • Replies: @Aking
    , @Whitewolf
  15. alan2102 says:
    @jsinton

    No more filthy and abused than Western nations at comparable stages of development; perhaps less filthy and abused. And in any case the damage is the subject of massive regenerative programs, the likes of which the West never imagined back in the day.

  16. alan2102 says:
    @Jmaie

    There are coal-fired plants, and then, in contrast, there are coal-fired plants. The new ones that China is building are vastly cleaner than the old that are being retired. Plus renewables are coming online at a terrific rate — as fast as is practicable. Energy transitions of this magnitude take decades, not years.

    • Agree: Godfree Roberts
    • Thanks: showmethereal
  17. sarz says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    …Tibet, and Mongolia have been part of China longer than Wales has been part of the UK.

    Yes, of course. It’s just that the Tibetans, say, didn’t know it till 1959.

    And if it has been ‘part’ of China for however long, isn’t that what decolonisation is all about. Look up Xi’s recent speech to the General Assembly.

    There is no such place as East Turkestan…

    That’s what the Walrus and the Carpenter said about the oysters. But at least they shed a tear.

    One can sympathise with the Chinese being forced into violating the rights of others after what they suffered in the nineteenth century. One catches oneself being unreasonably repelled by them on account of your over-the-top apologias.

    • Replies: @d dan
    , @KlcTan
    , @foolisholdman
  18. @KLP Foundation

    In order for your comment to make sense then you would have to lay out what its not doing. Life expectancy has shot up in the past decades as has individual wealth. So explain what they are not doing… There is no rampant street crime in China. The main issue left for them to tackle has been pollution…

    • Replies: @Daemon
  19. d dan says:
    @sarz

    “Yes, of course. It’s just that the Tibetans, say, didn’t know it till 1959.”

    Of course, they knew it before. Their ancestors acknowledged being part of China before US, Canada, Australia were founded. It was the Westerners who suddenly FELT that had not happened and history had to change after CCP took over.

    “East Turkestan…”

    And of course, Han Chinese settled in Xinjiang even much longer, before Uighur was mentioned in history. Ahh, inconvenient truth for ignorant Westerners again.

    And if it has been ‘part’ of China for however long, isn’t that what decolonisation is all about.

    You don’t “decolonize” your own country. If any, US probably should decolonize first.

    “One can sympathise with the Chinese being forced into violating the rights of others …”

    And what “rights of others” do Chinese violating? Setting up 800 military bases in other countries, or bombing all over the world, or sponsoring color-revolutions around the clocks, or…

    • Thanks: showmethereal
  20. @sarz

    Look up the ranks of biodiverse nations. Just about any you can find will put China in the top 5 – ahead of India. I will say though that India has done a better job of keeping populations of large mammals than China has. Tigers – elephants – rhinos indeed survived better in India. But that has more to do with India being less developed than anything else. Those animals kill thousands in India every year. India is also measurably more polluted than China in air and water.

  21. Yes many in the west are unaware that China leads in solar and wind (in capacity and also in technology) and is quickly catching up in nuclear. In nuclear only France and the US have more – and China is the closest to having a fourth generation reactor. Their UHV transmission lines are also the most extensice. So the share of coal will keep dropping for sure. China has by far the most new energy vehicles on the road as well. So you are correct that they are transitioning faster than anyone else that when from the smokestack economy to a cleaner environment. The main key is that they are even becoming tech leaders in the cleaner energy. Only in nuclear are they not the clear leader. But they do now have independence in it. In car battery tech – Tesla is even now trading Japan’s Panasonic for China’s CATL. All the Germans are moving that way also. The writing is on the walls. Clean energy funds are rising still during the pandemic while the oil companies are laying off workers. China indeed is very much misunderstood in the west.

    But – Mr Godfree I still have a bone to pick. You again let Mao off way too easy. During Mao’s era there was a war against specific species that were considered enemies of the people. Populations of those animals were devastated. At least one that i can think off the top of my head – the South China Tiger – was driven to extinction. When humans upset the ecological balance in nature it causes harm. It can even affect crop yields (for instance removing wolves in the grassland let small animals and grazers overwhelm the flora). So that lesson was not learned. Many species are only now recovering in China. For some – it will now take money and planning to bring them back such as the Indo Chinese and South China tigers (separate species that are now gone). China is spending loads of money to return wild horses – asses – deer …. But many of them were decimated in the Mao era.

  22. @Showmethereal

    Thanks. Can you provide some detail on Mao’s war on tigers? Direct quotes or policy statements? Even People’s Daily editorials would be helpful.

  23. Daemon says:
    @Showmethereal

    What China isn’t doing is bending over backwards and putting their minorities on a pedestal like how Western Liberalism does to blacks and browns, retards and degenerates. That, to a liberal is equivalent to White Suprema-nazism, even if its being done by yellows.

    To that brain addled moron, for China to be good it must, like the west:
    – continually debase itself, its people, its history
    – Encourage the proliferation and migration of racial aliens and other undesirables and provide them with privileged positions over its natives.
    – sabotage its industry and national power by diverting investment away from things that threaten liberal interests like the military and industry, but feel good useless projects like outreach or aid.

    Fuck him, and everybody like him.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  24. Hey Godfree? I’ve seen some tongue baths doled out to hideous regimes by sycophant ‘journalist’ types, but you take the cake. So what’s YOUR interest? Financial? Your wife, Chinese? Teach English over there and need the money? Noone neutral licks the bunghole of totalitarian Chinese. There’s always an angle with you guys.

    • Disagree: Aking
    • Troll: d dan
    • Replies: @an0n
    , @GomezAdddams
  25. Aking says:
    @KLP Foundation

    Sigh, brainwashed beyond repair, gone fact resistant

  26. Aking says:
    @sarz

    Lol, china has no birds, yeah right. Clearly have not step out of his local well/adobe.

    Migrant birds in NW China’s wetland create beautiful scenery https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-10-28/Migrant-birds-in-NW-China-s-wetland-create-beautiful-scenery-L9xnnGLiKc/index.html

    Migratory birds gather at Poyang Lake https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d674d7955444d32457a6333566d54/index.html
    Migratory birds arrive at Xiamen, an important stopover https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-04-11/Migratory-birds-arrive-at-Xiamen-an-important-stopover-PBdLufaw5G/index.html

    • Replies: @sean the leprechaun
  27. Aking says:
    @alan2102

    Some people are not capable Of google search, because their wives know everything…

    • LOL: vot tak
  28. KlcTan says:
    @KLP Foundation

    Calling on CCP to be a good and moral actor . LOL. By whose standards ?? By the US standards ??

    Where the US government is so virtuous and moral in handling the pandemic that 7.8 million have been infected with 215,000 deaths. Endless wars by the US that has destroyed Libya, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, all based on lies, costing 6 trillion USD, killed more than a million and displaced 37 million innocent people. Etc, etc, the list is too long.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @xcd
  29. KlcTan says:
    @sarz

    Killing sparrows happened in 1958, that was 60 years ago

    • Replies: @Showmethereal
  30. KlcTan says:
    @sarz

    You wrote “Yes, of course. It’s just that the Tibetans, say, didn’t know it till 1959.”

    So, you know what the Tibetans are thinking in 1959. You are a mind reader.

    Tibet has been a part of China since the Yuan Dynasty.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  31. @Jmaie

    Context is key. China is indeed building new coal plants… But that is because it is closing the older – dirtier ones. The new ones capture more noxious gas and produce more energy per ton of coal. Check out “supercritical” coal plants. So that is why coal is still dropping in terms of the overall mix of energy production. The only issue with them is that they dont do anything regarding greenhouse gases. But they certainly do clean the local air. As noted though by 2060 they plan to phase all those out as well.

  32. @KlcTan

    That is true but it (and similar actions against other animals) did have decades lomg implications though. Thankfully they did learm from it.

  33. @Godfree Roberts

    To tell the truth – I’ve never read People’s Daily a day in my life. In any event – the link below is from the organization who is/was (seems in limbo) working with the Chinese government to restore the South China Tiger. They state plainly – in the 1950’s the population was decimated by an “anti pest” campaign:
    https://www.savechinastigers.org/southchinatiger.html

    Yes – they are foreigners – but they work with the Chinese government. On the other hand CGTN puts it more lightly by saying “due to poaching, loss of habitat and human-tiger conflicts”. We know from history the “conflicts” were what led to the “anti pest” campaigns. Same as westerners did with wolves. https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d414f334d444e33457a6333566d54/index.html

    Another similar example is the movie Wolf Totem – which was made by a French director. Nice movie. We know that film had to be approved by the censors in the Chinese government. The theme of that movie are the errors made in China during the Cultural Revolution that almost wiped out the wolf population and caused adverse effects on the landscape when the prey species became overabundant… Had the Chinese government disagreed with that history – then you know that would have not been released as such. Which is why – now – killing wolves is banned in China… Some people in Inner Mongolia actually complain there are “too many” wolves now.

  34. The South China tiger is one of the top ten endangered animals in China and is under first-class state protection. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) evaluates it as “critically endangered.”

    Fine. I’m a tiger fan, too, but there is zero evidence that Mao, rest his soul, had anything more to do with the decline of the South China tiger than the US trade deficit.

  35. @Godfree Roberts

    I replied to the comment elsewhere – but I have to amend my words. I did a little more digging.. When westerners brought guns into China – the population dropped from 20k to 4k within 5 decades… So they are actually more to blame as they taught the villagers to shoot them… But that still doesn’t absolve what happened after 1950…

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/15/asia/tiger-hong-kong-hnk-dst-intl/index.html

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
    , @an0n
  36. @showmethereal

    If you check the numbers you will find the numbers drop after 1978. The vast majority of environmental damage was done during Deng’s tenure, not Mao’s.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  37. @Godfree Roberts

    Rest Mao’s soul, eh? So you actually admit, Mr. Free of God, that souls exist? Hmmmmmmm….

    • Replies: @vot tak
  38. Lin says:
    @Priss Factor

    Mao ordered Chinee to kill all tigers. He no good

    Americans buy large amount of poison/repellent to kill household rodents in non-plague years;
    Are they good?
    What % of American keep freely roaming rodents as pets? Here I’m not referring to Richard Gere style gerbil stuffing

    • Replies: @Pop Warner
  39. an0n says:
    @Jim Christian

    Try not to react to Godfree Roberts.

    He is part of a group of ostensibly “pro-China” commenters on Unz (the others being d dan, denk, Tor597, showmethereal, Aking, etc.) who tout a “pro-China” position but whose comment histories, upon close examination, are mostly consistent with politically-correct, anti-White establishment narratives that avoid any mention of Zionist or Jewish influence in Sino-American relations.

    Don’t get sucked into their psy-op. It designed to stir up racial antagonism and hatred between whites and Chinese while avoiding any mention of Jews/Zionism. They could be Jewish, it’s hard to say. They certainly don’t ever expose their true identities. What matters is that they frequently use buzzwords like “white supremacy” and “white nationalists,” attempting to portray anti-China forces in the West as being due to “white nationalism” or “white supremacy.”

    Remember, Chinese people are great, and China is a great nation. The “Godfree Roberts” gay-op is not about defending China, though. Their support for China is fake and gay and is really all about hating on Whitey.

    In order of most intelligent to most grug, I would rank them as follows:

    (1) Godfree Roberts
    (2) d dan
    (3) Tor597
    (4) showmethereal, aking
    (5) Deep Thought

    There could be a high degree of overlap among these accounts – at the very least, they seem to demonstrate a certain degree of coordination. You will see these accounts frequently attack people in the name of “defending China” when they really want to direct attention away from Zionist Jews and stir up antagonism between white people and Chinese. They’ve engaged in coordinated attacks on me for mentioning Einstein’s racism against Chinese, the Jewish opium trader David Sassoon, and the Jewish/Bolshevik influence in the CCP.

    • Thanks: Jim Christian, gavishti
    • Troll: Godfree Roberts, vot tak
  40. Lin says:
    @sarz

    How many tigers do they have left in the wild? India’s tigers keep ending up as special Chinese dong medicine.

    **Cow piss/dung is regularly touted by hindu nationalists as cure for all kind of diseases from cancers, ..to Covid19. Bharat has 300-350 millions holy cows
    **Beef is still the staple american meat; Why can’t the americans let cattles to roam their streets like the hindus do?
    **WHat do tigers and cows have to do with air quality? Bharat has 21 of the 30 most polluted cities in the world.
    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/25/health/most-polluted-cities-india-pakistan-intl-hnk/index.html

    • Replies: @sarz
  41. Has Godfree Roberts ever read the acclaimed The Retreat of the Elephants: An Environmental History of China?

    How about The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s Future?

    How about Mao’s War Against Nature: Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China?

    He can get back to me after he does. Almost nothing he writes here about China’s environmental history is true. I’m less up-to-date on current affairs, but he gets the history so wrong that one ought to be suspicious about anything else he describes.

  42. I must say I’m very envious of the Han. They are a real nation, an ancient nation that thanks to its shared race, culture, history, and identity has repeatedly been able to rise from all kinds of difficulties and regain its status as the world’s leading nation. Those who counted them out during the Century of Humiliation at the hands of foreign powers have been proven wrong. By contrast, I’m a citizen of a “diversity” zoo, though not part of either the former (WASPs) or current (Blacks) dominant group of that “diversity” zoo. Worse yet, by any objective measure the “diversity” zoo is already a failed state and is becoming even more of one with each passing day.

  43. Erebus says:

    All in all, the pollution in China is greatly abated. I live in Zhuhai and it’s almost always blues skies and fresh air. When I lived in Dongguang, it was always white skies and burning eyes. It’s a big difference and a big change.

    I certainly can attest that China’s environment has improved dramatically over the last 15 yrs or so. The perma-gray skies, starless nights, the acrid whiff are gone in S. China and from what I’ve seen of elsewhere. Even Dongguan, the rapidly “upgrading” former heartland of heavy industry has become quite liveable in ever larger parts.

    Not all, not everywhere (yet), but the turn-around is undeniable and it’s coupled to a city park development & re-development program that astonishes my friends and family back in the home country. Especially astonishing to me, at least is the speed with which these things just seem to happen.

  44. an0n says:
    @showmethereal

    When westerners brought guns into China…… So they are actually more to blame as they taught the villagers to shoot them…

    But Chinese invented gunpowder…are you now saying Westerners invented guns and that Chinese needed Westerners to “teach” them how to use guns because the Westerners were technologically more advanced? LOL

    Do you know who brought most of the guns to China and armed the “peasants” there? It was the Jewish/Bolshevik/Soviet government. By your logic, it is the Jewish/Soviet/Bolshevik government that is to blame for the CCP murdering so many people in China.

    • Replies: @Showmethereal
    , @Half-Jap
  45. AnonCN says:
    @Avianthro

    文无第一 武无第二 There is no best writer; nor is there second best fighter.
    There is no leading philosopher in China.

  46. @KLP Foundation

    The most evil force is the U.S. government. Being controlled by liberals through the courts and the permanent bureaucracy, it espouses the entire liberal agenda, which consists of taking the side of evil, falsehood, ugliness, and filth on all issues, all the way, all the time. In addition, the U.S. government is the most corrupt government in the world. It enriches cockroaches like the Bidens, the Obamas, the Clintons, and the Bushes, and they are not even at risk of being prosecuted. China, by contrast, is a normal country run by normal people.

    • Agree: HeebHunter
  47. AnonCN says:
    @Priss Factor

    Tiger, in Chinese language and Chinese communist party metaphor specifically, means corrupted high rank officials. The higher the rank, the bigger the tiger. So not only Mao ordered to kill the tigers, even today, Xi also call on the party to beat the tigers.
    I guess we should always remember to kill such tigers.

    • Replies: @Showmethereal
  48. @sarz

    How is Chinese possession of Tibet different than American possession of, say, Montana? Or, for that matter, of Manhattan? You could just as easily say, “Montana is the Crow civilization. They don’t do Thomas Jefferson.”

    • Replies: @sarz
    , @Half-Jap
  49. @Jmaie

    “your own chart shows per-capita CO2 emissions increasing in China vs. dropping in the US.”

    Global warming, like all “problems” liberal cockroaches rail about, is not real. Carbon dioxide emissions are beneficial, as the amount of carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere is far below what is ideal for plant growth. Real air pollution consists of particulates, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and a number of other things, but not carbon dioxide.

  50. Shi Tou says:

    I do not doubt for a moment that the Confysionists and especially the Taoist reverted nature and the Dao, but to say that the Chinese have always protected their environment that is totally untrue. I lived in China for 9 years. I saw the petrol pumping machines in Shandong in 2003, whilst breathing in air that stuck of of oil. I saw the chemical plants outside Nanjing kn 2006, as big as an entire city. The atmosphere turned orange every evening due to the chemicals in the air. I worked in the outskirts of Shanghai in 2011 where the Bao Shan steel furnaces functioned 24/7 and a never saw a clean canal, lake, or sea in any city on the entire eastern coast of China, so I don’t know where you get your information from.

    • Replies: @Poco
    , @xcd
  51. sarz says:

    We do need fair and balanced coverage of China and there is much to admire there. But the views available to us through UR, particularly Mr Roberts but also several commenters here have the flavour of some sort of unhappy business model.

    • Agree: GomezAdddams
  52. padre says:
    @KLP Foundation

    What makes you think, that you can teach morals?

  53. Alfred says:

    Thank you. A very interesting and informative article.

    But I am somewhat surprised that the Chinese believe that CO2 causes Global Warming. Everyone should know by now that CO2 increases when the earth warms up – with a 800 year delay. 50 times as much CO2 is stored in the oceans as in the air. This CO2 is slowly released when the earth warms up.

    New Study Finds Robust Statistical Probability Temperature Drives CO2 Changes, Upending ‘Scientific Perception’

    Study: China’s Clean Air Policies are Triggering Additional Global Warming

    • Replies: @xcd
  54. TheIdiot says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Mao IS responsible for the US trade deficit:

    “Shortly after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, Mao Zedong encouraged the population to multiply and create manpower. There was no official policy, but government propaganda condemned contraceptives and even banned the import of some.”
    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/

  55. Anon[375] • Disclaimer says:

    Love you long time mr gorflea lolbert.
    You make china people very proud with efforts on Internet services.
    Please to be expecting 50 cent for service rendered.

    • Troll: Godfree Roberts
  56. @KlcTan

    Remind me as one who would happily mount a debating argument, all emotion aside, that, on balance Australian Aborigines should be grateful to the modernising invaders and Tibetans to the more modern Han…. did not Tibet have its own empire extending to the Bay of Bengal before the Yuan dynasty? Or when?

  57. @an0n

    Interesting thanks. Also note the significance of Godfree Roberts’s slip that the first Qing emperor was 500 years ago. Actually about 360). At first I was a little charitable as I find his articles quite interesting but then it dawned on me as I realised how long and densely packed the article was that the error was a product of his young hasbara style helpers. He probably couldn’t tell you when Confucius lived within 1500 years. A bit like his American counterparts doing internships in firebreathing think tanks who couldn’t tell you when WW1 finished or who was President then.

    • Agree: an0n
  58. @Godfree Roberts

    See my reply to an0n below where I gave an explanation for your error over the beginning of the Qing dynasty. Got it in one didn’t I?

  59. sarz says:
    @Lin

    It’s a relief to see someone obviously not on a retainer making what he perceives as a pro-Chinese comment. You seem to be a sincere Chinese patriot Lin. Heaven bless. I agree that India and Pakistan are very dirty. I don’t get what the world will gain if cows roam on American streets. Or what you are trying to say about tigers and cows and air quality. But whatever, don’t forget how polluting cow farts are.

    • Replies: @Lin
  60. sarz says:
    @Ray Caruso

    How is Chinese possession of Tibet different than American possession of, say, Montana?

    I give up. Because there are no original ‘Montanans’ left?

    Tibet is still so full of Tibetans who would rather not be Chinese that the Dalai Lama is kept far away.

    I don’t know Montana and am not even tempted to look it up, but if you are drawing a parallel its best to find some territory where the natives have not yet been eliminated.

    There are several commenters here on matters Chinese who seem to be on retainers. If the shoe fits…

    • Replies: @Biff
    , @Ray Caruso
  61. @an0n

    So what if they invented gun powder and crude guns? They invented printing too – so does that mean they invented porn magazines???
    Peasants did not have guns at that time. In fact they didnt believe in them often times. Since you dont seem to read I will reference a film. The whole film series Once Upon A Time in China shows vividly what led to the Boxer Rebellion. They still thought kung fu was king. The advent of guns in warfare was a shock to the system that their way of life was dying out. Using guns to kill people and animals might seem natural to you but it wasnt for many human cultures.
    If you read what CNN wrote – which unlike much of their fake news can be verified – it was an American Methodist preacher used religion (and as it is my faith i find it extra offensive because using fake teaching turns people off when they find out you were a liar) to push guns on the populace and told them to kill the tigers. He BRAGGED about it. Whites decimated the tiger population of tigers in India by sport hunting. Different method – same result. I am sorry if history goes against your beliefs – but facts are facts.

    • Thanks: xcd
  62. @AnonCN

    A little context. The largest single tiger reserve in the world now exists in China (not sure if India has more overall protected tiger land). It is in coordination with Russia. The Siberian tiger is one of the few tiger populations in the world that is growing – and on both sides of the border. One of The first signs of Putin warming to China actually was a joint tiger project. They called them “Putin’s tigers”. They crossed into China and were killing livestock. The government compensated the farmers. They are not allowed to harm a tiger. If traps are found even – its a big problem.
    The last time a Chinese citizen was caught killing a tiger in the mid 2000’s was sadly the last Indo Chinese tiger between Yunnan and southern Myanmar and Thailand. He was given a ten year prison sentence and a huge fine. Real deterrent. Those corrupt politicians are getting similar treatment yes – but not the animals anymore.

    Wolves get killed in the US and people say “oh I just thought it was a coyote”. Illegally kill a cougar and you might get a small fine amd lose your hunting license for a little while. So their populations cant migrate.

  63. @sarz

    Why not go there and check things out? Take a trip—ask questions –head over to Tibet and see what has transpired–talk to people –take a high speed train- around the country. Might surprise you that they are “now” farther ahead than South Chicago- Baltimore- East St Louis- Brmingham- and more recently Portland – Seattle or San Fran. Too many experts on China who might not even be qualifed to locate it on a map- let alone comment intelligently about conditions – real conditions.

    • Agree: Showmethereal
  64. @Jim Christian

    What a comment –must be an American like Mike Pompeo Bible on desk and initials are JC like the original “blue eyed” JC who was traded in by Pilate for Barabbas?? “We want Barbbas” –he was a thief among other things. Where in the devil is H L Mencken when a person needs a sharp rebuttal ? The Hollow Men in DC pulling levers –for November 3 ??

  65. Whitewolf says:
    @alan2102

    These guys have spent quite a bit of time in China. They say birds are almost non existent in the big cities.

  66. GMC says:

    I only have been to Taiwan in 1971 and it was as modern as any US city . China, I heard was not as developed. How many openly honest Godfree Roberts’ are there, that are as compassionate about China as they are about the USA today? When the US Gov , it’s owners, its military and allies, lie, belittle, threaten another country, then you know that country is doing something right – for their country and their populace. In the 1990s I remember reading Business News and Nasdaq digest{ ? } – the potential for profits ” in China” are enormous, not only does everyone of their citizens need cell phones, their work force is the cheapest yet very trainable. They don’t even own cars. And then, Wall Street followed along with over 400 companies that weasled their way into — China. The West is like a little Brat, that shows someone how to play Their Game , then gets all pissed off , when the other new player , beats the hell out of them, at their own Game. Pravda !

    • Agree: HeebHunter
    • LOL: Showmethereal
  67. JNDillard says:

    It always interests me how much vitriol and foaming at the mouth Mr. Robert’s well-researched and detailed essays on China generate. It is as if noting anything positive about China creates such cognitive dissonance that the only conceivable response is denial. Ostriches don’t really hide their heads in the sand, but if they did, it would be nothing compared to the vast denial of the reality of the rise of China, particularly in comparison to the continuing spectacular decline of the West, most recently and profoundly exemplified in their comparative responses to coronavirus.

    • Replies: @Showmethereal
  68. Half-Jap says:
    @sarz

    True, there are no birds in the cities, except dead ones for consuming. Rarely a stray cat, and only pet dogs in the nicer parts.
    There are plenty of birds and other wildlife outside, though, and it’s not nearly as bad as you’d expect. Just an hour outside Beijing, it is quite green, with plenty of un- or semi-domesticated animals about.
    China is a schizophrenic empire, building tons of coal plants and such while also promoting its wildlife. Toss in pathological liar as it occupies or lays claim to nations that it lacks any historical legitimacy while claiming so; honesty is that of imperial claims, which is as respectable as it is rather dated, in this digital age. Quite an interesting player, with potential to go either way, but hopefully it’ll not be as ecocidal as the rest has been….though it’s consumption of fish has been utterly devastating. Like Japan and elsewhere, one can always export ecological devastation elsewhere to keep up a good front.

  69. Half-Jap says:
    @Ray Caruso

    Natives are defeated. Tibet is defeated. As the conquered, they are at mercy of the victors, and victors can and have said whatever they please about the defeated, as per usual. However, conflict is a matter of involving as many favorable players as possible, regardless of one’s own strength, until one cannot carry on. As long as there is enough identity left and opponents willing to support it, that civilization is still in play. There is no inherent reason why it should survive, just as other Chinese dynasties and other known and unknown cultures have died, incorporated to varying degrees by the next one.

  70. Half-Jap says:
    @an0n

    As with drones (Japan invented much of what’s in them), merely inventing does not mean that it was effective as the later improvements made by the West, or by Japan (by 1600, we reportedly had better and more guns and cannons than most western states as we were going nuts over then, until centuries of peace ended any innovation lol). Also, later on, Mao got tons of guns from a couple million surrendering Japs. All good.

  71. Poco says:
    @Shi Tou

    He only intersperses objective information sporadically within his propaganda screeds. China is doing fine. As an American I fully endorse America leaving the Chinese alone to develop as they see fit, neither helping them at our own citizens expense, nor hindering them at their expense. But the constant over-the-top pangyrics to the Chinese government, especially their recent history, is nauseating.

    • Troll: vot tak, Godfree Roberts
  72. Thim says:

    Historically China is not very large. Recently it has bloated into a huge empire, and under CapComm has poisoned the air, water, soil and the minds of the people.

    So the ChiCapComms have begun a CapComm carbon market. Since carbon is not a pollutant, this has nothing to do with pollution. These communist programs never work well.

    For the first time in history, the Chinese are unable to reproduce themselves. And with the Communist vaccine policy, it will get worse for them. Vaccinated girls do not reproduce well.

    That will be the one and only lasting accomplishment of the New Communist China, a population implosion, followed by invasions and loss of the empire.

    • LOL: Daniel Chieh
    • Troll: d dan
  73. Lin says:
    @sarz

    Dirty or not is another issue. Though the traditional hindu diets might be animal protein deficit or too spicy, it’s probably healthy from a certain angle.
    ** Cultural bias often gone too far.
    Example:
    –Dogs are haram to muslims but cats are great because prophet Mohamed loved cats.
    –Rats are bad but caged(framed or rectal) gerbils are cute.
    ** Lexical problem:
    –What does it mean by ‘endangered’. Does existence of a handful of ‘natural habitats’ means that species is not ‘endangered’? Humans emotionally want certain species dead; mosquitos are a good example.
    **Data problem:
    –Can a few 100s of tigers provide aphrodisiac to > 1 billion Chinese?
    –Many aren’t aware that cats and dogs aren’t meaty animals and even if they’re available, they’re usually expensive. There’s no industrial dog farming in china.
    …………………….
    Some blame the covid19 on Chinese eating bats. Honestly I wasn’t in china the first time I saw large flocks of bats. Vietnamese are the real Asian gourmets of bats(…bear in mind I’m not blaming them)
    http://www.calgarywildlifecontrol.ca/animalInfo/bats.html

  74. @sarz

    Tibet is a totally different civilisation. They don’t do Confucius in Tibet.

    Reciprocity!!!

    post 305, https://www.unz.com/pescobar/india-implodes-its-own-new-silk-road/

    On the other hand, the whites in America, Australia, etc are pure land-grabs by the continents.

  75. vot tak says:

    Reading the western media, one would never hear of any of these developments. I like how Roberts presents information about China that cuts through the zionazi-gay media propaganda and presents China as it is, not how goons in new york, tel aviv and london want people to think how it is.

    • Troll: GeneralRipper
  76. Anyone who’s actually been to Asia is very quickly disabused of the notion that Asians are living in harmony with nature.

    • Agree: Thim, Che Guava
  77. @sarz

    Why Are There NO BIRDS in China?

  78. Anon[446] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Author is interpreting: the kings of the day were not creating laws for other’s benefit. It was for the benefit of the kings.

  79. Agent76 says:

    Sep 8, 2020 China’s dictatorship ‘getting more aggressive, hostile and ready for war’

    It comes as two Australian journalists have landed in Sydney after being rushed home from China following advice from officials in Beijing around fears for their safety.

    Jul 22, 2020 China helps world ditch US financial hegemony

    They also discuss the latest China news, including the US decision to end Hong Kong’s special trading status.

  80. d dan says:
    @an0n

    “these accounts frequently attack people … stir up antagonism between white people and Chinese…”

    Sounds like another troll twisting fiction into fact: attacker accuses defender of stirring up antagonism, thief calling others thief.

    Fact: Just look at “an0n” very first few comments in Unz and how he started with his attacks on Tibet/China (e.g. China “sinned”, China “mistreats” Tibetan, “discourages” learning their language, blah, blah).

    • Troll: an0n
  81. Shaman911 says:

    Go to http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/ They publish pictures everyday of the country and landscape. You’ll be surprised as I was! No one is perfect but China is a stunningly beautiful country and area. I read this online newspaper everyday and look forward to what landscape pictures they’ll have in store.

  82. China this and China that …does anyone other than the Chinese and their genuflecting allies, sycophants and paid toadies care? China is dependent on the world for its newly found prosperity and not the other way around. Get over your obsession, please!

    • Agree: Poco, Half-Jap
    • LOL: xcd
  83. jim jones says:

    Gentlemen ,please stand for the Hong Kong anthem:

  84. vot tak says:

    I never heard of this writer before, but this article was reasonable.

    Quadruple trouble for China? Why Washington’s hopes of creating an anti-Beijing NATO-style bloc in the region is a pipe dream

    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/502823-quad-china-pompeo-nato/

    “They’ll cooperate with the Quad as a hedge against Beijing, but are they interested in escalating this into a tense Cold War confrontation, as Washington wants? The answer is no, and that’s why, despite Pompeo’s hyperbole, they couldn’t even commit to a joint group statement.”

  85. TJM says: • Website
    @an0n

    anOn, Thanks for your explanation. Now Godfree Roberts article makes sense, well, why he wrote it anyway.

  86. @Aking

    Migrant birds and domestic birds are of different feathers……..are there local birds there all year long, before the migrants arrive, pass through, then return, then leave again?

    • Replies: @Erebus
  87. The fact that China initiated the lockdown in accordance with Event201 plandemic after the Wuhan World Military Games, and after the Wuhan Bioweapons lab scientists were cooperating with Fort Detrick Bioweapons scientists proves that it is the global ruling powers against the people. The Chinese government is fully cooperating with the ring leader Bill Gates, receiving massive financing through Gavi division of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. 

    [MORE]

    It is really not a miracle to rid the region of something that was a threat blown monumentally out of proprtion through propaganda and then have the same propagandists that blew it out of proprtion claim that they have the situation under control, perpetrating the myth that they are serving and protecting the public from enemies when they are the actual enemies themselves. 

    Why 5G? 5G vibrates water molecules at the high end of its frequency range which is the same method that microwave ovens cook food, by having microwaves vibrate molecules and 5G uses microwaves. China pretends that it cares about the environment, the earth, and the international community, and China pretends that it is a resposible, compassionate steward of civilzation, but China is hell bent on installing 5G around the world which is a threat to life on earth and the higher the Gs, the higher the threat to life and the environment. What is the need for a faster speed to upload and download information that they are willing to destroy life on earth, unless that is the evil goal that they refuse to admit to? 

    Would it be hard to believe that a government was dishonest and had an evil agenda and an evil goal that it did not disclose to the public? Would it be the first time? China, just like every government has its dark and evil history which it desperately wishes to conceal just like every other government, as fact inconvenient as that is for China, it is an extremely long list of crimes against humanity. Deny it at your own peril.
    Andrea Iravani

    • Troll: vot tak, d dan
    • Replies: @Showmethereal
    , @denk
  88. @Lin

    I like how whataboutism is the only response to criticism of China. Never a substantive rebuttal, just “w-well they’re bad too!”

    • Replies: @Lin
  89. @Godfree Roberts

    Mr Roberts – statements such as that are what give China haters their fuel. It was not just tigers – but wolves and sparrows and any other animal deemed a pest. Westerners did it too – which meant they didnt learn everything. Yeah it was wise to try to keep down the populations of rats and mosquitos – but wanton killings of the others was not a good thing. If you want to give Mao credit for successes – then he has to get blame where do also. Yes it is correct that when industrialization took off by 1980 it put more pressure on many species – just like in every other country – but that doesnt absolve him of errors.
    So when you make statements that there was no proof he did anything wrong – when even the CPC acknowledges some of his errors – it can make even the neutrals not want to listen to the other 90 percent of the things you report on China – which are totally correct.

    • Agree: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  90. @JNDillard

    Japanese faced the same thing in the 80’s and they were an “ally”. The reality is that it is the same “yellow peril” doctrine from the 1800’s that has been recycled.

    • Agree: HeebHunter
  91. @KLP Foundation

    Godfree is overtly rosy but nutcases like yourself remind me why these articles are needed.

  92. L G. says:

    I can name a number of factories that did this, and I well remember one in Zhongshan that was frustrated that they had to do it but their German and English clients would not go along with this increase–while at the same time praising them for their “green policies”. That battle continues to this day. The European manufacturing interests (our clients) want green-police but refuse to pay for it. Sigh. It’s my life, don’t you know?

    The usual HYPOCRITES. I understand. We (in the Franco-British colony, Canada) have been inundated with the G7 speeches on a green economy, while at the same time the provincial and federal governments don’t miss a week without signing a FTA while deregulating the energy, mining, and forestry sectors for foreign corporations.

  93. @Avianthro

    Confucius, of the two. Taoism is no way to run a country.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  94. @No Friend Of The Devil

    Just answer this – why would China need Bill Gates money? Look up the amount of billionaires by country. China’s billionaires pay lots of taxes. They dont need Bill Gates money.
    Though Event 201 is serious!!

  95. Muggles says:

    Even though this article seems to be mainly propaganda, it is also well sourced. China gets scapegoated a lot in the US but nothing wrong with reading the other views.

    Mr. Roberts & crew do a good job for their country (and government) and Unz exists to let everyone have a say.

    Being so large and starting from such a poor economic base in say, 1900, they’ve done remarkable things. Ditching most of socialist Marxism really helped.

    I personally favor good relations with China and their people and try not to get bogged down in the latest disputes. These, from all sides, are largely for domestic purposes.

    Thanks.

  96. @Jmaie

    I’ve no doubt China has been trying hard to improve air quality, but your own chart shows per-capita CO2 emissions increasing in China vs. dropping in the US.

    If you export most of your smokestack industries to China, it is a bit “rich” to then start bragging about how little pollution your country produces and how awful the Chinese are at burning coal!

    • Agree: Showmethereal
    • Replies: @anon
  97. @sarz

    The story of the killing of the sparrows is an example of Mao ignoring his own advice or perhaps an illustration of what he wrote in “Problems of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary war. Dec. 1936:

    It is well known that when you do anything, unless you understand its actual circumstances, its nature and its relations to other things, you will not know the laws govening it, or know how to do it, or be able to do it well.

    and of what he wrote in “On Practice”, July 1937:

    If a man wants to succeed in his work, that is, to acheive the anticipated results, he must bring his ideas into correspondence with the laws of the objective external world; if they do not correspond, he will fail in his practice. After he fails, he draws his lessons, corrects his ideas to make them correspond to the laws of the external world, and thus turn failure into success;this is what is meant by “failure is the mother of success” and “a fall in the pit, a gain in your wit”

    In this case the mistake Mao made was that he did not study sufficiently the behaviour of the birds he was killing . It’s true the adults ate mostly grain but what he did not know was that the young birds need a much richer diet and that each adult sparrow represents about 17,000 insects!

  98. HH59 says:

    This article is indicative of “small man disease”. I appreciate the motivation but this is merely a propaganda piece.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
  99. Does this dipshit Commie Chink worshipping troll Roberts actually live in China?

    If not, why not?

    Same for all his fellow ChiCom toadies.

  100. @sarz

    I think we all know, that Tibet, Hong Kong and Xinjiang have absolutely no chance of being granted independence, because were the Chinese government to grant any of them independence, before you could say “East Turkestan” there would be a US military base there.

  101. @Showmethereal

    Mao made mistakes. Some of them were very bad mistakes. Show me the great leader (and he was one) that never made any mistake.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  102. anon[544] • Disclaimer says:
    @foolisholdman

    The US can take some of them back.

    China Isn’t Recycling Tons Of U.S. Plastic Trash Anymore

    Mar 13, 2019 — China says no In 2017, the government started to cut way back on plastic trash imports. Then the big bombshell: In January 2018, it banned almost all imports. Last year, China took in less than 1 percent of its 2016 total

    https://www.npr.org/2019/08/20/750864036/u-s-recycling-industry-is-struggling-to-figure-out-a-future-without-china

  103. Lin says:
    @Pop Warner

    I like how whataboutism is the only response to criticism of China

    Its about certain people attaching moral credits to certain cultural traits.
    Myself and siblings all love cats but it makes no sense to pass moral judgment to such affection.
    Why eating dog meat is bad but bacon is part of breakfast?
    Actually pigs are smart animals and they pass the ‘mirror test’.
    Pigs and monkeys are genetically closest to humans and most xeno-organ transplant body parts are from them without their approval. Eating pork is quasi-cannibalism.
    –I’m a protestant Christian of alternative conviction.
    –I’m also a ‘dietary muslim’. Prophet Mohamed banned pork because pigs back then in Arabia were infested with parasites.’Now, IMO, eating pork as I explained is quasi-cannibalism and should be avoided.
    …………
    Janists, followers of ‘Janism’,an indian religion are very strict vegetarians and they even filter their drinking water fearing the water might contain small organisms they need to avoid. But do they avoid eating cheese? Each piece of cheese contains the dead bodies of billions of micro-organism(Lactic acid bacteria).

  104. lloyd says: • Website
    @sarz

    There don’t appear to be any insects either. That is a pollutant disaster for public places in China. I can’t recall seeing a fly or spider in China in ten years. I have speculated that is either the work of the Great Leap Forward or much more likely, the pollution. My wife, stepson and I all have tumours in our chests after living in China.

  105. Lin says:

    I can’t recall seeing a fly or spider in China in ten years

    That’s about one of the silliest statements I came across recently.
    Crops are mainly pollinated by insects.
    Chinese agriculture should’ve been extinct if you were correct

  106. anon[544] • Disclaimer says:
    @sarz

    You haven’t for some reason ever gone there. But many others have reported there is not a bird to be seen anywhere in China.
    Get real.

    Wow, the horror.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbjAPzqJlb8&feature=youtu.be&t=873

  107. Biff says:
    @sarz

    Tibet is still so full of Tibetans who would rather not be Chinese

    You know this how? Any sources, or just your opinion?
    Some of the Tibetans I know fully understand that they would either be under Chinese control or India’s control, and prefer China – much closer to their own culture.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  108. Biff says:
    @GeneralRipper

    Does this dipshit Commie Chink worshipping troll Roberts actually live in China?

    If not, why not?

    Same for all his fellow ChiCom toadies.

    This is why I love Godfree Roberts. The crying, the whaling, the undies twisting. So much fun and entertainment! More please!

    • Agree: xcd
  109. @Showmethereal

    If you read through this thread you will find a commenter alleging that Mao wiped out China’s bird life.

    If you read my reply, you will find that China has more bird species today than the USA.

    I have not seen an inventory of Chinese mammals, but suspect that the same holds true there, too.

    Why people cannot handle simple facts and stats I cannot fathom but, as you see from this thread, almost NOBODY contradicts the many claims I made in the article. 90% of them simply insult me.

    We, as a nation, are losing the capacity for reasoned, civilized discourse–just when we need it most.

    • Agree: GreatSocialist, vox4non
    • Replies: @vot tak
    , @showmethereal
  110. @Biff

    Some of the Tibetans I know fully understand that they would either be under Chinese control or India’s control, and prefer China – much closer to their own culture.

    What a bunch of pish posh.

    Many Tibetans have moved beyond the desire for independence from China simply because they recognize it’s no longer realistic or helpful to their interests. But they don’t like the Chinese nor do they fear India, which unlike China has never even demonstrated any desire to swallow the whole of Tibet, let alone fulfilled it.

    India’s interest in the borders of Tibet is solely for control of water along marginal borders that have no other significance. You do realize, I hope, that Tibet is larger than the size of Alaska and Texas combined or about six times the size of California. India and China are fighting for control of less than one percent of that land.

    • Replies: @Lin
    , @Vidi
    , @Showmethereal
  111. vot tak says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    One way to determine the amount of animosity zionazis have against a country is to observe the level of attack trolling their minions engage in when that country is being discussed on a site.

    Looking at the comments here, it’s clear israel sees China as their worst nightmare come true. 😀

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  112. Erebus says:
    @sean the leprechaun

    …..are there local birds there all year long, before the migrants arrive, pass through, then return, then leave again?

    I live in one of China’s largest cities and have no need for an alarm clock year ’round. The birds do a better job of waking me up. None, so far as I know are migratory, though as one would expect it’s a little quieter in the winter.

  113. Lin says:
    @Pincher Martin

    India’s interest in the borders of Tibet is solely for control of water

    India’s ”interest” in Tibet has a lot to do with 1)Image projection as an emerging big power and recently as an emerging superpower 2)1962 war scars still aching.
    Let me repeat what I posted at another thread:

    That’s a distortion. The Tibet upstreams only contribute about 5-10% of the downstreams runoff.
    The rest come from the downstream precipitation in the sub-continent. That’s why the monsoon season is so important to south asians
    Most parts of Tibet lack water, hence explains the historical low population there.

    ……………
    If one insists there’s a ‘practical’ reason the average Tibetans want to stick with china, its simple:
    China has a lot more economic resources to better the livinghood of Tibetans. Example: Since its a thread on Chinese environment; yes, china has paid an environmental price for economic development but Chinese electricity production/capita has exceeded that of UK, the former colonial master of Hindustan. China also produced over 1/2 of global steel and cement. That means decent housing, schools, roads…for the bulk of Chinese population, tibetans included.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  114. @vot tak

    Looking at the comments here, it’s clear israel sees China as their worst nightmare come true. 😀

    Too bad Israel has a rather good relationship with China. Too good, in fact, for the U.S. in some cases where Israel has sold critical U.S.-sourced military and commercial equipment to China.

    Perhaps you should start judging the level of diplomatic cooperation between two countries less on the comments at some random website and more, you know, on the actual diplomacy.

    • Agree: Showmethereal
    • Replies: @vot tak
  115. @Lin

    Lin,

    You sound like some PRC hack.

    India’s ”interest” in Tibet has a lot to do with 1) Image projection as an emerging big power and recently as an emerging superpower 2) 1962 war scars still aching.

    India is not a superpower, and the Indian interest in the Tibet borderlands is long-standing. But India has no interest in the rest of Tibet.

    The Brahmaputra River, which is the ninth largest river in the world by discharge, flows from Tibet through the disputed territory along or in (depending on your POV) Arunachal Pradesh.

    The Bramaputra is larger than the Mississippi by the time it reaches the Bay of Bengal. It is also the longest river in Tibet. So the river already has a considerable flow by the time it reaches India.

    China has a lot more economic resources to better the livinghood of Tibetans.

    Such a PRC hack, reciting the lines of the CCP with such care and tenderness. Isn’t it amazing how PRC hacks who talk about Tibet sound exactly like Western colonists of the mid-20th century talking about their colonies.

    Economics does not keep Tibet in China. Military force does. If given the choice, Tibetans would gladly pick independence from China.

    You know it and I know it.

    Most Tibetans, however, know that it not going to happen, and so they have given up the hope for independence and focused on other things. But that doesn’t make what I just said untrue.

    • Replies: @Lin
    , @denk
    , @Godfree Roberts
    , @Vidi
  116. denk says:
    @No Friend Of The Devil

    friend of the great satan

    China is a partner in crime in this covid scam

    Really ?

    This is no way to treat your ‘pardner

    https://sputniknews.com/world/202009221080538083-trump-un-must-hold-china-accountable-for-their-actions-regarding-coronavirus-pandemic/

    What’ve we got here ?
    Another misdirection agent 😉

  117. Jiminy says:

    We’re told that whatever China is doing at the moment is clearly bad. Listening to the radio this morning the latest crackpots want Australian athletes to boycott the Beijing winter games in response to the plight of the wegers. Yet for decades it has been acceptable to slaughter and uproot hundreds of thousands of middle eastern muslims. I remember when I was young and the peanut farmer sent a failed team into Iran- the US has been meddling in the affairs of muslims basically since oil was discovered. And now we jump from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria to saving Chinese wegers. I can see why a homogenous country like China with an ongoing civilisation thousands of years of age wants to reign in and control the muslims. If they don’t, then eventually they will have an enclave split away from the rest of the country, possibly with more terrorist activity creating havoc. Is this what the west now wishes for China?

    • Thanks: Showmethereal
  118. vot tak says:
    @Pincher Martin

    The israelis have rather “good relationships” diplomatically with many nations, and regularly stabs those nations in the back. Usually covertly, using a proxy. Their problem with China, main problem, is they do not control China. If israel controlled China, you wouldn’t see trump foaming at the mouth everytime he mentions China.

    Your troll about the Tibetans failed as well. You might want to look into a career change, shlomo. ;-D

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  119. Lin says:
    @Pincher Martin

    What does it tell you if the former president of India claim India superpower by 2020?You really don’t understand(or pretend you don’t) the followings:

    That’s a distortion. The Tibet upstreams only contribute about 5-10% of the downstreams runoff.
    The rest come from the downstream precipitation in the sub-continent. That’s why the monsoon season is so important to south asians
    Most parts of Tibet lack water, hence explains the historical low population there.

    Your statement:

    The Bramaputra is larger than the Mississippi by the time it reaches the Bay of Bengal.

    just conformed what I said. The river has an upstream source but most of the water come from downstream precipitation.
    ………..

    Isn’t it amazing how PRC hacks who talk about Tibet sound exactly like Western colonists of the mid-20th century talking about their colonies.

    Why don’t you tell me what kind of wealth/resources PRC has extracted from Tibet western colonist style? In contrary I can tell you Tibet is the most financially subsidized region in china.
    You just ride the coat tail of the usual anti-china propaganda. Though you’re correct:

    You know it and I know it.

    You’re a bharat rakshak type and sound just too familiar

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  120. denk says:
    @an0n

    Dont tar all whites with the same brush.

    HIgh time we call a spade a spade, the [[[five liars]]]
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-fiveeyes-idUSKCN1MM0GH

    Its the [[[five liars]]] led anti Chinese campaign that triggered my armchair warrior career in the first place.

    Any five year old here can see that we have been countering anti Chinese sinophobia.

    Anti white your ass.

    • Replies: @an0n
    , @an0n
  121. denk says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Economics does not keep Tibet in China. Military force does. If given the choice, Tibetans would gladly pick independence from China.

    You know it and I know it

    Really ?
    Why dont you speak for yourself ?

    In China’s Tibet proper, they have exemption from One child rule, tax.
    Subsidized education and economy.

    IN India’s Tibet, the Tibet that no Indians or anglos wanna talk about, they’ve have the ASFPA to keep the poor sods in house.

    hEAven and hell, kiddo

    Indians and their anglo cousins are the last ones on earth to lecture China over Tibet.

    LOL

    PS
    In case you havent heard yet,
    AFSPA,
    liCENSE to rape AND kill
    https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2015/04/indian-army-rape-in-karbi-anglong/

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  122. Vidi says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Many Tibetans have moved beyond the desire for independence from China simply because they recognize it’s no longer realistic or helpful to their interests. But they don’t like the Chinese nor do they fear India, which unlike China has never even demonstrated any desire to swallow the whole of Tibet, let alone fulfilled it.

    Define “many Tibetans”. How many, and which Tibetans, precisely?

    I have little doubt that the former 1% — and their descendants — want to be dominant again.

    How many of the common people want the Dalai Lama and his torture chambers (link) back? Yes, the torture chambers were in the Potala Palace, a few floors under the Dalai Lama’s former apartments. They were presumably thoroughly soundproof, as otherwise the screams of agony would have ruined His Holiness’s meditations. How many of Tibet’s 99% want the torture to resume?

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  123. an0n says:
    @sarz

    Godfree, it’s a bit thick starting out with a picture of Tibet and then going on about China. Tibet is a totally different civilisation.

    You fell into Godfree’s trap (unless you are in on this whole thing too). Godfree’s whole purpose in showing the picture of Tibet was to provoke a response from the “pro-Tibet” crowd (some of whom are also probably fake accounts and confederates whose response is orchestrated) so that he could then create a “pro-China”/”anti-China” dialectic where he swoops in and presents himself as the “defender of China” against those “white Westerners” who want to attack China. He set you up, and you fell for it (unless you are part of the whole thing yourself).

    His goal is divert people away from the influence of Zionists/Jews and to get whites (some of whom might be genuine, others fake accounts) and Chinese nationalists (some of whom might be genuine, others probably also fake accounts) fighting with each other. Again, they don’t want you talking about things like Einstein’s racism against Chinese (specifically the quote in which Einstein called Chinese a “filthy and obtuse” people whose demographic replacement of other races would be “unspeakably dreary”), the Jewish opium trader David Sassoon who started the Opium Wars (according to Baidu, the Chinese government’s very own search engine) drugged China and ruined the nation, the Jewish Kadoorie family which worked with the Sassoons and whichs runs a lot of the commerce in Hong Kong, Sheldon Adelson’s casinos in Macau, Mao’s association with Sydney Rittenberg and Israel Epstein (who both influenced and propagandized on behalf of Mao), or the Bolshevik/Zionist influence in the early CCP. Why is it that none of the writers on Unz talk about these things?? (big think emoji guys)

    He wouldn’t want you to know that Western countries sent many Christian missionaries (Arthur Henderson Smith, Hudson Taylor, etc.) to China to help build hospitals, orphanages, and schools and actually stop the use of opium, or that National Socialists called Chinese and Japanese people “honorary Aryans” and (with the Japanese) wished to preserve Confucian culture and heritage against the threat of Jewish bolshevism, or that people like Reginald Johnston (the Scottish tutor for Puyi, the last Emperor) regularly praised China, or that the American government remitted the Boxer indemnity in order to help China build Tsinghua University so that it could send students to the US to help support and build up China. Why is it that none of the writers on Unz talk about these things?? (another big think emoji guys)

    It’s great to support the Chinese people or even the Chinese government. But you’ll notice that all of these supposedly “pro-China” people want you to get upset and angry with “white people” or “Westerners.” Even if you don’t agree with the Chinese government, there’s no reason for anyone to have any negative reaction or interest in China at all. You are either neutral with respect to what China does or you actually respect them for standing up to the neo-liberal world order and preserving their race, heritage, etc. If you have fallen for this psy-op and feel negative sentiments towards Chinese people or China, you should re-evaluate your thinking on the issue.

    The most pernicious influence in the Far East has been that of Zionist/Bolshevik Jews.

    • Troll: vot tak
  124. @Pincher Martin

    The Brahmaputra receives flows from Tibet’s Yarlung Tsangpo, which enters the state of Arunachal Pradesh in India, where it is called Siang, makes a very rapid descent, and appears in the plains as the Dihang River.

    The Dihang flows south for 22 miles then joins the Dibang River and the Lohit River at the head of the Assam Valley.

    Below the Lohit, the river is called Brahmaputra when enters the state of Assam, and becomes very wide—as wide as 20 km (12 mi) in parts of Assam. The Assam basin, especially south of Tibet, is characterized by high levels of rainfall.

    I suspect that it collects most of its flow in Assam.

    As to Tibetans’ preferences, we don’t need to guess.

    Professor Melvyn Goldstein[1] conducted fieldwork in rural Tibet in 2000 and asked, “Do You Have a Better Life Now Than Your Parents Did?” Ninety-percent of those who had experienced the Dalai Lama’s regime said, “Yes”.

    Following the 2008 riots, the Tibetan Government in Exile secretly asked[2] seventeen thousand resident Tibetans if they wanted full independence, renzig. Thirty-percent said, “Yes,” while forty-seven percent chose ‘limited true autonomy within China'[3].

    Limited true autonomy within China was granted in 1953 in accordance with the Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet:

    The local government of Tibet will drive imperialist forces out of Tibet, China will not alter the existing political system, all government officials will maintain their positions and the status, functions and powers of the Dalai Lama will remain unchanged. Tibet will carry out reforms in accordance with the wishes of its people, through consultation with its leaders rather than by compulsion; the Tibetan people will exercise autonomy under their government and Tibetan religious beliefs, customs and habits, monasteries and their incomes will be respected; Tibet will remain a theocracy and retain its autonomy in most military and diplomatic matters; Tibetan troops will be trained and integrated into the PLA and Beijing will guarantee peace with bordering countries.

    As to Tibetans’ feelings about the Chinese, American diplomat Robert Ford[4] wrote, “There was no sacking of monasteries at this time. On the contrary, the Chinese took great care not to cause offense through ignorance. They soon had the monks thanking the gods for their deliverance. The Chinese had made it clear they had no quarrel with the Tibetan religion”. The government allocated $500,000 to renovate the Buddhist temple in Beijing and granted additional funds to Tibetan Muslims for a pilgrimage to Mecca, in 1957.

    ____________________________
    [1] Contemporary Tibet: Politics, Development and Society in a Disputed ..Sautman et al. Goldstein was Chairman of Case Western’s Department of Anthropology and Director of the Center for Research on Tibet He married the daughter of the famous Tibetan scholar-official-aristocrat, Surkhang Wangchen Gelek, and was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2009.
    [2] Dharamsala, India: Tibetan leaders opened a six-day meeting over the direction of their struggle with China on Monday, after the Dalai Lama, the region’s exiled spiritual leader, expressed frustration over years of fruitless talks with Beijing.The meeting here in northern India, called by the Dalai Lama, comes after his comments last month bemoaning the lack of any progress by his envoys in talks with the Chinese government since 2002. Karma Chophel, speaker of Parliament in the government-in-exile, said more than 8,000 of 17,000 Tibetans recently surveyed in Tibet said they would follow the Dalai Lama. More than 5,000 said they wanted Tibetan independence, more than twice the number who wanted to continue with the current approach, he said. He did not offer any details about how the survey was conducted. Tibetan Exiles Discuss Impasse with China. Memories of Movement. November 17, 2008.
    [3] The remainder chose the status quo or had no opinion.
    [4] The Making of Modern Tibet By A.Tom Grunfeld

    • Replies: @vot tak
    , @Pincher Martin
  125. an0n says:
    @denk

    my armchair warrior career

    Thank you for confessing to being a full-time propagandist. It’s obvious you were never just an ordinary commenter.

  126. an0n says:
    @denk

    Any five year old here can see that we have been countering…

    And thank you for admitting that you guys are coordinating with each other.

    • Troll: vot tak
  127. vot tak says:

    The Uyghur Issue: How Can the U.S. Dare Lecturing China About the Rights of the Muslims?

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-can-u-s-dare-lecturing-china-about-rights-muslims/5697390

    “This article by the late Andre Vltchek was first published in 2019.

    For some time, I have been warning the world that the West, and the United States in particular, are helping to radicalize the Uyghurs in Xinjiang Province and outside.

    And not only that: I clearly mapped movement of the Uyghur radicals through some countries like Indonesia, towards Turkey, from where they are then injected into brutal war zones like Idlib in Syria. I worked in Idlib area, with the Syrian commanders, and I spoke at length with the Syrian internally displaced people; victims of the Uyghur genocidal attacks.

    The majority of Uyghur people are Muslims. They have their own, ancient, specific culture and most of them are, of course, very decent human beings. Northwest China is their home.

    The “problem” is that Urumqi, Xinjiang, are located on the main branch of BRI (The Belt and Road Initiative) – an extremely optimistic, internationalist project which is ready to connect billions of people on all continents. The BRI is infrastructural as well as cultural project, which will soon pull hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and under-development.

    Washington is horrified that China is taking a lead in building a much brighter future for humanity. It is because, if China succeeds, it could be the end of Western imperialism and neo-colonialism, leading to real freedom and independence for dozens of until now suffering nations.

    Step one: to antagonize, provoke and to smear China by all means, be it over Hong Kong, Taiwan, South China Sea or, above mentioned “Uygur Issue”.

    Step two: to try to turn a part of China’s constitutionally-recognized national minority – Uyghurs – into “rebels”, or more precisely, terrorists.

    Why all this complex operation? The answer is simple: NATO/Washington/West hope that the hardened, well-trained Uyghur jihadi fighters will eventually return home to Xinjiang. There, they would start to fight for “independence”, and while doing that, they would sabotage the BRI.”

    • Agree: GreatSocialist, xcd
    • Replies: @vot tak
  128. vot tak says:
    @an0n

    When the zionazi/nazi regimes smear an opponent and claim the opponent is doing this action or has that policy, one can be sure of 2 things.

    1. The things the zionazis-nazis claim are fabrications, or at best greatly exaggerated and misrepresented.

    2. These are the very acts and policies the zionazis-nazis are engaged in themselves.

    The zionazi-nazi web trolls likewise practice this sort of smearing propaganda routine. This anon shlomo is a text book case of one of these critters.

    • Replies: @xcd
  129. vot tak says:
    @omegabooks

    A typical example of rightwing “tolerance” of other’s personal views when these views are different than those the rightwinger holds. The drama queens rattle on endlessly how they are being repressed, but the reality is they are the most intolerant and repressive of all.

  130. Yes, Mao was a beautiful man. Murdered 100M+ of his countrymen. But land reform! stewardship! Yes, the Chinese are the model for sustainable. Like a cyst, 5,000 years old, keeps on growing. Oh, I wanna be Chinese!

    This is another fluff article on Eastern wisdom. Same acidic propaganda the West has been fed for 100 years.

    • Troll: vot tak
  131. @Pincher Martin

    Tibet is a tough place to live. In spite of the hollywood propaganda – Tibetans had been spreading out to other parts of China long before the 1950’s. Even Hong Kong (British days) movies used to protray Tibetan monks living all over China in Ming and Qing era days. Fact is more Tibetans live in other provinces than Tibet itself. Simply because the roof of the world is a tough place to be. But yes – its really about the water. So few people in such a huge space makes for pristine water – carried by such high elevation – means billions of people benefit.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  132. A lot of low-IQ, Trump-loving sycophants have Chyna Derangement Syndrome.

    They grudgingly admit that many Chinese are more intelligent, more hardworking and more civic-minded than them.

    But still, there has to be something wrong with the Chinese, because Americans are exceptional, the chosen ones to dominate and lead the earth and all its peoples.

    So Chinese are called thieves who owe their success to stealing tech and jobs from Americans, and Chinese are blamed for the Trump virus ravaging the US right now. Fucking absurd.

    The Bible says:

    “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
    —Exodus 20:16

    There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
    — Proverbs 6:16–19

    And that sounds exactly like Covid Donny and his degenerate, corrupt, virus-ridden regime.

    God has sent down this plague to punish the guilty, those who are abominations in his eyes. Trump and his asslicking sycophant followers fit this bill exactly.

    This plague will not lift from America until Covid Donny and his asslicking sycophants fall upon their knees and truly repent before the Lord.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  133. @vot tak

    The israelis have rather “good relationships” diplomatically with many nations, and regularly stabs those nations in the back.

    Wrong again. The Israelis do not have “good relationships” with many countries.

    Many countries – more than two dozen – have never recognized Israel. Most are the usual suspects everyone expects to see opposing Israel: Arab and Islamic countries. But a couple are communist countries, like Cuba and North Korea. You know, the group to which China belongs. Even Venezuela severed relations with Israel during the Hugo Chavez regime.

    And this list doesn’t even include the many countries which have strained relations with Israel, including several in Europe who believe Israel is the major obstacle to peace in the Middle East. These countries recognize Israel and maintain even-keeled relationships with the Jewish state, but they also routinely chastise it for various reasons.

    China, on the other hand, has very good relations with Israel. The Chinese and Israelis cooperate on many ventures, including, as I said earlier, military ventures. After Russia, Israel is the largest supplier of sophisticated military weaponry to Beijing.

    Is that how you stab someone in the back? By selling them sophisticated military equipment? If anything, Israel is stabbing the U.S. in the back with its good relations with Beijing.

    Their [the Israelis] problem with China, main problem, is they do not control China. If israel controlled China, you wouldn’t see trump foaming at the mouth everytime he mentions China.

    I see you’re a bit of a nut whose idea of geopolitics is no more sophisticated than a child’s notion of how to play Risk. Why don’t you use your cranium for something other than a balancing device to work out your neck muscles?

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @denk
    , @denk
  134. vot tak says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    The comment from pincher martin about the Brahmaputra River is standard zionazi/western propaganda. See the following for serious assessment of this issue:

    Sino‐Indian water disputes: the coming water wars?

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wat2.1123

    “Nonetheless, the water wars narrative, which is gaining steam in India, is being overstated. This article argues that the major supporting arguments of the water wars narrative are very weak. To begin with, China has no plan to divert waters from Brahmaputra River. Second, even if China could successfully divert water from the Brahmaputra River, its impacts on the downstream countries will be rather limited. Third, China is not a water hegemon. Rather, it is becoming more willing to cooperate with neighboring countries regarding transboundary rivers.

    While water issues could emerge as a major threat in Sino‐India relations given the rapidly rising water demand, competing water usage and threats from climate change, the water wars narrative appears to be premature and there is a need to revisit the popular Sino‐Indian water wars narrative supported by in‐depth analysis and empirical evidence. Towards this purpose, the rest of the article is organized as follows. Second section of this article reviews the major arguments of the water wars narrative. Sections III–V provide empirical evidence and analysis on why these arguments are not valid. A short summary of the article is presented in the last section.”

    The “water wars” narrative is promoted by the psywar monkeys of the zpc/nwo as part of their geostrategy to keep China and India at odds. Their websayanim, such as pincher martin and the bulk of the rest of the trolls in this article comments section, are simply piling on whatever horse manure they can think of to promote hostility against China.

  135. vot tak says:
    @vot tak

    This article complements the Vltchek article and provides a description of the geostrategy behind BRI and why the zpc/nwo is so dead set on sabotaging this massive undertaking.

    What’s Wrong with Development? The Geopolitics of The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/geopolitics-belt-road-initiative/5726054

    [MORE]

    “The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a series of, land and sea, infrastructure projects that will link up the “world-island” that is Africa and Eurasia. Should the West join then railway tunnels, under both the Gibraltar and Bering Straits, will link-up the world.

    When China was poor, from the late-seventies though governed by the CPC, it also enjoyed positive relations with the US. It was theorized that integration into the existing liberal capitalist world-order would inevitably lead to its collapse.

    However, China though accepting the Western created multilateral order and the WTO trading system, now also faces the indignation of the current US naval hegemon.

    This is because China has become a technological powerhouse and broken free from the role assigned to it of producing the world’s “tat”. It has proven that capital overseen by state power produces rapid development which defies the order of uneven development which disadvantages the inlands.

    Subsequently, the BRI for China, which creates both land and sea trade routes that are independent of US control, is a hedge against a US approach which seeks to prevent China’s growth and maintain the current order of uneven global development.

    This sentiment, of resisting uneven development, enjoys democratic support from the global community. Currently, 138 states, largely from the South, have signed up to the BRI. In addition, states in Eastern Europe and Italy have also joined.

    The BRI which seeks global development for the entire world contests the very foundations of US naval-hegemony which due to the structural imperatives, aforementioned have left the majority of the earth undeveloped.

    Additionally, the levelling of global development, which the BRI strives to introduce, threatens the foundations of capitalism as we know it. This is because private capital can no longer run amok playing non-developed states against developed ones. Instead, it is forced to work, hand in glove, with state power for real development. Thus, capital comes under democratic control.

    Indeed, the BRI being part of “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” and “Xi Jinping Thought” purposely seeks innovative ways to co-opt capital through inter-governmental planning, for the purpose of long-term sustainable development. As such, the BRI transcends short-term profit-seeking motives and many of the BRI projects will not see returns for decades.

    The problem then with the BRI, beyond the reported human-rights discourse, is that its development presents a direct contest to an order of uneven-development. It is within this context too that the inexhaustible war in Afghanistan becomes comprehensible beyond just war for war’s sake and de-development.”

    • Replies: @xcd
  136. @Lin

    What does it tell you if the former president of India claim India superpower by 2020?

    It tells me he doesn’t understand what a superpower is.

    The definition of a superpower is a state which can project its power on a global scale. India is nowhere close to that status.

    Can New Delhi extend its power to Latin America or even Africa?

    No.

    How about Europe?

    No.

    How about East Asia?

    No.

    How about anywhere outside its region of south Asia?

    No.

    The only existing superpower is the United States.

    The only emerging superpower is China.

    The only other superpower in my lifetime has been the Soviet Union.

    It’s a small and select club to which India does not belong and might never belong. India reminds me of that joke about Brazil: It’s the country of the future and always will be the country of the future.

    If some Indian politician wants to build up the hype for his country, that’s fine by me, but why should any intelligent person have to agree with him?

    The river has an upstream source but most of the water come from downstream precipitation.

    So what?

    Dams are routinely built all along the upper reaches of a river in areas where it is appropriate to build them. For example, you can find dams all along the upper Mississippi before the river joins up with the Ohio river, even though that is well before the Mississippi is fed by other major tributaries and rainfall that makes its flow immense.

    Another example can be found in California. The largest river in the state is the Sacramento river. The biggest dam in the state, Shasta Dam, is on that river. But the dam is not located down in the lower hills of the valley where it might help collect water from other tributaries to the Sacramento river or from valley rain water. It’s at the very top of the river in the southern Cascade mountains.

    You make it sound as if dams are only built to catch as much rain water that goes into a river as possible, which is just a silly notion.

    Why don’t you tell me what kind of wealth/resources PRC has extracted from Tibet western colonist style?

    Stop thinking like a Leninist. Most colonies cost more to run than the colonists could ever extract from them, which is why losing them didn’t hurt the long-run economic growth of the nations that held them. The United Kingdom was far wealthier in 1970 than it had been in 1930 despite losing dozens of colonies.

    Similarly, losing Tibet would NOT make China less wealthy. China’s wealth comes from the productivity of its people, not by owning the captive populations in Tibet and Xinjiang.

    But Beijing sees Tibet’s value (as well as Xinjiang’s) in its strategic size and location. The place is huge – about one-eighth the size of the United States. Take it away from China and suddenly the PRC is smaller than the United States and Brazil in size. Take it and Xinjiang both away – a combined area close in size to India – and suddenly China is smaller than Australia.

    But there is resource wealth in Tibet. Water is the most important. The headwaters of the Yangtze begin at a glacier in Tibet. Beijing has also discovered large mineral deposits in Tibet, everything from copper to lithium.

  137. @denk

    In China’s Tibet proper, they have exemption from One child rule, tax.

    Subsidized education and economy.

    And the black slaves of the southern United States were fed better than former serfs in early-19th-century Czarist Russia.

    And many of the colonized populations of Africa were better off before independence than they were in the immediate aftermath of independence.

    So what? The Tibetans still don’t want Han overlords, even if the overlords occasionally throw them juicy scraps.

    You can defend the benefits of being a subjugated population all you want; it’s still subjugation.

    • Replies: @denk
    , @denk
  138. @Vidi

    Define “many Tibetans”. How many, and which Tibetans, precisely?

    Why? Tibet is not free, and so we can’t survey the opinion of its people with precision.

    But for an excellent summary of what I meant by my phrasing, see the wonderful book Tibet, Tibet: A Personal History of a Lost Land by Patrick French.

    I have little doubt that the former 1% — and their descendants — want to be dominant again.

    You mean, the people who for the most part are either dead or no longer in Tibet? This isn’t 1949, Vidi.

    How many of the common people want the Dalai Lama and his torture chambers (link) back?

    Yeah, those torture chambers must be why the Dalai Lama is still so incredibly popular among all ranks of Tibetans. Because of his very fun method of persuasion. I guess it turns out that if Tibetans must choose between Tibetans torturing them and Han overlords torturing them, they will choose the Tibetan torturers.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  139. @Godfree Roberts

    Following the 2008 riots, the Tibetan Government in Exile secretly asked[2] seventeen thousand resident Tibetans if they wanted full independence, renzig. Thirty-percent said, “Yes,” while forty-seven percent chose ‘limited true autonomy within China'[3].

    I spent a week in Tibet just a few months before the 2008 riots. After landing in Lhasa and spending a couple of days there, I went to Shigatse and then doubled back to go to Nyingchi, which is one of the areas contested by India to be part of Arunachal Pradesh.

    The place was not a concentration camp, but the PLA military presence, even before the riots, was noticeable and road checks were set up all along our route on the major roads wherever we went. My wife and I were also required to have guides with us at all times we were outside our hotel.

    On the same trip, I also spent a week in Bhutan, a Himalayan Buddhist Kingdom that borders both Tibet and Arunachal Pradesh. The place was a paradise. Many informed travelers we met in the country made the claim that if Tibet had not been taken over by the Chinese, it would probably look a lot like Bhutan does today.

    Instead, Tibet looks grungy and haggard compared to its independent neighbor. And Tibet’s GDP per capita is lower than in Bhutan ($7,089 to $10,627, both IMF figures), despite Bhutan not having any native industry that gives it an advantage over its neighbor.

    Bhutan is what Tibet would look like if it did not have to deal with its Han overlords in Beijing, and that is a far sight better than how it looks today.

    *****

    As for your surveys, I don’t give them credence. Most Tibetans have given up on independence. Even the Dalai Lama has given up on it.

    But that’s because they know, as I explained above, that going to war with Beijing, literally or figuratively, won’t win them anything. It’s not because they don’t want independence.

    When your desired aim has no chance to be achieved, you begin to compromise – even sometimes with yourself.

    And that’s exactly what has been going on. The 14th Dalai Lama has been signaling for a long time – decades! – that he accepts Chinese oversight over Tibet and merely wishes for more Tibetan freedom within China and to rejoin his former land.

    But would the Dalai Lama really prefer Tibet’s independence from Beijing? Of course he would. He just knows he will never get it.

    • Replies: @naill
    , @denk
  140. Lin says:

    It tells me he doesn’t understand what a superpower is.

    The definition of a superpower is a state which can project its power on a global scale. India is nowhere close to that status.
    Can New Delhi extend its power to Latin America or even Africa? No.
    How about Europe? No.
    How about East Asia? No.
    How about anywhere outside its region of south Asia? No.

    You told me Mr. Kalam ‘doesn’t understand’? He certainly did; He just wanted to project a more benign image
    I said he wanted to project India Superpower by 2020 image.Look, I said image projection .It doesn’t mean he had a plan.
    It means either
    ** He prescribed a mental opioid to ease the pain of Indians their country is poor and destitute OR
    ** It’s like a poorly endowed ugly duckling putting on padded bras, high heels.. cheap cosmetics and tell people she’ll partake in Miss Universe pageant.
    I said 2 main points:

    That’s a distortion. The Tibet upstreams only contribute about 5-10% of the downstreams runoff.
    The rest come from the downstream precipitation in the sub-continent. That’s why the monsoon season is so important to south asians
    Most parts of Tibet lack water, hence explains the historical low population there.

    AND

    Why don’t you tell me what kind of wealth/resources PRC has extracted from Tibet western colonist style? In contrary I can tell you Tibet is the most financially subsidized region in china.

    …………..
    Look, you provided no valid data to counter my points. All you did was sidetracking from the questions I raised.
    Building dams or not doesn’t change the facts that downstream monsoon precipitation provided the runoff to rivers in the subcontients and the Tibet upstream source contribute little.
    Why not show me real data of wealth/resources china extracted from Tibet?
    (At least hinduwadis came up with figures the anglos extracted trillions from bharat over 2 centuries, valid or not, haha..)
    You want to compare war drum beating depression era UK to 1970s UK? (BTW,UK in 1970 wasn’t in good shape)
    ………………
    However I do have sympathy for the rakshaks of bharat like you. Bharat is not in good shape and Kalam did the right thing; Indians need mental opioid/pain killer.

    • Replies: @vot tak
    , @Pincher Martin
  141. @Showmethereal

    Tibet is a tough place to live. In spite of the hollywood propaganda – Tibetans had been spreading out to other parts of China long before the 1950’s.

    Yes, Tibet once had an empire back around the time of the Tang dynasty, and so many Tibetans have lived for hundreds of years in the mountainous regions of what are now Tibet’s neighboring Chinese provinces, like Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu, and Yunnan Provinces. I saw one community when I visited Jiuzhaigou in Sichuan province. Jiuzhaigou is named for the nine Tibetan villages that once made up the beautiful area.

    So, yeah, there are many Tibetans outside of Tibet, but most of them still live in the high altitudes to which they are superbly adapted.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  142. vot tak says:
    @Lin

    “Look, you provided no valid data to counter my points.”

    That’s how guardianista websayanim troll. They pick an off topic subject, pile on the smear manure to steer conversation away from the original subject to convert the conversation into a useless back and forth about the websayan’s smear manure. Facts are a anathema to these zionazi-gays, they work to block factual data.

  143. @Lin

    You told me Mr. Kalam ‘doesn’t understand’? He certainly did; He just wanted to project a more benign image.

    I said he wanted to project India Superpower by 2020 image.Look, I said image projection .It doesn’t mean he had a plan.

    Who cares what a dead Indian president’s image of a superpower is? Or his deadline for realizing it?

    The entire notion is silly. How does a country announce superpower status when it merely tries to relitigate border concerns it already had when it was recently independent from the British empire?

    Do border skirmishes and reviving old blood feuds strike you as the image of a rising superpower? Especially when it can’t win them?

    When the U.S. wanted to present the image of a great power, it sent the Great White Fleet around the world. It didn’t have border skirmishes with Great Britain along the Canadian border.

    Look, you provided no valid data to counter my points. All you did was sidetracking from the questions I raised.

    You were the first to respond to my points. I wasn’t the one to first respond to yours. So don’t act as if you get to set the framework for our discussion.

    You’ve mentioned two major points in response to my posts, and both of them are stupid.

    The first point is that some dead Indian president’s vision of burnishing India’s superpower image was to be achieved this year, and apparently, to you, nothing says the image of “superpower” better than a border skirmish you can’t win.

    Your second dumb point is that because the Bhramaputra River receives the vast majority of its precipitation downriver from its course within Tibet that therefore India can’t have a genuine practical purpose to wanting to control some of that river within the disputed territory.

    Both of these points are colossally stupid.

    You want to compare war drum beating depression era UK to 1970s UK? (BTW,UK in 1970 wasn’t in good shape)

    1930 was before the Depression hit hard. Economic activity in both the UK and the US had barely been blunted by the beginning of 1930. The bottom of the Depression was in 1932.

    But if you prefer, pick 1929 instead. It won’t change anything.

    The UK was much wealthier in 1970 than it was in 1929, despite losing dozens of colonies in the interim period. The British empire had come to an end, and yet it had almost no perceptible negative impact on British wealth or growth.

    This argument doesn’t mean the UK was in great economic shape in 1970; it just means that losing colonies wasn’t among the top economic problems Britain was facing.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Lin
  144. @vot tak

    Thanks. My Chinese friends despair at stemming the incessant Niagara of nonsense about China that pours on our heads every day.

    Most people are lazy and passionate and more so if they are immature and poorly educated which, sadly, covers an embarrassing number of Americans.

    This just in:

    Earlier IMF global projections indicated that China would account for an absolute majority, 51 percent, of world growth in 2020-2021, and the US 3 percent.

    But current IMF predictions indicate that 3 percent may be an exaggeration: most contributors to world growth will be Asian economies with strong trading relations with China—South Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia–with the US contributing nothing. 

    By 2021, GDP in the advanced economies will be 3.6 percent below their 2019 level while, in the developing economies, it will be 2.7 percent above 2019–a major distribution of world economic growth in favor of developing economies. 

    The April IMF estimates indicate that in 2020-2021 more than 95 percent of world economic growth will take place in developing economies—51 percent of world growth in China, 44 percent in other developing economies, and less than 5 percent in advanced economies. 

    By attempting to reorient world trade away from China and to the United States, the US is attempting to lock other countries into subordination to its own very low growth instead of the much more rapidly growing economy of China. Vijay Prashad

    • Thanks: vot tak, Vidi
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @vot tak
  145. @Godfree Roberts

    Did you even read the article he provided? It contradicts nearly every claim you make in your article above.

    For example, here is something vot tak leaves out of his post:

    …Indian’s concerns are not completely unfounded. China is indeed one of the most water‐stressed countries in the world and water scarcity is likely to exacerbate given rapidly rising demand driven by industrialization and urbanization as well as pollution—China does have a track record of relying on mega‐infrastructure projects such as Three Gorge Dams and South–North Water Diversion (SNWDs) projects to deal with its water challenges. There have been internal discussions about diverting waters from Brahmaputra to China’s dry north. Last but not least, in relation to transboundary river cooperation with neighboring countries, China is one of the three countries (the others are Turkey and Burundi) that voted against the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non‐Navigational Use of International Watercourses (UNWC), and remains absent from the Mekong River Commission (MRC).

    And given your silly laudatory views of China’s environmentalism, I’m surprised you didn’t respond to this:

    According to a 2013 report published by the Chinese authorities, the number of rivers in China has decreased from at least 50,000 over a period of 20 years to almost 23,000 in 2011. This means that in the past two decades, China has lost more than 28,000 of its rivers. Besides, the country’s wetlands have shrunk nearly 9% to make way for massive agricultural production and infrastructure projects since 2003. This is equivalent to an area of 340,000 km2 of wetland, an area larger than the Netherlands. Also, China’s agricultural production and industries are shifting from the southern regions to the central, western, and northern regions where water resources are even scarcer. Unsustainable extraction of underground water has led to the dramatic fall of water levels of aquifers in these regions, in particular, in one of the world’s most overexploited groundwater resources, the North China Plain aquifer system. Owing to the expansion of irrigation systems and intensive farming practices, a significant proportion of the shallow aquifer has dropped by more than 20 m in the past decades, and with some areas experiencing declines of over 40 m. There is no doubt that China is facing a looming water crisis, but then the question is will China divert Brahmaputra River to solve its water problems?

    So much for your boosterism of China’s environmental policies. Still believe that Beijing has figured out how to live at one with nature?

    • Troll: vot tak
  146. @vot tak

    Vot tak’s link not only contradicts Godfree Roberts’ environmentalist fantasies about China’s environmental sustainability, as I showed above, it also contradicts Lin’s claim that only 5 to 10% of the ultimate discharge of the Bhramaputra is from Tibet.

    What really worries India the most is not China’s construction of hydropower dams on the Brahmaputra, but China’s water diversion plan at the Great Bend, which could let the Brahmaputra River run dry, thus threatening the survival of hundreds of millions in the downstream. On the basis of river basin data (as shown in Table 2), it is easy to reach a conclusion that the potential impacts of Chinese flow diversion could be huge considering the fact that 50% of the river basin of Brahmaputra is in the Chinese territory. However, river basin area data can be deceptive as basin area figure is not equivalent to water discharge data, which are relatively a better indicator on the potential impacts any water projects along the river.2

    While China has the largest spatial share of the basin, over 50%, it generates only 22–30% of the total basin discharge because of Tibet’s cold desert climate and annual rainfall is very low.26 The Brahmaputra originates from a lake called Tamlung in the Angsi Glacier and flows approximately 1217 km in Tibet, where the total annual precipitation of rain and snow together varies between 25 and 65 cm. In contrast, the Indian section of the basin, covering 34.2% of basin area, contributes 39% of the total discharge. Equally significant is the contribution from Bhutan. This mountainous state covers 6.7% of the total basin area but generates 21% of the system output. Isabel Hilton, editor of Chinadialogue, further argued that only 14% of the Brahmaputra’s flow is in the river at the point at which it enters the gorge and the other 86% enters the river after it has entered India.52 Owing to the existence of large border disputes in Arunachal Pradesh (South Tibet in China) which also forms part of the river basin for Brahmaputra river as well as huge difference of the water flow between dry and monsoon season, it is very difficult to have a precise and actuate measurement of China’s contribution to total water flows in the Brahmaputra river. Nonetheless, it is generally agreed that China’s contribution to the total water flows is much smaller as compared to its share by area of the river basin.

    So even with all those qualifications favoring China’s claims, it’s clear Lin was lowballing it when he said that the Bhramaputra in Chinese-controlled Tibet contributed only 5 to 10% of the river’s ultimate discharge.

    • Troll: vot tak
  147. denk says:
    @Pincher Martin

    dude,
    Do you read ?
    IM comparing , not defending.

    Lots of murikkan ignoramus whine that

    China is progressing cuz it’s not hindered by the the stupid AA BS like us,

    In fact, China’s minorities enjoy the most enlightened perefencial policies in the world.

    juicy scraps. [sic]

    Twenty years ago I challenged China detractors to name one other place with similar scraps for minorities , no taker until this day.

    India is so free, sure, it has so many ‘disturbed territories’ that requires the world’s most draconian ‘anti insurgency law’, the dreaded AFSPA, to keep the poor sods in line,.

    Moral of the story.
    India is a very brittle glass house.
    It wise for SARZ and his ilks to mind their own biz.

    Yet they keep throwing stones , resulting in India’s dirty little secrets to be exposed again and again.

    Some times I wonder if those guys are pathological masochist

    heheheh

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  148. denk says:
    @Pincher Martin

    China, on the other hand, has very good relations with Israel. The Chinese and Israelis cooperate on many ventures, including, as I said earlier, military ventures.

    That’s more than twenty years ago kiddo, its scuppered by Washington, who imposed a sanction on Tel Aviv for being naughty.

    So you’r saying one is judged by the company he keeps ?
    Meet Israel’s best buddies…
    https://zeenews.india.com/india/setback-for-china-as-us-israel-agree-to-collaborate-with-india-in-developing-5g-technology-2308406.html

    At the behest of uncle sham, of course.

    https://zeenews.india.com/india/setback-for-china-as-us-israel-agree-to-collaborate-with-india-in-developing-5g-technology-2308406.html

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  149. @denk

    IM comparing , not defending.

    You’re doing both. Stop deflecting.

    In fact, China’s minorities enjoy the most enlightened perefencial policies in the world.

    Yep. How lucky it is to be a minority in one of Chia’s two largest autonomous regions. Torture. Forced labor. No political representation. The killing and jailing of political protestors. Detention camps. Reeducation camps. Children forcibly separated from their parents. Forced sterilization. The destruction of religious symbols and places of worship, including Tibetan prayer flags and mosques. Forced Sinicization.

    What a dream!

    Meanwhile in India and the United States, the two largest democracies in the world, minorities have to make due with plain old affirmative action without the concentration camps.

    India is so free, sure, it has so many ‘disturbed territories’ that requires the world’s most draconian ‘anti insurgency law’, the dreaded AFSPA, to keep the poor sods in line,.

    Show me the Indian equivalent of this:

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @denk
    , @d dan
  150. denk says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Jp is so free, that it cant decide the fate for the OKinawans, its up to Washington’s say so.

    SK is so free, when activists rang up its embassy to protest on the
    forced eviction of grand pa , grand ma from their ancestral homes, the KOreans murmurd,

    Its not up to us to decide, your own state dept force it on Seoul.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20060519070429/http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200605/200605040021.html

    The freest of them all is of course
    the united snakes,

    We’r Above the law,
    Master of universe.

    UN resolution opposing interference in sovereign states internal affairs

    Voting result…

    150 vs ONE.

    USA, always at the right side of history.

    PS
    I think we have got a pro here.
    hehehehe

    • Disagree: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @denk
  151. @denk

    That’s more than twenty years ago kiddo, its scuppered by Washington, who imposed a sanction on Tel Aviv for being naughty.

    You don’t keep up with current affairs, do you?

    China’s Military Chief visits Israel in 2011.

    PLA Navy Commander Visits Israel

    Chinese navy ships visit Israel Haifa port (in 2012)

    And that’s just the direct military contact and ties between China and Israel.

    The U.S. also had to warn Israel not to allow China to increase its controlling interest and investments in certain dual-use commercial projects. Beijing has already heavily invested in Israel’s hi-tech sector: China to overtake US as biggest investor in Israel

    So you’re saying one is judged by the company he keeps ?

    No, that’s not what I said, and only an idiot would infer otherwise.

    I was responding to vot tak who claimed that China was Israel’s “worst nightmare come true.”

    • Troll: vot tak
  152. denk says:
    @Pincher Martin

    How lucky it is to be a minority in one of Chia’s two largest autonomous regions. Torture. Forced labor. No political representation. The killing and jailing of political protestors. Detention camps. Reeducation camps. Children forcibly separated from their parents. Forced sterilization. The destruction of religious symbols and places of worship, including Tibetan prayer flags and mosques. Forced Sinicization.

    wow this guy reads the faux news and believes in state dept hand out
    LOL

    How many times must I tell you idiots, I dont click on prove nuthin videos.

    In India, ‘insurgents suspects ‘ dont even get a chance to be re-educated, they were shot on sight, or dragged out from home in the middle of night.

    Do you know what triggered the longest hunger strike in GUineas book of record, ever heard of the iron lady of Manipur. ?

    ‘insurgent suspect’ dragged out of her home in mid night, gang raped by jawans, her private part shot at close range to fudge out evidence of rape’

    Murderers still at large, under protection from AFSPA, the world’s only state sanctioned license to kill…
    after raping.

    PS
    they did send in a pro ,
    hehehhe

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  153. Vidi says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Yeah, those torture chambers must be why the Dalai Lama is still so incredibly popular among all ranks of Tibetans.

    What percentage of all ethnic Tibetans in the Tibet Autonomous Region want the Dalai Lama’s torturers back?

    Because of his very fun method of persuasion. I guess it turns out that if Tibetans must choose between Tibetans torturing them and Han overlords torturing them, they will choose the Tibetan torturers.

    You make a very serious allegation — that the Han are torturing Tibetans — so I must ask you for proof.

    In the meantime, we can note that the life of average Tibetans has improved enormously since the Dalai Lama got kicked out. The strongest evidence of this is that the life expectancy has increased from 35.5 years in the 1950s to 67 years now (link).

    The Beijing-to-Lhasa railroad was probably a major factor in improving the Tibetan living standard. When it opened in 2006, there was much derision in the West. But the train probably brings in a lot of food and more and cheaper medical supplies.

    The construction of highways to almost 90% of the townships (link) has enabled the distribution of the extra food and medicine to the remotest corners of the province. The highways have also given rural Tibetans improved access to medical care, and this undoubedly is another reason why Tibetans are living almost twice as long as they did under the Dalai Lama.

    Education has improved vastly: “The enrolment rate of primary schools and junior middle schools for school age children reached 98.2 percent and 90.7 percent respectively.” (ibid).

    Tibet’s economy has grown 12 times larger since the Dalai Lama left. (Link to “Tibet records double-digit GDP growth for 26 consecutive years”.)

    So please tell me why an average Tibetan would want the Dalai Lama back. Because the average guy likes the holy torturers? Because he wants to live half as long as he does now? Because he likes to starve? Because when he gets sick, he’s so tough he doesn’t need medical care? Because he doesn’t want his children to be educated? Because he really, really wants to have a tiny fraction of his present wealth? So please tell me why the average Tibetan wants a restoration of the Dalai Lama’s regime.

    • Agree: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  154. denk says:
    @denk

    Yankee go home..
    https://theunpeople.blogspot.com/2009/03/an-open-letter-from-okinawa-to.html

    SK embassy

    “Don’t call us; call the U.S. State or Defense Departments; they are the ones who are pressuring us to build this base.”

    https://fpif.org/naval_base_tears_apart_korean_village/

    UN votes
    Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.
    150 vs ONE

    USA, always at the right side of history

    http://krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

    pincher pro martin

    disagree

    The three monkies,
    we no see, we no hear, we…..

    Thats bad form buddy,
    [[[They]]] aint getting their monies worth.

    hehehhe

  155. d dan says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “Yep. How lucky it is to be a minority in one of Chia’s two largest autonomous regions. Torture. Forced labor. No political representation. The killing and jailing of political protestors. Detention camps. Reeducation camps. Children forcibly separated from their parents. Forced sterilization. The destruction of religious symbols and places of worship, including Tibetan prayer flags and mosques. Forced Sinicization.”

    Wow, looks like another unabashed China hater, a self-made “China expert” after some visits to Tibet.

    Why do so many Westerners have no shames when lying about China? Do they really think they know more than Chinese, or what? Does saying “China’s environment is getting better” very offensive, hurt people’s feeling or politically incorrect in the West?

    There must be some psychological disease associated with it.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  156. Vidi says:
    @Pincher Martin

    The Bramaputra is larger than the Mississippi by the time it reaches the Bay of Bengal. It is also the longest river in Tibet. So the river already has a considerable flow by the time it reaches India.

    DECEPTION ALERT. You are attempting to fool some readers into thinking that China is stealing all the waters of a very large river. This is false, of course.

    Here is a picture of the Siang/Brahmaputra river in Arunachal Pradesh:

    View post on imgur.com

    And a picture of the Brahmaputra River:

    View post on imgur.com

    So we can see that while the Siang is not a small river, it is nowhere near the Brahmaputra’s size by the time the latter flows into the Bay of Bengal. Thus even if China took all of the Siang’s water flow — and why would China need something so small? — that would make very little difference to the Brahmaputra’s size in most of India.

    Thus the “China is stealing the Brahmaputra” issue is mere propaganda, just another of the many lies hurled at China.

    • Disagree: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @vot tak
  157. denk says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Israel is the major obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

    Nuthin to do with fukus ,
    Five year plan to do seven countries eh ?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  158. @Godfree Roberts

    I said 90% because I know that percentage to be right. Maybe 8% I don’t know. 2% I disputed – which was what you said about Mao learning from western environmental mistakes.

    As far as the others – I’m not talking about reflexive China haters… I’m talking about the neutrals who don’t know which way to believe. Always absolving Mao of any guilt will be a turn off to the neutrals… I’m not even telling you to waste time trying to convert the China-haters… For some it is ingrained in them and they would need an epiphany

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  159. @foolisholdman

    But that’s the point… Not observing a leader’s faults are disingenuous. Fluffing up Winston Churchill and George Washington as infallible is the same thing.

  160. @GreatSocialist

    Yeah you make good points. I wonder if Pompeo and his crowd actually read the bible they claim to believe. Even if the CPC released the virus from a lab in Wuhan – the plague could have stopped and never reached the shores of the United States. The US has been hurt much more than China has. Goes to show they don’t really believe – or they are just delusional and don’t understand what they read.

  161. @Daemon

    Actually they do elevate their ethnic minorities… But it is different in that they have all been neighbors for many centuries…

  162. anonymous[286] • Disclaimer says:
    @denk

    Nuthin to do with fukus ,
    Five year plan to do seven countries eh ?

    Have you been living in a cave for the past 20 years? You must be really ignorant about US policy in the Middle East to even bother trying to contradict Pincher Martin on this point.

    It was the neo-conservative movement, represented by think-tanks like PNAC (i.e. Project for New American Century) and publications like the National Review) that developed the plan to “bomb seven countries in five years,” as stated by General Wesley Clark (also Jewish BTW), whom you are quoting. The whole neocon movement (including its affiliated publications, media organs, and think tanks) is and always was dominated by Likudnik Jews, who were very influential in the Bush administration (such Krystal, Feith, Wurmser, Wolfowitz, Frum, etc.), though it always included a non-Jewish element represented by the likes of Cheney and Bolton, who were strong supporters of Zionism nonetheless. They are closely aligned with the state of Israel.

    You is so old hat dude. You are like 20 years behind if you don’t know this.

    This has even entered mainstream political discussions with books like The Israel lobby (by Walt and Mearsheimer) and The Transparent Cabal (by Stephen Sneigoski). You can even find many articles on Unz about this as well. I suggest you read more on this issue and become better informed.

    • Replies: @denk
  163. Lin says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Who cares what a dead Indian president’s image of a superpower is? Or his deadline for realizing it?

    So that ‘India Superpower 2020’ claim is bogus because Kalam is dead. Haha, actually you confirm my statement it’s only a massive image making exercise.
    https://www.arabnews.com/node/246878

    When the U.S. wanted to present the image of a great power, it sent the Great White Fleet around the world. It didn’t have border skirmishes with Great Britain along the Canadian border.

    Because right now Canada is a client state of US. Seems you’ve never heard of the 1812 britishCanada-US war when Canada was still under british rule.
    https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/war-of-1812.
    Your original statement was a slight typo and no one is interested in comparing a single year of 1930 to another single year 1970. (the rest of your babbling make little sense..)

    The United Kingdom was far wealthier in 1970 than it had been in 1930

    It should be:

    The United Kingdom was far wealthier in 1970s than it had been in 1930s

    You basically admit you’re lying or contradict yourself

    Your second dumb point is that because the Bhramaputra River receives the vast majority of its precipitation downriver from its course within Tibet that therefore India can’t have a genuine practical purpose to wanting to control some of that river within the disputed territory.

    it’s not a concern, it’s a thinly disguised excuse.
    So you accept that Tibet upstream only contribute a very small% of downstream water.Look at your another statement which you admit you’re lying

    Vot tak’s link not only contradicts Godfree Roberts’ environmentalist fantasies about China’s environmental sustainability, as I showed above, it also contradicts Lin’s claim that only 5 to 10% of the ultimate discharge of the Bhramaputra is from Tibet.

    ………………..
    However you sure have my sympathy that rakshaks of bharat are in a state of great pain. President Kalam realised that very well and he did his job of prescribing India superpower 2020 mental opioid.
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscroll.in%2Farticle%2F948319%2Findia-superpower-2020-tracing-the-brief-history-of-a-spectacularly-incorrect-prediction&psig=AOvVaw19FiSamYfxUCq6FgW9dUVd&ust=1602339784099000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCLCO0JLbp-wCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAP

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  164. @Pincher Martin

    Indeed they are superbly adapted to the high altitudes. And the Tibetans in Sichuan and Qinghai and Gansu and Yunnan mostly did NOT want to join in the CIA backed forces in Tibet. That’s why those Tibetans in Tibet who were a part of that movement also attacked their ethnic brethren in the neighboring provinces. They had no desire to break off from China.
    But in any event – there are Tibetan temples and learning centers in East China from long long before the 1950’s. Why? Tibetan culture had been a part of China for centuries. That’s why in 1911 after the Revolution one of the flags the new Republic wanted to use was one of 5 colors denoting the major ethnic groups of China. Tibetans were one of the 5 – even though others actually outnumbered them. In eastern China FAR from Tibetan lands you can find many old Tibetan Buddhist temples and such. I will just mention two in Bejing… Bailin Temple (started construction in 1347) and Yonghe Temple (started in 1694). There are certainly others. Why? Tibetan culture and Han culture nor Mongol nor Jurchen were not alien to each other no matter how the west tries to change it.
    Likewise in modern times – you will find the secular young Tibetans in east coast Chinese cities trying to make their urban fortunes as well.

    But this is a thread about the environment. So Tibet was absorbed by China because they were neighboring empires. But the reason China would not give it up today is indeed because of water security. They are putting in place bans on all manner of mining and turning parts of Tibet and Qinghai into the largest protected area on earth.
    On the flip side – water is the reason the west wants to cut Tibet off from China. Not because they want it for themselves – but because they could try to choke China by moving in to covertly control the water. It’s a chess game. But Tibetan culture and “Chinese” culture (not just Han) have been developing alongside each other for over a millennium.

    • Agree: Godfree Roberts
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  165. @denk

    wow this guy reads the faux news and believes in state dept hand out

    Faux mainstream news can no longer report honestly on China, any more than Hollywood can make a good anti-Beijing film any longer. There’s a good reason why large U.S.-based commercial entities like the NBA are willing to take on Trump, willing to take on the police, even willing to take on respecting the American flag, but they are NOT willing to take on Beijing.

    Too much money is to be made there.

    Journalists are not allowed in Tibet or Xinjiang when protests happen. What’s more, even talking to a journalist can land a person in what China euphemistically calls a voluntary re-education camp.

    Heartbreaking. Hard to report the news when Beijing works so hard to erase the contacts and limit access.

    But what’s worse is watching a bunch of PRC handmaidens, like you guys, defend these policies.

    As for State Department handouts, I never read them.

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
    , @denk
    , @denk
  166. @Vidi

    What percentage of all ethnic Tibetans in the Tibet Autonomous Region want the Dalai Lama’s torturers back?

    A clear majority want the 14th Dalai Lama back.

    Do they also want to go back to 1959? No. But then even the Dalai Lama doesn’t want to go back to how things were run in 1959.

    You make a very serious allegation — that the Han are torturing Tibetans — so I must ask you for proof.

    That’s not what I said. And I’m not here to force-feed you information you should already know. Just do a google search.

    You’ll find plenty of evidence for the use of torture in Tibet by the Chinese. You can read about the case of Palden Gyatso, who was imprisoned by the Chinese authorities for more than three decades after the 1959 uprising.

    “He was forced to participate in barbarous re-education classes and He was tortured by various methods, which included being beaten with a club ridden with nails, shocked by an electric probe, which scarred his tongue and caused his teeth to fall out, whipped while being forced to pull an iron plow, and starved.”

    So don’t pretend that somehow the barbaric serf-like existence of Tibetans before the Chinese invasion was replaced by something much more enlightened.

    In the meantime, we can note that the life of average Tibetans has improved enormously since the Dalai Lama got kicked out. The strongest evidence of this is that the life expectancy has increased from 35.5 years in the 1950s to 67 years now

    Life expectancy has gone up dramatically all over the developing world over the last seventy years.

    Life expectancy in neighboring Bhutan, for example, is over 70 years. It was 31.4 in 1950.

    Life expectancy in India is over 69 years. In 1950 it was 35.8 years.

    Life expectancy in neighboring Nepal was 34.3 in 1950; today it is 70.9.

    It’s amazing how you want to give China credit for something that everyone else around the world has been doing without Chinese help. And in many cases, doing it somewhat better than Beijing has done it. Look at the improvement in Bhutan. Life expectancy is higher than in Tibet, and the increase over the last seventy years has been greater.

    And the Bhutanese didn’t need to be under Beijing’s tutelage to get those improvements.

    The Beijing-to-Lhasa railroad was probably a major factor in improving the Tibetan living standard. When it opened in 2006, there was much derision in the West. But the train probably brings in a lot of food and more and cheaper medical supplies.

    The railroad wasn’t put there to improve the lives of the Tibetans; it was built to better connect Tibet to China.

    Or do you think that medical supplies can’t be flown in planes?

    The construction of highways to almost 90% of the townships (link) has enabled the distribution of the extra food and medicine to the remotest corners of the province. The highways have also given rural Tibetans improved access to medical care, and this undoubedly is another reason why Tibetans are living almost twice as long as they did under the Dalai Lama.

    Haha! Now apparently even the construction of roads over the last seventy years is something Vidi believes a country can do only when under Beijing’s control.

    I’ve been all over the world. Building highways into the remotest regions of the world is something even the idiotic countries have figured out how to do. I’ve been to the Golden Triangle on the Thailand side of the border. It used to be known as an impossibly remote region where opium production thrived under the control of renegade KMT generals who had retreated there after losing the war to the CCP. Most of the opium was produced in Burma, but northern Thailand was the major entry for the distribution of the drug.

    And yet that area now (or at least ten years ago) has as nice a highway as can be seen anywhere in California.

    The same goes for Vivid’s points about education and the economy. He wants to credit Beijing for doing in Tibet what everybody else has already figured out how to do without Beijing.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @showmethereal
    , @Vidi
  167. @d dan

    Why do so many Westerners have no shames when lying about China? Do they really think they know more than Chinese, or what? Does saying “China’s environment is getting better” very offensive, hurt people’s feeling or politically incorrect in the West?

    There must be some psychological disease associated with it.

    You don’t identify any of my so-called lies. Is there a psychological disease associated with claiming a person is lying but not providing any rebuttal to said lies?

    The Chinese repression of Tibet and Xinjiang is pretty obvious. And the Chinese have used some pretty brutal methods to enforce that repression, although less so now than they did from the 1950s to the 1970s when Mao was in charge and the CCP was brutalizing its own Han population with many of the same methods it used against ethnic minorities.

    So has China improved over the last seventy years? Of course. It’s gone from a very hard and brutal authoritarianism to a soft authoritarianism with a lighter touch. Focusing on economic growth has helped. But it still uses repression. The Chicoms just prefer buying people off to straight out offing them. And the Tibetans and Uighers still have no say in who governs them. The bribes are just bigger and the punishments less often fatal.

  168. @Vidi

    DECEPTION ALERT. You are attempting to fool some readers into thinking that China is stealing all the waters of a very large river. This is false, of course.

    No, it’s true. The river has a considerable flow by the time it reaches India. Your very photo shows that. That’s a major river. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. And the Chinese have already dammed that river and could dam it again.

    Of course the Bhramaputra looks small compared to the flow when it finally discharges into the Bay of Bengal. So would nearly every other river in the world.

    The Bhramaputra discharges more water than does the Mississippi – 19,800 cubic meters per second compared to 16,792 cubic meters per second.

    Since the flow of the Bhramaputra is around 10% to 20% of that size by the time it leaves Tibet, let’s assume it’s 15%, which would make its Tibetan discharge 2,970 cubic meters per second.

    So what rivers in North America can we compare that discharge to the Bhramatputra when it leaves Tibet?

    How about larger than the Missouri River (2,445)? How about nearly as large as the Fraser (3,475) or Slave (3,414) Rivers in Canada?

    In fact, there are only three rivers in the contiguous United States which have a greater discharge than the Bhramaputra has when it leaves Tibet. They are the aforementioned Mississippi River, the Ohio River, and the Columbia River. We can add the St Lawrence, Niagara, Detroit and St Clair rivers if you want to include border rivers that don’t actually flow through the United States so much as along it.

    But that’s it. The average discharge of the Sacramento River, which is the largest and most important river in California, for example, is only 797 cubic meters per second. That’s less than one-third the size of the Bhramaputra’s estimated discharge when it leaves Tibet.

    Vidi has made the critical mistake of believing that since the Bhramaputra is a huge river when it empties out in the Bay of Bengal, and since the river receives most of its water after it leaves Tibet, that it therefore must be a small river in Tibet. It is not.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  169. @Pincher Martin

    “It used to be known as an impossibly remote region where opium production thrived under the control of renegade KMT generals who had retreated there after losing the war to the CCP. Most of the opium was produced in Burma, but northern Thailand was the major entry for the distribution of the drug.”

    You conveniently leave out that it was the OSS and then CIA who financed those KMT generals and provided transportation for the opium. Yes the same people who destabilized Tibet also and made the Dalai Lama into an honorable character that you now believe it. Strange you keep bringing up Bhutan. If China is so horrible – then why have they been trying to get from underneath India’s thumb in order to establish relations with China? Maybe they aren’t as silly to think what China accomplished in the past 100 years is nothing short of remarkable. Maybe because they don’t have the fake view of Tibetans like you seem to have. They know history. They remember what Tibetan fighters could do.

    I promised myself I would stay out of politics and deal with only environment. But you have very very very selective reading of history. The Golden Triangle wouldn’t have happened without US covert operations. Neither would have the uprising in the 1950’s in Tibet.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  170. @Lin

    The trouble with conversing with you, Lin, is that you aren’t very smart and so you tend to focus on trivialities rather than important things.

    How does a border skirmish with China burnish the image of India as an emerging superpower? They could’ve done this ten, twenty, thirty years to the same effect.

    Answer that question.

    New Delhi can’t win this conflict by force of arms. There has been no change in the balance of power between India and China since they first went to war over their common border in 1962. If anything, the distance between Beijing and New Delhi’s military power has only increased since then.

    So that theory is out of the running.

    So, pray tell, how does a border skirmish at all help New Delhi in its so-called coming-out party as an emerging superpower?

    When you finally realize, Lin, that this low-level conflict clearly doesn’t help New Delhi in that aim, you will have to come up with some other stupid reason for what is happening.

    Because right now Canada is a client state of US.

    I wasn’t talking about “right now.” I was talking about the late-19th and early-20th centuries when the United States was an emerging power and it still viewed Great Britain’s empire with suspicion.

    Seems you’ve never heard of the 1812 britishCanada-US war when Canada was still under british rule.

    Yes, I’m well ware of it. I’m also well aware that in 1812, the U.S. was not an emerging superpower.

    You seem to easily lose the thread of a discussion. I was comparing how the U.S. decided to announce its great power status in the late 19th- and early-20th centuries compared to how you think India is announcing its great power status today.

    The U.S. built a great fleet and sent it around the world to show it off.

    India – at least in your mind – loses a border skirmish it could’ve lost at any time in the last fifty-eight years.

    Compare and contrast.

    Your original statement was a slight typo and no one is interested in comparing a single year of 1930 to another single year 1970.

    It wasn’t a typo. It’s just clear you don’t understand the purpose of the example I provided.

    Between 1940 and 1970, Great Britain lost its empire. It went from sovereignty or control over nearly a quarter of the world’s land mass to giving up all its overseas colonies.

    If you are a Leninist idiot who believes that the British extracted wealth from its colonies to keep the homeland rich and cozy with material benefits, then you should also believe that losing almost all those colonies over a few decades would lead to British impoverishment.

    But that is not what happened. Instead, the British got significantly wealthier in that period, just as nearly everyone else did over the same period.

    Similarly, if China lost Tibet, it would still remain wealthy. That’s because the productivity of the Chinese people, and not control of Tibet, is the key to China’s wealth.

    China, however, justifies its control over Tibet by declaring all the wonderful things it does for the Tibetans. That’s exactly what Western imperialists use to say about places like India and Vietnam and Africa. But as my examples of Bhutan and Nepal show above, the Tibetans could’ve done everything on their own. They didn’t need Beijing’s control to build roads, improve life expectancy or adopt universal education. Those things have been happening all around the world.

    So you accept that Tibet upstream only contribute a very small% of downstream water.Look at your another statement which you admit you’re lying [quotes my comment about the Bhramaputra in Tibet having double the flow that Lin provided]

    That’s not a lie. That source says the flow of the Bhramaputra from Tibet to India is approximately double the percentage you provided.

    • Replies: @Lin
  171. @showmethereal

    Indeed they are superbly adapted to the high altitudes. And the Tibetans in Sichuan and Qinghai and Gansu and Yunnan mostly did NOT want to join in the CIA backed forces in Tibet.

    Who can blame them? Fighting for a lost cause is not something most people want to do even when they are highly sympathetic to that cause.

    That’s why those Tibetans in Tibet who were a part of that movement also attacked their ethnic brethren in the neighboring provinces. They had no desire to break off from China.

    That’s not true. You’re confusing the fractiousness of the Tibetans, which is a natural part of the religious schisms and geographical dispersion of the Tibetans, for support for the Chinese.

    Tibetans are always fighting Tibetans. Westerners usually have this idea of Tibetans as peaceful Buddhist monks, but they are a tough, feisty people – and the monks are just as willing to pick a fight as any of them. The history of Tibet is a lot bloodier than most people understand, and that blood was often spilt by monks killing other monks.

    So it’s not a surprise that Tibetans would kill Tibetans for any number of reasons, but you are misrepresenting it if you believe that it’s because the Tibetans in the provinces desired to stay under Beijing’s rule.

    Many of the Tibetans living in the Chinese provinces are in areas that are just smaller versions of the Tibet Autonomous Region. For example, Jiuzhaigou, which I mentioned earlier, is part of the Ngawa Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture. This is China’s way of supposedly giving more local control to particular ethnic groups it actually wants to control.

    But just like Tibetans in Tibet proper, the Tibetans in the Chinese provinces occasionally riot over Chinese rule and often for reasons that have nothing to do with what’s going on in Lhasa.

    But in any event – there are Tibetan temples and learning centers in East China from long long before the 1950’s. Why? Tibetan culture had been a part of China for centuries.

    Yes, of course. But until the modern era, the only times Tibet had been under the Chinese political yoke were when the Mongols and Manchus were in Beijing. The Yuan and the Qing were not Han Chinese dynasties, and they were viewed by most Han Chinese at the time (even if not later) as foreign impositions.

    By that same historical standard, all of Mongolia should belong to the PRC.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @showmethereal
  172. @showmethereal

    You conveniently leave out that it was the OSS and then CIA who financed those KMT generals and provided transportation for the opium.

    The CIA effort was a joke. The KMT generals used the CIA to get much-needed dollars to finance their drug lord operations and then only pretended to keep fighting the communists in China.

    So those generals got more out of the CIA than the CIA ever got out of them.

    Yes the same people who destabilized Tibet also and made the Dalai Lama into an honorable character that you now believe it.

    Destabilized Tibet? Made the Dalai Lama into an honorable character? I think you’re mistaking nineteen-fifties’ Tibet for the Iraq of 2003, and the Dalai Lama for Ahmed Chalabi.

    The Dalai Lama has been a public figure for decades. If he wasn’t likable, then most people wouldn’t like him. The notion that somehow the U.S. has made his character seem the opposite of reality is beyond stupid.

    Strange you keep bringing up Bhutan. If China is so horrible – then why have they been trying to get from underneath India’s thumb in order to establish relations with China?

    Bhutan is not under India’s thumb. India and Bhutan have an excellent relationship and each time Bhutan has wanted to establish more independence from India – a dependence created in large part by the threat of China – Thimphu was able to do so.

    Tibetans would kill for such a relationship between Beijing and Lhasa as exists between New Delhi and Thimphu. If that’s being under another country’s thumb, then Tibetans wish they were under Beijing’s thumb.

    Maybe they aren’t as silly to think what China accomplished in the past 100 years is nothing short of remarkable.

    What China has accomplished in China is remarkable. What China has accomplished in Tibet is nothing out of the ordinary.

    The Golden Triangle wouldn’t have happened without US covert operations. Neither would have the uprising in the 1950’s in Tibet.

    Both of these points are untrue. At most, CIA money helped finance drug operations that would’ve started up anyway. It’s not like drugs are a capital-intensive business.

    • Troll: vot tak, Godfree Roberts
    • Replies: @showmethereal
  173. vot tak says:
    @Vidi

    That is how israelis work, Vidi. They they do nothing but lie.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  174. Vidi says:
    @Pincher Martin

    What percentage of all ethnic Tibetans in the Tibet Autonomous Region want the Dalai Lama’s torturers back?

    A clear majority want the 14th Dalai Lama back.

    I repeat: what percentage of ethnic Tibetans want the Dalai Lama and his torturers back? You say “a clear majority”. I doubt a “clear majority” of all the ethnic Tibetans in the TAR want the holy torturers back. Why would an average guy in Tibet want to eat less often? And live half as long as he does now? And have only a tiny fraction of his current wealth?

    Do they also want to go back to 1959? No. But then even the Dalai Lama doesn’t want to go back to how things were run in 1959.

    Sure. Perhaps some deluded Tibetans think they can split from Beijing — and continue to get lavish subsidies from Beijing.

    Life expectancy has gone up dramatically all over the developing world over the last seventy years.

    True. However, if Tibet had been an independent country in 1955, its life expectancy of 35.5 would have ranked it in the bottom 30 of the world’s 200-something countries, according to the United Nations (link). The Dalai Lama wasn’t such a nice guy.

    Life expectancy in Tibet is currently 68.2 (link) which would rank it near the global average, again according to the United Nations (ibid). The autonomous region has risen greatly in world rankings. I think we can credit Beijing for that.

    In addition, very few in the developing world have grown wealthier by almost twelve times in the previous quarter century, as the people of Tibet have (link to “Tibet records double-digit GDP growth for 26 consecutive years”). I think we can also credit Beijing for that.

    Haha! Now apparently even the construction of roads over the last seventy years is something Vidi believes a country can do only when under Beijing’s control.

    What part of “90% of townships connected by highways” do you not understand? Any two-bit country can construct a single highway. But creating a dense network through mountainous terrain — and over an enormous territory — takes a lot of effort and determination. Again we can credit Beijing for its hard work.

    [Palden Gyatso claims he was tortured by Chinese authorities]

    Palden was a Tibetan monk. As I have shown, those monks were into torture — the Dalai Lama’s palace, the Potala, had chambers dedicated to inflicting pain. So it is likely that Palden himself did some torturing, or was involved in it. I should believe someone who claims to have suffered what he meted out to others?

    I doubt I can improve on my last paragraph. You avoided answering, so I’ll repeat it: So please tell me why an average Tibetan would want the Dalai Lama back. Because the average guy likes the holy torturers? Because he wants to live half as long as he does now? Because he likes to starve? Because when he gets sick, he’s so tough he doesn’t need medical care? Because he doesn’t want his children to be educated? Because he really, really wants to have [only] a tiny fraction of his present wealth? So please tell me why the average Tibetan wants a restoration of the Dalai Lama’s regime.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  175. vot tak says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Used to run a talkboard years ago. When a zionazi-nazi troll showed up, such as pincher martin or sarz or the others on this thread, I would edit out their spam, replace it with a notice their spamming was not allowed on the sire and included their IP address. It was very effective. The israeli/nazi critters usually didn’t return after.

    • Thanks: Godfree Roberts
  176. @showmethereal

    Can you be specific? Provide some documentation to damage Mao did to the environment?

  177. @Pincher Martin

    The Asia Society video you provided suggests that you are unaware of what the Asia Society is.

    Victor Marchetti[1] testified before Congress that the Central Intelligence Agency spent a quarter billion dollars annually [current dollars] on NGOs like The Asia Society, for “Anti-communist academicians to disseminate a negative vision of mainland China[2]”.


    [1] The CIA and the cult of intelligence – 1976. by V. Marchetti. (It is the first book the US Government ever went to court to censor before its publication).
    [2] Some of those writings resurfaced in 2017 when China’s censor asked Cambridge University Press to retract three hundred journal articles about a non-existent massacre in Tiananmen Square. Claiming academic freedom, Cambridge refused and the Chinese censor yielded.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  178. Vidi says:
    @Pincher Martin

    No, it’s true. The river has a considerable flow by the time it reaches India. Your very photo shows that. That’s a major river.

    I’m not going to debate what you mean by “major river”; the Siang looks rather small by Chinese standards. And the fact is, the Siang contributes a tiny percentage of the Brahmaputra’s water, as we can see by comparing the pictures of the two rivers in my previous post (link). Even if China took all of the Siang’s water just before the river enters Arunachal Pradesh, the Brahmaputra would not be noticeably diminished in its course through India.

    Therefore, as I said, the “China is stealing the Brahmaputra” issue is mere propaganda, just another of the many lies hurled at China.

  179. @vot tak

    I’m not Israeli. I’m not Jewish. And unlike you, I’m not an idiot.

    There were no lies in my post. You just don’t know how to argue.

    The Bhramaputra is a colossal river when it empties out into the Bay of Bengal, one of the world’s largest. And less than 20% of that gargantuan flow builds up in the river (which at that point is called the Yarlung Tsangpo) before it leaves Tibet.

    But that still makes for a very large river. The Chinese have dammed it once, and while they currently have no plans to do so, could conceivably do it again.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  180. @Godfree Roberts

    Forget the Asian Society.

    Is your claim that James Palmer is lying about what happened to his sources? Because, really, it doesn’t matter who sponsors the platform. Either you believe Palmer’s personal story about journalism in Xinjiang or you don’t.

    So what you must be saying is that you think James Palmer’s tears in that video segment were faked for the camera. That he didn’t really lose his Uigher sources as he claims, but merely wishes to smear China for some unknown reason. And that he appears under the auspices of the Asia Society to do so.

    That’s a rather incredible claim to make against a journalist who has written two very good books on Asia, including one on the death of Mao. Both of them sold pretty well.

    As for the CIA, it spent a lot of money to support many intellectual foundations and magazines, including the well-regarded literary magazine Encounter. A lot of great poetry was published in that magazine, including Philip Larkin’s. That the CIA funded some of his work doesn’t make Larkin’s poetry any less beautiful.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  181. naill says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Many informed travelers we met in the country made the claim that if Tibet had not been taken over by the Chinese, it would probably look a lot like Bhutan does today.

    Interesting observation! Perhaps these same informed travelers might also make the claim that if only China were ruled by the British and became a democracy, it would probably look a lot like India does today.

    • Agree: Godfree Roberts
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  182. denk says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Justice by youtube video …..again.
    When’ll murikkans ever learn ?

    Do you realise how many have been exposed as fakes, productions of CIA. , FLG, TW, HK studios ?

    Stop throwing videos, or books for that matter at us,unless it has been authenticated by impartial third parties.

    More to the point,
    Why should I bother with someone who can disagree on Okinawa, Jeju, Diego Garcia, Iraq, Nam, Serbia, LIbya, Syria……….?

    Are you declaring yourself above the law, the exceptional, master of universe ?

    disagree

    Why’d the Okinawans write to Clinton to plead their case, bcos they got a short shrift from their own govn, who answer only to Washington.

    Why’d the SK goven take their order from the pentagon and your state dept. ?

  183. denk says:
    @anonymous

    dude
    you must be a newbie.
    I know all about the neocons, AIPAC, Yinon plan and all that jazz.
    But dont tell me the MIC, xtian wasp fundies who believe in salvation by rapture after Armageddon, big Pharma etc have no hand in fukus foreign policies.
    it just so happens that, in your words, fukus deep state interest align with Israel in the ME,.

    It aint so in the rest of world.
    For example, big pharma interest definitely are up to its eyeballs in this covid caper.

    As for China,
    it has always been the eight nations alliance, led from behind by the [[[five liars]]].

    Exhibit 2000,
    BIg farce in UN, blood drenched ENA appoint itself as judge, prosecutor, executioner,

    Western Allies Rebuke [sic] China at UN Over Xinjiang, Hong Kong
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-s-allies-step-up-china-rebuke-at-un-over-xinjiang-hong-kong

  184. denk says:
    @Pincher Martin

    I am tired of teaching murikkans about rule of law and the difference bet fiction and fact.

    YOu dont have to plough thru hours of stupid videos , books looking for evidence only to find there’s none.

    I’ll give it to you right here, right now.

    faq

    What constitute a smoking gun ?

    Exhibit Fallujah….

    From the horse mouth,

    The LA Times reported that “the US military” assaulted the city of Fallujah with the full “understanding” that “civilians�would be killed.” As a result, the Christian Science Monitor reported, “The sickening odor of rotting flesh” permeated the air circulating through the smoke filled and blood drenched streets of Fallujah. Alexander Cockburn noted, “If there is anything that should fuel the outrage of the antiwar movement [in the US] it is surely the destruction of Fallujah and the war crimes�inflicted by US commanders on its civilian population.” We learned this week, November, 2005 the US used naplalm and white phosphorus in Fallujah, leaving children, women and men burnt to the bone. The US Army journal “Field Artillery” reported how, during the US attack on Fallujah in November 2004, “White Phosphorous�proved to be an effective and versatile munition [and�] a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents” when high explosives were ineffective in routing people from “spider holes.” White phosphorus was used “to flush them out and [high explosives] to take them out.” “High explosives” included “AC-130 Specter gunship support.” “Tactics, techniques and procedures” we are told “were effective and lethal.”


    Tip of an iceberg.

    Are you gonna disagree on this too ?

  185. denk says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Tibet looks grungy and haggard compared to its independent neighbor

    LOL
    I’d rather listen to what the locals say about independent BHutan than some anecdotes from this informed travellers.

    Do you know what make the South Asians like Sri Lankans, Nepalese, Bangladeshis etc sit up in cold sweat in the middle of night ?

    Now it is well established that India, after 2005, is stepping towards Bhutanisation, Sikkimisation and Fijisation of Nepal

    I’ll give you a hint mr informed traveller, …
    Sikkim was gobbled up by India in 1975,
    Fiji is yet another victim WMMed by Indian legal, illegal immigrants, making the Fijians a minority in their own land.
    As for independent BHutan, its made into an INdian protectorate, the King who wanna make friend with China was deposed of by a CIA../RAW joint op.

    Some informed traveller,
    hehehhehe

    https://newsblaze.com/world/south-asia/indias-hand-in-nepal-royal-palace-massacre-2001_10054/

    • Agree: showmethereal
  186. @Vidi

    I repeat: what percentage of ethnic Tibetans want the Dalai Lama and his torturers back? You say “a clear majority”. I doubt a “clear majority” of all the ethnic Tibetans in the TAR want the holy torturers back.

    You’d be wrong. He’s so popular that Beijing has made it illegal to display his photo and the Chinese authorities have arrested some Tibetans merely for possessing it.

    Why would they need to do that for a well-known torturer?

    …if Tibet had been an independent country in 1955, its life expectancy of 35.5 would have ranked it in the bottom 30 of the world’s 200-something countries, according to the United Nations.

    I’ve already provided examples in Tibet’s own region which show that the improvement in life expectancy was lower than what was achieved in Bhutan, India, or Nepal. And none of those countries required Beijing’s help to make those improvements.

    As for why Tibet’s life expectancy was so low in the 1950s, a lot of that had to do with its remoteness. Bhutan had the same problem. The Thunder Dragon Kingdom was grouped in at the bottom (#11) with a bunch of African countries in the 1950s. So was Nepal (#18).

    That had nothing to do with the Dalai Lama’s policies, unless you’re also going to blame him for Nepal and Bhutan’s appallingly low life expectancies at the time.

    *****

    Bhutan is really the closest equivalent to what Tibet would be if it were a country instead of China’s possession. The two are similar in topography, race, religion and culture. The average Bhutanese lived only 31.4 years in 1950. Today he or she lives to be over 71.

    The average Bhutanese also has a high income than the average Tibetan, and he or she makes that higher income without any of the largesse that Beijing sends to Tibet.

    So the average Bhutanese today is freer, lives longer, and makes more money than the average Tibetan.

    And when you visit the two places you feel and see that difference in freedom. It’s not just something that exists in a textbook.

    In addition, very few in the developing world have grown wealthier by almost twelve times in the previous quarter century, as the people of Tibet have (link to “Tibet records double-digit GDP growth for 26 consecutive years”). I think we can also credit Beijing for that.

    No, you really can’t.

    Bhutanese GDP per capita (USD in PPP) – $11,345

    Tibetan GDP per capita (USD in PPP) – $7,089

    What part of “90% of townships connected by highways” do you not understand? Any two-bit country can construct a single highway.

    If you can construct a single highway, you can construct a bunch of highways. Besides the vast majority of those highways were built by China to control Tibet, not link it up for the Tibetans’ sake. Did you forget that I traveled there and that I know the PLA has periodic checkpoints along those highways where it stops travelers and ask for their papers?

    Tibet is huge, but the vast majority of it is unpopulated, lunar-like landscape that only the nomadic Tibetan herders use, if anyone uses it at all. And those nomads don’t need highways.

    There just aren’t a lot of towns in Tibet to connect. Take the Ngari Prefecture in Western Tibet. It’s bigger than the state of Arizona, but the entire territory has fewer than 100,000 people.

    Or how about Nagqu. It’s as large as Montana, but has far fewer people.

    The entire Tibet Autonomous Region has fewer people than Connecticut.

    Palden was a Tibetan monk. As I have shown, those monks were into torture — the Dalai Lama’s palace, the Potala, had chambers dedicated to inflicting pain. So it is likely that Palden himself did some torturing, or was involved in it. I should believe someone who claims to have suffered what he meted out to others?

    Speaking of torture, that’s some pretty tortuous reasoning.

    Your paragraph which you find some compelling is little more than just your ignorance restated. The Tibetans love the Dalai Lama, which is why Beijing makes his photo illegal to display or, in some cases, even possess. They’ve had this policy against the display of his photo for decades. That’s how much the Chinese fear his relationship with the Tibetan people.

    For you to slander all Tibetan monks as torturers, which you do when you make group accusations against an individual, justshows you really believe that all Tibetans are torturers.

    Tibetans practice mass monasticism. Something like 25% of Tibetan males were monks when the PRC took over. That’s more than any other religious society in the world. By comparison, in Thailand, something like one percent become monks.

    So becoming a Tibetan monk is not like becoming a Catholic priest in the West or a Buddhist monk in most places in the East. Monasticism is practiced by the masses in Tibet at a level not seen anywhere else in the world.

    So when you call Tibetan monks torturers what you’re really doing is calling all Tibetans torturers.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Vidi
    , @showmethereal
  187. @naill

    Interesting observation! Perhaps these same informed travelers might also make the claim that if only China were ruled by the British and became a democracy, it would probably look a lot like India does today.

    Well, that’s a dumb comparison.

    Bhutan and Tibet are made up of the same racial stock. They practice the same religion. They have largely the same culture based on that religion. They live in countries with similar topographies.

    Are any of those statements true of India and China? Do they belong to the same racial stock? Do they practice the same religion? Do they have largely the same culture? Is the topography of their countries similar?

    About the only thing China and India share is that they both have large populations and they both share a long border along the Himalayas since China swallowed up Tibet.

    Sheesh. At least try to think before writing out your post.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @denk
  188. Lin says:

    Some hydrological data:
    http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/basins/gbm/print1.stm
    It’s a long article; some data:
    “…The annual flow of the Brahmaputra river basin from China to India is 165.40 km3 and from Bhutan to India 78 km3. The annual flow of the Brahmaputra river basin from India to Bangladesh is 537.24 km3. The annual flow of the Ganges river basin from China to Nepal is 12.0 km3. All rivers in Nepal drain into the Ganges river with an annual flow of 210.2 km3 to India. The annual flow of the Ganges basin from India to Bangladesh is 525.02 km3. The annual flow of the Meghna river basin from India to Bangladesh is 48.36 km3. This gives a total annual GBM river basin inflow into Bangladesh from India of 1 110.6 km3…”
    ……………….
    Well, if the amount of water from India to Bangladesh alone is 6.6 times that of from china to India, tell me what amount of monsoon river runoff India gets?

  189. Lin says:
    @Pincher Martin

    The trouble with conversing with you, Lin, is that you aren’t very smart

    Haha..sorry to dismay you that you can’t make me angry saying that I ain’t that smart nor you can deter me. I’m a long time observer of India. I do know quite a nitty gritty bit about Hindustan but I usually keep them to myself unless when confronting certain hostiles. Here at Ron Unz, sometimes ago I was even mistaken as an indian masquerading as Chinese by another indian chap
    You original statement

    When the U.S. wanted to present the image of a great power, it sent the Great White Fleet around the world. It didn’t have border skirmishes with Great Britain along the Canadian border.

    My response:

    Seems you’ve never heard of the 1812 britishCanada-US war when Canada was still under british rule.

    Then you flip-flopped:

    I wasn’t talking about “right now.” I was talking about the late-19th and early-20th centuries when the United States was an emerging power and it still viewed Great Britain’s empire with suspicion.

    I’m also well aware that in 1812, the U.S. was not an emerging superpower.

    You basically denied your ignorance and confusion and try to shift the blame.
    Fact is Canada in 1812 was not a client state of US precisely because US wasn’t a superpower like England but it still was a hell lot bigger than Canada in terms of population. USA declared war on EnglishCanada then. Why bother with war against obedient Canada in 2020?
    ………….
    You don’t even have the honesty to acknowledge well known phenomina like the big bulk of water runoff in India depend on the monsoon and Chinese Tibet contributes little.
    …………..

    China, however, justifies its control over Tibet by declaring all the wonderful things it does for the Tibetans. That’s exactly what Western imperialists use to say about places like India and Vietnam and Africa. But as my examples of Bhutan and Nepal show above, the Tibetans could’ve done everything on their own. They didn’t need Beijing’s control to build roads, improve life expectancy or adopt universal education. Those things have been happening all around the world.

    Do I need to remind you Tibet GDP/capita, though hampered by unfavorable natural environment there , is > US$7000 (chinese national average is about US10300)precisely because of financial assistance from Beijing while those of Utter Pradesh and Bihar(both just south of the Himalayas)are respectively US$ 972 and US$ 640
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_states_and_union_territories_by_GDP_per_capita
    ………………
    What motivate your hostility:
    **The 1962 war scars still hurts like hell
    **The Tibet upstream water source thingee is disinformation to justify hostility.
    …………
    But you do have my sympathy. I wish Bharat well

  190. @Pincher Martin

    Whose bread I eat, his song I sing:

    In the summer of 1976, Mao lay dying, and China was struck by a great natural disaster. The earthquake that struck Tangshan, a shoddily built mining city, was one of the worst in recorded history, killing half a million people. But the Chinese Communist rulers in Beijing were distracted, paralysed by in-fighting over who would take control after Mao finally died. Would Mao’s fanatical wife and her collaborators, the Gang of Four, be allowed to continue the Cultural Revolution, which had shut China off from the world and reduced it to poverty and chaos Or would Deng Xiaoping and his reformist friends be able to take control and open China up to the market, and end the near permanent state of civil war Palmer recreates the tensions of that fateful summer, when the fate of China and the world were in the balance – as injured and starving people crawled among the ruins of a stricken city. The Death of Mao. James Palmer.

    What a load of horse puckey! Read https://www.unz.com/article/the-great-proletarian-cultural-revolution/.

    The CR was a skills transfer campaign that inculcated literacy, numeracy, public health knowledge, and political emancipation, which latter aroused the vindictive fury of elites in China and abroad.

    Dismayed by the tendency among the Communist Party officials to live a life of privilege once the Party came to power, Mao initiated the Cultural Revolution to emancipate 400,000,000 voiceless peasants whose social status had not changed in 3,000 years and remained unchanged 16 years after the Communists took power.

    Throughout the CR’s ten years, Mao drove inequality to the lowest level ever recorded while growing the economy six percent annually–twice America’s rate–and mechanizing agriculture with a twentyfold increase in tractors; a thirty-five-fold increase in diesel engines; a sixteen-fold increase in electric motors; a sevenfold increase in mills; a fiftyfold increase in grinders and a thirteen-fold increase in sprayers.

    By the end, rural literacy was taken for granted and rural people (no longer ‘peasants’) were as intolerant of oppression and corruption, as vocal about their priorities, as enthusiastic about voting, and as eager to voice complaints as their urban cousins. For the first time in history they were full citizens who could point to the infrastructure they built, the agricultural advances they had made, and the problems they had solved.

    Yet, though hundreds of millions of rural people benefited from the Cultural Revolution, many elites felt that, by destroying the traditional hierarchy, Mao had destroyed the culture itself–a charge that resonated with foreign elites.

    It is true that officials and intellectuals, especially those responsible for running the country, had struggled to maintain their sanity in the midst of an administrative nightmare while many more were subjected to public humiliation or spent years in prison. A handful, crushed by criticisms they found incomprehensible, committed suicide. Some fled abroad and published semi-fictional books about their sufferings and few forgave Mao.

    A small price to pay for the emancipation of 400,000,000 people.

    Mao’s successors, exhausted by luan, humiliation, and persecution sought to discredit him and his revolution. Their revenge was swift, says Mobo Gao[1], who grew up during the CR:

    Soon after Mao died, his vision of educating workers, peasants and soldiers to be new leaders of the socialist society was denounced. The new ‘reformers’ charged that worker, peasant, and soldier-students were not suited for college education and lacked the cultural background to become the educated and charged that China had wasted ten precious years by not educating its brightest. In 1977 the college entrance examination was reinstated and the Education Reform instituted during the Cultural Revolution was repudiated and abandoned. By 1980 the worker, peasant, and soldier university study program disappeared and, just like all other newborn things in the Cultural Revolution, they vanished from the red earth of China like falling stars. However, even though the education revolution was defeated, its glory continues to shine–just like the Paris Commune. The education revolution was a successful attempt by workers, peasants and soldiers to occupy the sphere of ideology. It was an unprecedented milestone in human development on the long road to human emancipation.

    After Mao’s death Deng Xiaoping, the scion of an elite family, dissolved the communes, clinics, and schools and, despite fierce resistance, forced peasants back to the status of small producers. His Reform and Opening, says Orville Schell[2], “Rammed Chinese society into reverse gear, stampeding the country into a form of unregulated capitalism that made the US and Europe seem almost socialist by comparison”.

    A new generation of illiterate peasants, particularly women, emerged and life expectancy fell as destitution, prostitution, drug trafficking and addiction, the sale of women and children, petty crime, organized crime, official corruption, pollution, racketeering and profiteering returned.

    In 1983, when peasants unable to afford their children’s tuition or medical care, teenagers who were forced out of school, and farmers who could not afford privately manufactured fertilizer created a serious crime wave, Deng executed thousands and crushed all signs of dissidence. Seven years later, in a hugely popular film, The Herdsman, a poor herder talks with an intellectual who had been a herder in Mao’s time and later became a teacher, “You were one of us once; now us folk are all done for”.

    Says Dongping Han[3], who also grew up in a village during the CR,

    The Chinese government’s official evaluation of the Cultural Revolution serves to underline the idea, currently very much in vogue around the world, that efforts to achieve development and efforts to attain social equality are contradictory. The remarkable currency of this idea in China and internationally is due, at least in part, to the fact that such an idea is so convenient to those threatened by efforts to attain social equality. This study of the history of Jimo County has challenged this idea. During the Cultural Revolution decade and in the two decades of market reform that followed, Jimo has experienced alternative paths, both of which have led to rural development. The difference in the paths was not between development and stagnation but rather between different kinds of development. The main conclusion I hope readers will draw from the experience of Jimo County during the Cultural Revolution decade is that measures to empower and educate people at the bottom of society can also serve the goal of economic development. It is not necessary to choose between pursuing social equality and pursuing economic development. The real choice is whether or not to pursue social equality.


    [1] Mobo Gao, The Battle For China’s Past: Mao and the Cultural Revolution (London, Pluto Press, 2008), p. 21.
    [2] Mandate of Heaven: The Legacy of Tiananmen Square and the Next Generation. By Orville Schell
    [3] The Unknown Cultural Revolution: Life and Change in a Chinese Village. Dongping Han. 2008.

    • Thanks: vot tak
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  191. @Pincher Martin

    The Chinese have dammed it once?

    When and, particularly, where? The Bhramaputra is colossal, to be sure, but it is not a Chinese river.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  192. denk says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Are any of those statements true of India and China? Do they belong to the same racial stock?

    Hey informed traveller,
    Ever been to the ‘iNDIAN’ NE ?

    The folks definitely look Chinese.
    https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-fc4b0c3e46c0b1d2bfc723ec78d152c1
    Even the terriotry of NE stick out like a sore thumb from the Indian heartland.

    Iow, ethnically and geographically, they simply dont belong .

    How did these chinki faced terrorists, [as per the Indian heartlanders ], ended up as ‘Indians’ ?

    Do we look like Indians ?
    Asked the Nagas.

    [MORE]

    the villagers gathering to give their testimonies, one by one. A woman in white describes what the soldiers did to her children. A man, a rice grower, twists and turns as he re-enacts the various forms his own torture took – finally opening his mouth to the camera and showing the place where his teeth were before the Indian soldiers plucked them out with pliers.

    Testimony after testimony, the horrors unfold.

    A teenage girl weeps by the grave of her executed brother. She has had to replace the tombstone several times – each time to be vandalized again by Indian army forces. A man describes how nails were driven into his eyes. There is plenty that people do not talk about in front of the camera. That comes out in written testimonies. Mass rape is used as a systematic weapon of abuse. People of both sexes are subjected to a humiliating public torture involving hanging upside down with chilli peppers inserted into their orifices.

    Why is the Indian Government doing this? The reason is simple. The majority of the Naga people do not want to be part of India and that is perceived as a major threat to the fragile union of states that forms the modern nation. If some states are allowed independence others may want to follow suit and India will disintegrate, it is feared. Parallels with Kashmir have been drawn.

    ‘It’s not the same,’ says Yongkong. ‘Kashmir agreed to be part of India and recognized the Constitution. We never have.’ Nagaland was simply handed over – or betrayed – by the departing British in 1947.

    Do we look like Indians?’ another Naga exile, Khodao Yanthan, rhetorically asks me.

    The three million Nagas who inhabit the region are of Sino-Mongolian origin. Culturally, linguistically and physically they have more in common with the Karen people in Burma or even the Chinese than with the Indians. Indian troops – many from the notoriously undisciplined Assam Rifles – are taught that the Nagas are cannibals and head-hunters who must be dealt with accordingly. The result is pitiful.

    In the words of one elderly Naga: ‘They have destroyed everything that it is possible to destroy. How can we ever rebuild our lives?’

    India’s censorship of its war in Nagaland has been largely successful. Helped by geography, the Indian authorities have succeeded by making it a no-go zone. They have also saturated it militarily: there are 150,000 Indian troops stationed in Nagaland to fight a Naga resistance army of 3,000. As a result facts and figures to substantiate claims of human-rights abuses – the stuff journalists normally need in order to run a story – are patchy and hard to come by.

    But in 1991 two human-rights activists smuggled their way into Nagaland and spent three months moving around the country collecting evidence.

    David Ward and Steve Hillman visited 30 villages and recorded the testimonies I am now watching. It is probably the most thorough account available, and it communicates the warmth of these people as well as their plight.

    The first targets for torture and execution are teachers, pastors – most Nagas are Baptist Christians – and women, according to David Ward. ‘They go for people with influence in the community – and women are highly regarded,’ he explains.

    https://newint.org/features/1994/06/05/keynote

    • Agree: showmethereal
  193. @Lin

    You basically denied your ignorance and confusion and try to shift the blame.
    Fact is Canada in 1812 was not a client state of US precisely because US wasn’t a superpower like England but it still was a hell lot bigger than Canada in terms of population. USA declared war on EnglishCanada then. Why bother with war against obedient Canada in 2020?

    This is exactly what I meant when I said you’re not very smart.

    When I first mentioned the Canadian border, I was making a comparison between how the United States chose to announce its great power status to the world in the late-19th and early 20th centuries and how you claim India has chosen to announce its “superpower status” to the world in 2020.

    This violated one of my fundamental rules of online debate, which is to never make a historical comparison to a chimpanzee because it will only waste my time and confuse the chimp.

    I will now violate this precept one more time as I attempt to make history here by teaching a lower primate how to handle an historical analogy.

    The US had long-standing issues with Great Britain along the Canadian border during the entire 19th century. It wasn’t just the War of 1812.

    There was also the Rush-Bagot Treaty of 1817. the Treaty of 1818, the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, the Oregon Question of 1844 which was diplomatically solved by the Oregon Treaty of 1846, and the bloodless Pig War of 1859. During the late 19th-century, the British and Americans jointly cooperated in a survey that marked the border between Minnesota and the Rockies. But in 1903, there was another border dispute between the UK, Canada, and the US about the southern Alaskan border with Canada which was solved by the Treaty of 1908. (You can look up all the details at Wikipedia.)

    So just as India has had a long-running border dispute with China, one that began even before the Sino-Indian War of 1962, so did the US have a long-running border dispute with the British-protected territory and eventual confederation of Canada that began with the War of 1812, but then went on for nearly a hundred years.

    Americans considered Great Britain their top geopolitical competitor during the entire 19th century so those border conflicts were always charged with the potential for violence. But the U.S. was too undermanned and underarmed to successfully take on the British in the early 19th century in what would’ve been an offensive war. The U.S. instead got most of the territory it desired because the British were preoccupied with so many other global tasks and strategic concerns.

    But in the late 19th century, the local strategic balance in North America began turning in America’s favor. The U.S. built a fleet in the late 19th century and the country’s population had increased nearly ten times between the War of 1812 and 1900. America was no longer a sparsely-populated fractious country the Brits could push around.

    So if the U.S. was going to pick a fight with Britain over any parts of the Canadian border, sometime around 1900 would’ve been a good time to do it. But it still would’ve been a tough fight. The Brits at the time had global responsibilities and were worried about the rise Germany, but they would not have been pushovers in any war. Instead, the U. S. looked both south, and to Asia, and picked a much easier fight with Spain.

    *****

    Why does any of this matter? You’ve bizarrely claimed that India has stirred up this border conflict with China to announce its “superpower status.” I think this is silly for multiple reasons.

    First, you don’t announce your new “superpower status” by picking fights you can’t win. New Delhi lost their first border war with Beijing in 1962. There’s no reason to believe the outcome today would be any different.

    Second, reviving old border skirmishes does not announce great power status to anyone. Instead, it’s more of “Oh, it’s that again?”

    Third, India has indeed sought to show the world in other ways that it is a great power through the growing sophistication of its space program, including a recent failed attempt to become only the fourth country to make an unmanned soft landing on the moon, and by a naval buildup which will allow it to project power out of its region. The naval buildup is very similar to what the U.S. did in the late 19th-century to announce its own great power status.

    *****

    So my historical comparison with how the U.S. chose to announce its great power status to the world in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (and how it chose not to announce it) was to demonstrate how such things are usually done.

    I’m sure this has gone completely over your head, but I just wanted to put on record my earnest attempt at your education. Think of me like the Han Chinese and you like the Tibetan, where I keep doing things for your benefit, even though you don’t appreciate it and there’s no evidence it helps you.

    • Replies: @vot tak
  194. @Lin

    Do I need to remind you Tibet GDP/capita, though hampered by unfavorable natural environment there , is > US$7000 (chinese national average is about US10300)precisely because of financial assistance from Beijing while those of Utter Pradesh and Bihar(both just south of the Himalayas)are respectively US$ 972 and US$ 640

    India is filled with many stupid people who couldn’t screw in a light bulb if they were given a three-month seminar in the subject.

    So the proper comparison with Tibet is not impoverished Indian states, but an independent country with a similar land and a similar people who share a similar culture.

    And that would be Bhutan.

    The Bhutanese even speak a Sino-Tibetan language and use the Tibetan alphabet for their written language.

    Bhutan is a freer, wealthier, and cleaner place than Tibet and its people live longer – despite living somewhat shorter lives than Tibetans in 1950.

    And Bhutan was able to do all that without Chinese help. There’s no reason to believe Tibet would be in any different situation than Bhutan today if it were free of Chinese control.

    • Replies: @denk
  195. @Godfree Roberts

    The Chinese have dammed it once?

    When and, particularly, where? The Bhramaputra is colossal, to be sure, but it is not a Chinese river.

    They dammed it in Tibet, where the Bhramaputra river is called the Yarlung Tsanpo. The damn is called the Zangmu. Construction on it began in 2009, and it became fully operational in 2015.

    Here’s how Wikipedia described the controversy (although I think the excellent article cited above by vot tak described it much better detail).

    As the Brahmaputra River flows into India and Bangladesh, China’s plans to construct a dam on the river are not without controversy. Reportedly, China had previously denied that they were constructing a dam on the Brahmaputra River, even after the contract was awarded. In April 2010, Yang Jiechi, their Foreign Minister, officially revealed that they were in fact constructing the Zangmu Dam on the river. China has assured India that the dam is “a small project which will not have any impact on the river’s downstream flow into North-East India.”[12][16][17][18] Indian officials such as the Arunachal Pradesh Power Minister Jabron Gamlin express that “China’s constructing a dam is a cause of concern for us, but we are not certain how big this dam is and what affect it would have on people living downstream”.[13] Reportedly, China has refused requests to reduce the height of the dam but the Indian Minister of External Affairs at the time, S. M. Krishna, had asserted that India was not concerned with the dam due to its run-of-the-river design.[19] In January 2013 China approved three more dams on the river as part of its Twelfth Five Year Plan. The Dagu (640 MW) and Jiexu (560 MW) dams will be constructed upstream of Zangmu and the Jiacha Dam (320 MW) downstream.[20]

    So the current dam does not divert river water to China, but who knows about future dams.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  196. @Pincher Martin

    The Brahmaputra has many tributaries, some of which are in China.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  197. @Godfree Roberts

    Whose bread I eat, his song I sing:

    So by that same logic, does that mean you are no more than a sock puppet for Ron Unz? Would you also cry on cue for him?

    BTW, is there any proof the Asia Society paid James Palmer for that appearance? Most journalists are happy to make public appearances without remuneration to promote their work. His employer is Foreign Policy, not Asia Society.

    Palmer works for a mainstream U.S. journalistic outfit, and so he most likely has the same biases that most of those journalists have, but that would still not explain his emotional breakdown when describing the loss of his Uyghur sources. Unless you think he’s an Oscar-caliber actor.

    What a load of horse puckey! Read https://www.unz.com/article/the-great-proletarian-cultural-revolution/.

    The Cultural Revolution (1966-76) was a disaster for China, as was Mao’s Great Leap Forward (1958-62), a disaster which Mao used the Cultural Revolution to cover up.

    One can chart this judgment by using the Chinese economic statistics from those years, and comparing them to other periods in modern Chinese history.

    China’s GDP actually shrank in the Great Leap Forward, from $59.716 billion in 1960 to $47,209 in 1962. So basically 20% of China’s already-quite-small economy disappeared in just three years. (See World Bank data for China)

    That’s almost impossible for a developing country to do unless it’s losing a war. That economic fact alone also explains why so many Chinese died in this period. That 20% loss of GDP represented food that disappeared out of their mouths. Mao temporarily retired out of public view because of its obvious failure.

    The Cultural Revolution was not quite the same economic disaster as the Great Leap Forward, but China’s GDP did initially shrink in the first two years before it recovered in 1969. But even after the recovery annual growth was very slow until Deng took over.

    Of the ten years from 1967 to 1976, China’s economic growth shrank in three of those years (1967, 1968, and 1976). By way of comparison, once Feng took over in 1978, China’s annual GDP has shrank only twice in forty years. Mao, when he was in total control, shrank China’s economy five times in less than fifteen years.

    You can see both of Mao’s dips in China’s economic GDP when looking at this graph China and India’s growth over the last seven decades:

  198. @Godfree Roberts

    The Yarlong Tsangpo is the main tributary to the Brahmaputra. It’s more important as a source of water to the Brahmaputra than the Missouri River is to the Mississippi River. The headwaters in Tibet are used to calculate the full length of the river, and any map of the Brahmaputra shows the Yarlong Tsangpo’s route. According to Wikipedia, the entire river is sometimes called the Tsangpo-Brahmaputra river.

    • Troll: vot tak
  199. vot tak says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Essentially, this post is the definition of trolling.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  200. Anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Taoism in theory or in practice? The 道德经 (dao de ching) seems pretty clear about good governance and keeping things simple and real.

    Taoist religion and culture as practiced? Maybe that’s a different kettle of fish?

  201. Anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @GeneralRipper

    No, he lives in North Thailand. He’s just another interloping falang, enjoying the weather, women, and food.

    • Troll: Godfree Roberts
  202. Vidi says:
    @Pincher Martin

    I repeat: what percentage of ethnic Tibetans want the Dalai Lama and his torturers back? You say “a clear majority”. I doubt a “clear majority” of all the ethnic Tibetans in the TAR want the holy torturers back.

    You’d be wrong. He’s so popular that Beijing has made it illegal to display his photo and the Chinese authorities have arrested some Tibetans merely for possessing it.

    I don’t know if the photo ban is true or just another CIA lie; I may take that up some other time.

    But in the meantime, you’re evading the issue: what percentage of Tibetans in Tibet Autonomous Region — taking into account the whole Tibetan ethnicity there — want the Dalai Lama and his torturers back? If you restrict a poll to just the monks, no doubt that 100% of them want a restoration of the Dala Lama’s old religious dictatorship. However, the opinion of the average guy is more important. Therefore I repeat: what percentage of Tibetans in Tibet Autonomous Region — taking into account the whole Tibetan ethnicity there — want the Dalai Lama and his torturers back?

    Speaking of torture, that’s some pretty tortuous reasoning.

    I will try to clarify.

    First, a recap: Palden Gyatso was a Tibetan monk. As I have shown, those monks were into torture — the Dalai Lama’s palace, the Potala, had chambers dedicated to inflicting pain. So it is likely that Palden himself did some torturing, or was involved in it.

    My hopefully improved question is, Why should I believe a man who’s so cruel? Palden claimed to have been tortured, yet he was not sufficiently honest to admit that he himself committed torture, or had caused some people to be tortured, or by his acquiescence had allowed them to be tortured. Why should I believe an obviously dishonest and cruel man?

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  203. @Pincher Martin

    “James Palmer is a deputy editor at Foreign Policy. Palmer is the author of The Bloody White Baron: The Extraordinary Story of the Russian Nobleman Who …” So we know where James Palmer’s sympathies lie and who employs him: he is a paid propagandist.

    We know that class solidarity always wins hands down over ideology, which is why the Parisian bourgeois murdered 10,000 workers after it destroyed the Commune. The Chinese elite were happy to go along with the Western elite in badmouthing the Cultural Revolution: democracy, after all, cannot be permitted to get out of hand.

    But the truth is plain to see:

    Cultural Revolution GDP Growth USA vs. China

    USA
    Dec 31, 1966 4.29 trillion
    Dec 31, 1976 5.73 trillion
    Growth = 33.6%

    China
    1966 188.87
    1976 298.86
    Growth = 58%

    American plant geneticist and father of the Green Revolution, Sterling Wortman[1], who led a delegation on a tour of inspection. “The rice crop is really first rate. There was just field after field that was as good as anything you can see. They’re all being brought up to the level of skills of the best people. They all share the available inputs”. Nobel agronomist Norman Borlaug agreed, “You had to look hard to find a bad field. Everything was green and nice everywhere we traveled. I felt the progress had been much more remarkable than I expected”.

    Wortman’s Green Revolution was then crushing Third World grain prices, destroying millions of small farms, ruining farming communities, and creating vast shanty towns of rural immigrants that persist to this day. To save capital and create local jobs, teams of peasants, workers, Mao’s technicians created thousands of local fertilizer plants and farm machinery factories where, without leaving their communities, peasants learned industrial skills. Says Nicholas Lardy, “Socialism eliminates the barrier of private ownership. Innovations and knowledge become social property. One task of the planning system in China was exactly to socialize such knowledge”.


    [1] U.S. Crop Experts Praise China’s Achievements in Growing Food. By Joseph Lelyveld. The New York Times, Sept. 24, 1974

    • Thanks: vot tak
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  204. denk says:
    @Pincher Martin

    YOu would rather see Bhutan under control by your Indian cousins so you took out the King who wanna befriend China.

    You’d rather the Tibetans groaning under the tyranny of the lamas or perhaps disciplined by your Indian cousins AFSPA, than enjoying the world’s most enlightened AA policy under Han rule….so you mounted that 1959 caper, failing which, you shipped HMDL’s men to Colorado , trained as contras, airdropped them back in China to create havoc, orchestrated the 2008 riots and beyond, until this very day.

    What happened if you succeeded, we dont have to conjecture, the world is littered with failed states from your R2p[lunder] long arm jurisdiction…
    For starter, ask the Iraqis, or Afghans….

    Or the OKinawans, Jeju islanders, Marshall islanders.

    Or Chagosians,
    exiled to gettos 2000 miles away from home cuz you needed another gawd damned naval base, in addition to the hundreds dotted all over the world to protect the oh so endangered motherland.
    https://johnmenadue.com/mark-valencia-the-us-hypocrisy-on-the-south-china-sea-and-diego-garcia/

    USA, gringo,
    YOur name is hypocrisy.

    gringo have lost their English heritage, today IM gonna teach you an old English idiom…..
    Charity starts at home.

    If gringo is too dense to understand their forebears language,
    its like..
    MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BIZ.

    • Agree: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  205. @vot tak

    You think every post I make is trolling.

    You have labeled with “troll” fourteen separate posts of mine in this thread, all of which are filled with good arguments and information and only the occasional well-deserved insult.

    In the response to two other posts of mine you have written”troll” in your own posts rather than label them as such.

    In yet another post to Godfree, you have described me a zionist Nazi troll and gave him unsolicited advice on how to handle me, which he thanked you for but did not act on.

    And in still another post to Vidi, you compared me to an “Israeli” who does nothing but “lie.”

    *****

    I don’t think you even know what an argument is. You certainly have added nothing of worth to this discussion.

    More importantly, you seem too believe that you and your allies in this thread should be able to freely insult the character and motives of anyone who makes an argument you don’t like, while at the same time being free from similar insults to your own character and motives, even when those insults fit you better than they fit your opponents.

    • Agree: Poco
    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Troll: vot tak
  206. @Vidi

    But in the meantime, you’re evading the issue: what percentage of Tibetans in Tibet Autonomous Region — taking into account the whole Tibetan ethnicity there — want the Dalai Lama and his torturers back? If you restrict a poll to just the monks, no doubt that 100% of them want a restoration of the Dala Lama’s old religious dictatorship. However, the opinion of the average guy is more important. Therefore I repeat: what percentage of Tibetans in Tibet Autonomous Region — taking into account the whole Tibetan ethnicity there — want the Dalai Lama and his torturers back?

    They don’t have professional polling in Tibet, so it is you and not I who is being evasive by continually begging for an answer to a question that really shouldn’t be asked because it really can’t be answered with any precision.

    But by all accounts, including Beijing’s implicit admissions over the years, the Dalai Lama is hugely popular in Tibet. But no one knows with any precision exactly how popular. It could be that 91% of Tibetans want him back. Or it could be that 88% want him back. Or maybe it’s as low as 75% (and I doubt it’s that low). Or maybe it’s as high as 96.435%

    Who knows and who cares.

    In any case, it’s clear that the vast majority of Tibetans feel great reverence for him and that is why Beijing still fears him many decades after he fled his home.

    First, a recap: Palden Gyatso was a Tibetan monk. As I have shown, those monks were into torture — the Dalai Lama’s palace, the Potala, had chambers dedicated to inflicting pain. So it is likely that Palden himself did some torturing, or was involved in it.

    You’re simply repeating what you said before, and it’s a heavy and unproven indictment against not only all Tibetan monks, who are a large part of Tibet’s population, but against all of Tibetan society which feels great reverence for those monks.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Vidi
  207. Vidi says:
    @Pincher Martin

    China’s GDP actually shrank in the Great Leap Forward, from $59.716 billion in 1960 to $47,209 in 1962. So basically 20% of China’s already-quite-small economy disappeared in just three years. (See World Bank data for China)

    I can’t find the numbers 59.716 and 47.209 in the World Bank data that you cite (I downloaded the CSV file). Can you specify which line you’re using? (That particular data file has over 1000 lines.) An indicator name (3rd column) or indicator code (4th column) should work for me.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  208. @Godfree Roberts

    You’ve avoided mentioning the Great Leap Forward in this recent post, so I’ll assume that even you now realize how deep of an economic hole Mao put the country in that period.

    As for the Cultural Revolution, it was not quite as bad as the Great Leap Forward, but it was still pretty bad. You just don’t understand how terrible those economic stats are that you cite.

    BTW, comparing the U.S. to China in that period is a pointless exercise because the U.S. was a fully developed economy and China was a peasant economy. Developing economies almost always much grow faster than fully developed economics because they are able to pay catch-up by borrowing technology and information to increase their productivity.

    So let’s just use the stats you provided. China grew 58% in the ten years of the Cultural Revolution, which comes to annualized percentage of 5.8% a year.

    That’s extremely low for China in the modern era. The only period lower is the Great Leap Forward. So Mao has the dissection of leading China during its two worst periods of economc growth in the modern era.

    In the 1980s and 1990s, China routinely grew more than 50% every five years. So in other words, Mao’s revolution halved the expected growth rate for the country. What China could’ve otherwise got done in five years, it took ten years to do under Mao.

    Is that the kind of economic leadership you crave?

    Even in the oughties, as China’s economy began to mature, its growth rate was still well above what took place during the Cultural Revolution. An annualized 10% per year.

    And never – not once – has China experienced negative real economic growth since 1977, which it did five times under Mao. See here.

    So we know where James Palmer’s sympathies lie and who employs him: he is a paid propagandist.

    Are you? I mean if that’s how you judge all journalists, don’t we have a right to know how you make your money?

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  209. @denk

    YOu would rather see Bhutan under control by your Indian cousins so you took out the King who wanna befriend China.

    Denk, I highly doubt you could find either Tibet or Bhutan on a map.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @denk
  210. @Pincher Martin

    I am self-employed and have been for many years, nor have I made a penny for my writings on China.

    I never cease to wonder at our media’s eagerness to turn Chinese silk purses into sows’ ears. Though China has always grown faster, longer than any economy in history, media pessimism was and remains the rule. The recency of this example allow us to judge the distance between the official narrative and observed reality:

    Reporting on China’s Fourteenth Party Congress in 1992, The Economist said the Party had ‘stepped backwards’ and called its socialist market economy ‘an oxymoron.’ At the next Congress[1] it reported, ‘hollow promises, from privatization to unemployment goals, made and broken’ and warned that ‘raising people’s expectations is a recipe for civil strife.’ The Seventeenth Congress found the Party facing ‘inevitable, looming crisis and unrest’ and, at the next congress, The Economist found ‘the entire country unstable at the grassroots, dejected at the middle strata and out of control at the top.’ By 2017, at the Nineteenth Congress, China was at death’s door, “Though Mr. Xi talked about a new era the next five years sound, from his speech, to be much like the past five–only more so… a risky assertion in a country where many are prospering but many feel left out,” warning, “not to expect Mr. Xi to change China, or the world, for the better”.

    Though the Great Leap was a failure when judged by its ambitions it was, nevertheless, far more successful than any comparable effort in (wealthier, less besieged or embargoed) India.

    Coal, textile, and electricity generation rose thirty percent and infrastructure, forty percent in the first three years and peasants built thousands of dams, including nine of today’s ten largest. One, the gigantic Xinfengjiang Reservoir, holds ten cubic meters of clean water for every Chinese and has generated billions of kilowatts of electricity, powered rural and urban development, played a vital role in flood control and irrigation and still waters Guangdong and Hong Kong. Says Maurice Meisner[2], “The higher yields obtained on individual family farms during later years would not have been possible without the vast irrigation and flood-control projects–dams, irrigation works and river dikes–constructed by collectivized peasants in the 1950s and 1960s..By some key social and demographic indicators, China compared favorably even with middle income countries whose per capita GDP was five times greater”.

    Of all the industrial projects China would launch in the next fifteen years, two-thirds were founded during the Great Leap–but its achievements were overshadowed by a catastrophe. Mao had anticipated bureaucratic resistance, foreign embargoes, official corruption and peasant reluctance but did not anticipate that, just as his grand experiment got underway, China would endure three years of the worst weather in a century. An El Nino cycle which halved Canada’s prairie wheat crop[3] and created New England’s worst recorded drought cut the cereal harvest by one-third. The spring harvest in the Southwest rice bowl was lost to drought and the Hunan region flooded. From two hundred million tons in 1958, harvests fell to one-hundred forty-three million in 1960.

    Nevertheless, China made great strides in industrialization during the Great Leap. They made their first car, their first truck, their first tractor, their first airplane, their first gunboat, and so on. Peasants built a great number of reservoirs. Of the ten biggest reservoirs in China today, the Danjiangkou Reservoir, Miyun Reservoir, Shisanling Reservoir, Xiashan Reservoir, Xinanjiang Reservoir, Lushui Reservoir, Xinfengjiang Reservoir, Songtao Reservoir, Shengzhong Reservoir, and Guanyinge Reservoir, nine were built during the Great Leap Forward.

    Like my mother, my father never went to school when he was young. He started working as an apprentice when he was 13 years old. When the Communist Party came to power, the Government set up night schools for workers who wanted to learn how to read and write. He learned how to read and write at the night school. Later, the factory sent him to get training from Shandong Industrial College in Jinan. Because of the training he got, he and a few others were put in charge of building a steel factory in my county (Jimo County) during the Great Leap Forward.

    The factory was set up in 1958, and in a very short time span, the factory recruited 2000 workers from the rural areas in the county, mostly young men in their late teens and early twenties. For three months, my father interviewed and recruited these workers. Two years later, faced with economic difficulties caused by the natural disasters and the souring of relations with the Soviet Union, the Government decided to close down the steel factory.

    The 2,000 young workers my father recruited and trained were all asked to go back to their original villages. Mr. Sun Jingxian (who, as mentioned earlier, wrote a refutation of the inflated estimates of deaths during 1959-61) argues in his article that the alleged population loss (on paper) during the Great Leap Forward was partly caused by the fact that a large number of people moved in this period. First they moved as a result of industrialization at the beginning of the Great Leap Forward; and later they moved because the closing down of these factories led to workers being sent back. What happened in my fatherʼs factory could support Mr. Sunʼs argument. An important point I want to make here is that these rural youth received important training during the two years working in my fatherʼs factory.

    Let me tell you how I found out if people starved to death during the Great Leap Forward. I went to the places where the famine was supposed to have been very bad. I talked with all the old people in the village and asked them how many people starved to death in their village. In one village, where there were 2,000 people during the Great Leap Forward, some people said that about 100 people died and some people said that 50 people died. I then asked these same people to tell me the names of these people who died and how old these people were when they died. It turned out that in this village of 2,000 people, these old people could only name 15 people collectively, and those who died were all over 60 years old (when life expectancy then was less than 60 years), except one man who was in his forties. But this man was a mentally handicapped orphan, who lived alone, could not care for himself and had nobody else to help him. And sadly, he died prematurely. In the last 30- odd years, one heard many stories about starvation and famine during the Great Leap Forward. But most of the stories could not stand close scrutiny and examination.

    Frank Dikötter also claimed that he had documents to prove that Chairman Mao was willing to starve half of the Chinese people to death so that the other half could have more than enough to eat. My friend challenged him to produce the document. Dikötter said that he had an agreement with the source of the document not to show the document to anybody. But under pressure, he agreed to let my friend in Hong Kong to see the document. It turned out that the document was a speech by Chairman Mao at a meeting discussing the investment planned in industrial projects. China had planned to launch over one thousand industrial projects in 1960. Chairman Mao said in the speech that he would rather cut the number of investment projects by half so the Government would have enough money to quickly complete the remaining half of the projects. But Dikötter interpreted Chairman Maoʼs words to mean that he was willing to starve half the Chinese population in order that the other half have more than enough to eat. Dikötter claimed that he was a China specialist. I wonder if he was able to read and understand Chinese text, or he was in fact a linguistic genius who could read into the Chinese language something that was not there in the first place.

    I had a debate with one of my professors when he said in class that 40 million Chinese peasants starved to death in the Great Leap Forward. I asked him why the Chinese peasants, allegedly facing certain starvation, did not rebel during the Great Leap Forward. Chinese peasants had rebelled so many times in history when there was a famine. He said that Chinese people were too starved to rebel then. I said that apparently the Chinese peasants were not too starved to build thousands of reservoirs during the Great Leap Forward. He then said that the Chinese peasants did not have weapons during the Great Leap Forward with which to rebel. I said that throughout Chinese history, the Chinese ruling classes never allowed Chinese peasants to have weapons. But that did not prevent Chinese peasants from rebellion with sticks and shovels, again and again. In our Chinese language, we have a proverb, “jie gan erqi” (pick up a bamboo stick and rebel), to describe one of the earliest rebellions in the Qin Dynasty.

    I also told my professor that the Mao era was an exception in Chinese history: under Chairman Mao, the Chinese State did allow the Chinese people, both peasants and workers, to have weapons. During the Great Leap Forward, the Chinese government called upon the Chinese people to organize several hundred divisions of militia.
    Peasants worked in the fields with rifles stacked beside them. This summer I interviewed the former village party secretary of Yakoucun Village in Guangzhou. He told me that during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution years, his villageʼs militia had more than 200 rifles, machines guns, and even anti-air artilleries. The village militia was trained regularly. The weapons were taken away from the village when Deng Xiaoping started the rural reforms in 1982. It would be much easier for peasants to rebel, if they wanted to, with such easy access to weapons. But there was not even a protest, let alone a rebellion, during the Great Leap Forward.

    [1] Out of the shadow of Deng–Print edition | Asia. Sep 18th 1997. BEIJING
    [2] Mao Zedong: A Political and Intellectual Portrait 1st Edition. by Maurice Meisner 2007
    [3] The U.S. Geological Survey says the New England Drought began in 1960 in western Massachusetts, then in 1962 eastern Massachusetts dried up. The drought was “such a rare event that we should ordinarily expect it to occur in this region only about once in a couple of centuries.” The 1965 Drought, New England’s Worst Ever. New England Historical Society. Updated 2019
    [4] Dongping Han, Hao Qi, Mobo Gao. Remembering Socialist China, 1949-1976 (http://www.rupe-india.org/59/han.html))

    • Thanks: vot tak
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  211. denk says:
    @Pincher Martin

    I suppose this hand on gringo knows more about ‘independent’ BHutan than everybody else.

    Who precisely is bullying Bhutan? And what exactly are Indian troops doing on Bhutanese land in the first place?

    [MORE]

    Just defending poor little Bhutan against big China’s bullying “aggression”? Who, in fact, is more seriously threatening Bhutan’s sovereignty and independence – China or India?

    When “friendship” turns to control.

    In fact, India has maintained a strong military presence throughout Bhutan for half a century, exercising its power and influence in every corner of Bhutanese life. Even in the remote and strategic areas of northern Bhutan, far from anything Indian, Indian soldiers exercise their authority and control the movement of local Bhutanese. Convoys of Indian military trucks travel freely across Bhutan and cannot be checked for contents by the Bhutanese authorities. The Indian army has occupied the Haa Dzong for decades, and has given no indication of handing it back to the Bhutanese. The Dzongs have since the time of Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyel, the founder of Bhutan, been a seat of power and a symbol of governance.

    It is noteworthy that Indian troops’ efforts to block Chinese road construction on the Bhutan border are portrayed in Indian media as stopping China from building roads into India – revealing just how little respect the Indians really have for Bhutanese “sovereignty.” But such spin is not surprising. In Bhutan, the IMTRAT (Indian Military Training) General, and Indian Ambassador both residing in the two most prized real estates in the capital, are said to be the most powerful men in the country, even determining what does and does not get published in the national media.

    When Bhutan obtained Asian Development Bank funding for a strategic highway linking its east and west, to avoid the necessity of Bhutanese travel through troubled, strike-prone and often violent Assam and West Bengal, India vetoed the plan. The highway was cancelled and Bhutan remains dependent on India’s grace and mercy for its own internal east-west transit. Just a few weeks ago an angry mob of Indians beat up a Bhutanese truck driver and set his truck on fire for being involved in a road accident.

    But this Indian interference and infringement on Bhutanese sovereignty extends far beyond the military-strategic sphere into every aspect of Bhutan’s political and economic life.

    Thus, Bhutan is the only sovereign independent nation in the world that has no diplomatic relations with any of the five permanent U.N. Security Council members – the US, UK, France, China and Russia – only because India, jealous of its exclusive hegemony over Bhutan and fearful of any competitive influence, won’t allow it.

    Its alright then, your Indian cousins are exercising control in Bhutan, not the damned chicoms.

    hehehehhe

    http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0712/c90000-9240652.html

  212. @Pincher Martin

    “Tibetans are always fighting Tibetans. Westerners usually have this idea of Tibetans as peaceful Buddhist monks, but they are a tough, feisty people”

    The irony is that you have simply proved my point. Tibetan has always had a fighting history and has nothing to do with Han rule.

    “But until the modern era, the only times Tibet had been under the Chinese political yoke were when the Mongols and Manchus were in Beijing”

    That is correct – because the Han always gave other ethnic groups “autonomy”. In the Tang Dynasty – well before the Yuan – the Han and Tibetans entered into what we would call a confederation now. Of course that was after the Tibetans tried to fight the Han and lost. Either way – Yuan and Manchu were both Chinese dynasties… They just weren’t Han ruled.

    “By that same historical standard, all of Mongolia should belong to the PRC.”

    As to those riots in 2008… Well hey if you think that was spontaneous leading up to the Olympics then there is a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Nepal didn’t want to be a part of the folly so arrested the Tibetans protesting there. Nepal is always being drawn in by the US and India to go against China. Nepal is not stupid. They keep their independence. They know this was a coordinated thing.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23780660/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/china-reports-riots-sichuan-province/#.X4L9v2hKjIU

    Actually – the ROC constitution in Taiwan for a long time still claimed that Outer Mongolia was a part of the country and said the PRC were servants of the Soviets for letting it go (though the irony is that they themselves were servants of the US – who made that agreement with the Soviets to split it from China). Go figure…

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  213. @Pincher Martin

    Quit with the nonsense about Bhutan.
    You claim they are at perfect peace.. Give me a break. What of the Lhotshampa people who were once 44% and now down to 20% of the population because they have been driven out – and live as refugees in Nepal!?!? Who are you trying to fool????

    Bhutan CANNOT do anything diplomatically without Indian approval. They do not have sovereignty in reality.

  214. @Pincher Martin

    “The KMT generals used the CIA to get much-needed dollars to finance their drug lord operations and then only pretended to keep fighting the communists in China”

    So you are claiming that Air America was run by the KMT???? But you are correct – the KMT milked the US gov for years. Doesn’t mean the CIA didn’t support drug trafficking – just as it did in Central and South America when cocaine became “a thing”.

    “The Dalai Lama has been a public figure for decades. If he wasn’t likable, then most people wouldn’t like him.”

    That is complete and utter nonsense. Aside from the very few Buddhist enthusiasts in the west – nobody had a clue who or what a Dalai Lama was. To most Europeans of the late 19th and earliest 20th century the most they new of Tibet was that it was a place where Christian missionaries were murdered. Joe “hot dog” across the Atlantic never had the slightest clue. He only became famous after he got a public relations remake in the anti China CIA program which still carries on. His history and that of Tibetan culture is completely white washed to make them seem like a bunch of flower pickers. If the Dalai Lama lived like that in Wiscounsin as a Native Tribe – it would have been labelled a cult and the children would have been placed in “good Christian schools” and given western names as happened to MANY North American tribes – who had less repressive societies than Tibet.

    “Bhutan is not under India’s thumb. India and Bhutan have an excellent relationship and each time Bhutan”

    That is absolute rubbish. India has forced them not to solve their border issue with China for India’s sake. Trade with China is cut off because of India. India has tried to do the same with Nepal but Nepal resisted. For it’s trouble – India BLOCKADED Nepal (not just because of China – but because it seeks to completely control all of Nepal’s politics and economy like it does Bhutan). Nepal still resists and instead furthers ties with China more.. Bhutan would suffer military intervention if it tries to resist India. Come on… Do better than that. You are talking like a novice.

    As to saying drug operations would have started up anyway… yeah that’s a common excuse criminals use for destroying a community “well somebody else was going to do it anyway”.

    • Replies: @denk
    , @Pincher Martin
  215. anon[317] • Disclaimer says:

    Why are Japanese less invasive than Chinese today? Why are Chinese more dominant than Japanese in SEA?

    • Replies: @denk
  216. denk says:
    @showmethereal

    You are talking like a novice.

    Martin is from land of freedumb

    hehehehe

  217. @Vidi

    I just took the numbers from the top left-hand graph, which shows China’s GDP in US dollars. If you move your mouse along the beginning of the line in that graph (which begins in 1960) it will show you each year of China’s GDP, including the precipitous drops in both 1961 and 1962.

    Or, if you prefer, you could use this table I linked in one of my posts to Godfree. It’s from the IMF’s WEO and shows China’s historical GDP from 1952 to the present using something called international dollars.

    Using that methodology, the drop in real economic growth in China during the Great Leap Forward was over 16% in 1961 and over 5% in 1962, which in aggregate US dollars matches up with the World Bank data above ($59.72 billion in 1960 to $47.21 billion in 1962).

    Just let your eyes float down the line with “real growth (%).” Go from 2019 to 1953. In those 66 years, China suffered negative real economic contractions in only five of them, and all five took place when Mao was firmly in charge of country during either the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution.

    Not even the Tiananmen Square Massacre and subsequent crackdown, when growth slowed to 4.2% in 1989 and 3.9% in 199o, or covid this year, when growth is projected to fall to 2%, were as bad for China’s economy as was Mao.

    Even the CCP knows this. They say that Mao was 70% good/right and 30% bad/wrong.

    Why did the Chinese communists come up with that formula instead of completely disavowing Mao? Because they did not want to do to Mao what Khrushchev did to Stalin. They felt the Soviet Union’s leadership had undermined the party when it came down so hard against Stalin’s rule after his death.

    But Deng needed a way to also show the CCP recognized Mao’s obvious mistakes, which specifically were the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. In their eyes, Mao’s great triumph, of course, was reunifying the country under communist rule.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Vidi
  218. @Godfree Roberts

    I am self-employed and have been for many years, nor have I made a penny for my writings on China.

    As a rule, the people with no skin in the game have just as little incentive to learn the truth as they do to tell a self-serving lie.

    It’s like asking for stock market advice. Am I supposed to take the word of someone who never invests? Or do I look for informed investors, listen to their arguments, and then try to make out who has the best advice for me?

    The Westerners who know China the best get paid for that knowledge. Either at the university or in some other line of work.

    But even the experts who know the country the best are going to disagree about it, sometimes vehemently. So it’s still worthwhile for someone who is NOT an expert to know how the evaluate expert arguments.

    In this case, Palmer is not even making an expert argument. He’s simply emotional about the loss of his Uyghur sources. That emotion does not look fake to me. Nor do I imagine would it look fake to most reasonable people.

    A better line of argument for people like you in responding to Palmer’s emotional description would be to simply say that Beijing has no reason to cooperate with the Western media and that its crackdown in Xinjiang is to help stabilize the region, not annihilate the Uyghurs. I think this is still a euphemistic description of what’s going on in Xinjiang but at least it has the benefit of not being obviously false.

    I never cease to wonder at our media’s eagerness to turn Chinese silk purses into sows’ ears. Though China has always grown faster, longer than any economy in history, media pessimism was and remains the rule.

    China’s economic growth has been amazing. The PRC has lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty over the last four decades. It’s the greatest explosion of wealth in world history. Never have so many people gotten so much in so little time.

    But Mao had little to do with that. If anything, he prevented it from happening much sooner.

    And more to the point of this thread, China’s economic growth has not been environmentally friendly.

    As for journalistic Cassandra stories, what do you expect? It’s easy to cherry-pick thousands of reports and come up with some very silly conclusions or even a broad silly journalistic consensus. I’ve been reading about the imminent demise of the Sauds for decades, yet even today they are still in charge of Saudi Arabia. I’ve been reading about the collapse of the CCP for nearly as long. So I’ve developed an immunity to these kinds of end-of-the-world arguments. Yeah, they sometimes happen; rarely are they predictable.

    I have to say, though, that I can’t remember the last time I read a newspaper report that said something as silly as the Great Leap Forward was good for China’s economy or that China’s growth over the last four decades has been good for the environment.

    • Troll: vot tak
  219. @showmethereal

    The irony is that you have simply proved my point. Tibetan has always had a fighting history and has nothing to do with Han rule.

    Given the context of our discussion, this is like saying that because the Chinese have always been fighting not only each other, but their neighbors, that therefore the Chinese would welcome Western rule.

    Civil strife is fairly common in developing countries around the world. (Look at what happened in Nepal recently.) And that’s especially true if there’s no strong central authority. In Tibet, a strong central authority was impossible. The region was too large and the population too small. Even today there are only six million Tibetans spread out over the Tibetan Plateau and surrounding mountains, which is about a quarter of the size of the United States. As a result local control through the monasteries was the rule, not the exception, and not all the monasteries in Tibet got along.

    Occasionally, a Buddhist lineage would go to war against other Buddhist sects and unify parts of the country under their control, usually centering around the heartland of Tibet, but they could not do that to the entire Tibetan plateau. The Dalai Lama’s own sect owes its temporal power and reputation to just such a war.

    But none of this excuses China’s dominance over Tibet. If the history of Tibetan Buddhism is bloody, so is the history of China. The Tibetans have a unique culture which is quite different from the Chinese.

    That is correct – because the Han always gave other ethnic groups “autonomy”. In the Tang Dynasty – well before the Yuan – the Han and Tibetans entered into what we would call a confederation now. Of course that was after the Tibetans tried to fight the Han and lost. Either way – Yuan and Manchu were both Chinese dynasties… They just weren’t Han ruled.

    They were outsider dynasties that adopted some Chinese practices, but otherwise kept their distinctive steppe cultures and languages. The Han, who hated these outsider dynasties when they actually ruled China, later adopted them as Chinese dynasties because that allowed the Han to lay claim to lands and territories the Han themselves had never previously conquered on their own. Like Tibet.

    As to those riots in 2008… Well hey if you think that was spontaneous leading up to the Olympics then there is a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Nepal didn’t want to be a part of the folly so arrested the Tibetans protesting there. Nepal is always being drawn in by the US and India to go against China. Nepal is not stupid. They keep their independence. They know this was a coordinated thing.

    I was talking about what happened Sichuan, not Nepal. You tried to suggest that many Tibetans outside the Tibet Autonomous Region, but still in China, were and are happy with Chinese rule. That’s pish posh.

    As for Nepal, its actions speak more about China’s malignant influence than anything else.

    Quit with the nonsense about Bhutan.
    You claim they are at perfect peace.. Give me a break. What of the Lhotshampa people who were once 44% and now down to 20% of the population because they have been driven out – and live as refugees in Nepal!?!? Who are you trying to fool????

    Bhutan CANNOT do anything diplomatically without Indian approval. They do not have sovereignty in reality.

    Well, you’re wrong.

    But if you really believe it, then just demand that Beijing give Tibet the same autonomy that India gives Bhutan.

    • Troll: vot tak
  220. d dan says:

    This thread is supposed to be about how White nationalists torture, mistreat and suppress Blacks in America. Godfree and other trolls should stop hijacking it to spew all the lies, half truth and misinformation about China’s environment today.

    • Thanks: Godfree Roberts
  221. @showmethereal

    So you are claiming that Air America was run by the KMT???? But you are correct – the KMT milked the US gov for years. Doesn’t mean the CIA didn’t support drug trafficking – just as it did in Central and South America when cocaine became “a thing”.

    No, I’m saying that CIA operations in all of East Asia were amateurish and counterproductive. They were usually run by Westerners who had little knowledge of the region and its languages, and were therefore constantly surprised by events. They didn’t anticipate the Korean War; they didn’t know how to put spies in China; and their efforts at fomenting rebellion in China were disastrous failures.

    Read Tim Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA for the details. Even the CIA operational successes, like Iran and Guatemala, were more due to luck than skill. Sooner or later something like the Bay of Pigs was bound to happen. But because few people, even within the agency, understood that, many people before 1960 were impressed by the early results they saw and gave them a pass on their failures.

    The CIA’s ineptitude, however, was not due to a lack of funds. The agency spent a great deal of money in the region with little oversight. It rarely got any positive results. At one point, even the Polish communists used double agents to fool the CIA into funding their party. So blaming the CIA for instability in Asia or for Tibetan attitudes toward the Chinese is a non-starter. The CIA wishes it had been that competent.

    Here is how Weiner puts it:

    The CIA knew almost nothing about what went on in China. In October 1949, by the time Mao Tse-tung drove out the Nationalist forces of Chiang Kai-shek and proclaimed the People’s Republic, all but a handful of the American spies in China had fled to Hong Kong or Taiwan. Already hobbled by Mao, the CIA was crippled by MacArthur, who hated the agency and did his best to ban its officers from the Far East. Though the CIA worked frantically to keep an eye on China, the chains of foreign agents it had inherited from the OSS were far too weak. So was the agency’s research and reporting. Four hundred CIA analysts worked on daily intelligence bulletins for President Truman at the start of the Korean War, but 90 percent of their reporting was rewritten State Department files; most of the rest was weightless commentary.

    And here is how Weiner describes the CIA training spies to drop into Korea and China:

    “We were following in the footsteps of the OSS,” [Donald] Gregg said. “But the people we were going up against had complete control. We didn’t know what we were doing. I asked my superiors what the mission was and they wouldn’t tell me. They didn’t know what the mission was. It was swashbuckling of the worst kind. We were training Koreans and Chinese and a lot of other strange people, dropping Koreans into North Korea, dropping Chinese into China just north of the Korean border, and we’d drop these people in and we’d never hear from them again.

    “The record in Europe was bad,” he said. “The record in Asia was bad. The agency had a terrible record in its early days—a great reputation and a terrible record.”

    And here is Weiner describing how the CIA funded its Free Tibet program and what the U.S. got out of it.

    Over the past decade, in the name of combating Chinese communism, the CIA had spent tens of millions of dollars parachuting tons of weapons to hundreds of Tibetan guerrillas who fought for their spiritual leader, His Holiness Tenzen Gyatso, the fourteenth Dalai Lama. When Allen Dulles and Desmond FitzGerald briefed Eisenhower on the operation in February 1960, “the President wondered whether the net result of these operations would not be more brutal repressive reprisals by the Chinese Communists.” Ike approved the program nonetheless. The agency set up a training camp for the Tibetan fighters in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. It had paid an annual subsidy of some $180,000 directly to the Dalai Lama, and it created Tibet Houses in New York and Geneva to serve as his unofficial embassies. The goal was to keep the dream of a free Tibet alive while harassing the Red Army in western China. The results to date had been dozens of dead resistance fighters, and one bloodstained satchel of invaluable Chinese military documents seized in a firefight.

    In August 1969, the agency requested $2.5 million more to support Tibet’s insurgents in the coming year, calling the 1,800-man paramilitary group “a force which could be employed in strength in the event of hostilities” against China. “Does this have any direct benefit to us?” Kissinger asked. He answered his own question. Though the CIA’s subsidy to the Dalai Lama continued, the Tibetan resistance was abandoned. Kissinger then scuttled the remains of the CIA’s twenty-year mission to conduct clandestine operations against China.

    Who was the CIA office run charge of running these early operations in the 1950s and early 1960s? Desmond Fitzgerald

    Was he any good at his job? No. Here’s Weiner again:

    Helms replaced him as the man in charge of Cuba with his Far East chief, Desmond FitzGerald, a Harvard man and a millionaire who lived in a red-brick Georgetown mansion with a butler in the pantry and a Jaguar in the garage. The president liked him; he fit the James Bond image. He had been hired out of his New York law firm by Frank Wisner at the start of the Korean War and instantly made executive officer of the Far East division of the clandestine service. He had helped run the disastrous disastrous Li Mi operation in Burma. Then he commanded the CIA’s China Mission, which sent foreign agents to their deaths until 1955, when a headquarters review deemed the mission a waste of time, money, energy, and human life. FitzGerald then rose to deputy chief of the Far East, where he helped to plan and execute the Indonesian operation in 1957 and 1958. As Far East division chief, he presided over the rapid expansion of the CIA’s operations in Vietnam, Laos, and Tibet.

    As for the allegations about Air America and drug smuggling, they are just that: allegations. But whether they happened or not on a small and unofficial scale doesn’t matter. Given the scale of drugs coming out of the region, it’s clear that no one in the region needed CIA planes to grow, harvest and transport drugs. The people who got rich were not CIA pilots, but the generals who ran the drug operations.

    You’re not a very sophisticated thinker and your knowledge of the CIA seems to be derived entirely from Hollywood movies and the batshit crazies on Unz.com. I suggest you read a good history on the Agency.

    That is complete and utter nonsense. Aside from the very few Buddhist enthusiasts in the west – nobody had a clue who or what a Dalai Lama was. To most Europeans of the late 19th and earliest 20th century the most they new of Tibet was that it was a place where Christian missionaries were murdered. Joe “hot dog” across the Atlantic never had the slightest clue. He only became famous after he got a public relations remake in the anti China CIA program which still carries on. His history and that of Tibetan culture is completely white washed to make them seem like a bunch of flower pickers. If the Dalai Lama lived like that in Wiscounsin as a Native Tribe – it would have been labelled a cult and the children would have been placed in “good Christian schools” and given western names as happened to MANY North American tribes – who had less repressive societies than Tibet.

    This entire post is filled with such passion and yet completely unresponsive to my point.

    You claimed the Dalai Lama was not an “honorable character” but that the CIA had only made him seem so.

    The CIA doesn’t have such mind-bending powers, no matter how much of their LSD you take. The Dalai Lama’s reputation is largely one he created over decades by being such a likable and charismatic man.

    Was he funded in part by the U.S.? Yes, and who cares. The U.S. also funded Ahmed Chalabi and that didn’t turn him into charismatic figure nor did Iraqis ever take to him.

    Now some people correctly argue that the Dalai Lama interacts with Tibetans quite differently than he interacts with Westerners, which is true, but fails to explain why he is even more revered among Tibetans than he is among Westerners, despite the fact that he treats Tibetans, and talks down to them, like a very stern father treats his children. They still love him.

    That is absolute rubbish. India has forced them not to solve their border issue with China for India’s sake. Trade with China is cut off because of India. India has tried to do the same with Nepal but Nepal resisted. For it’s trouble – India BLOCKADED Nepal (not just because of China – but because it seeks to completely control all of Nepal’s politics and economy like it does Bhutan). Nepal still resists and instead furthers ties with China more.. Bhutan would suffer military intervention if it tries to resist India. Come on… Do better than that. You are talking like a novice.

    To point out your hypocrisy here, all I have to do is say “well, let’s ask Beijing, the 14th Dalai Lama, and the Tibetans if they are all willing to accept the same kind of relationship as New Delhi has with Bhutan.” The Dalai Lama and the Tibetans wouldn’t hesitate a second to shout, “Yes!” and Beijing wouldn’t hesitate one second before shouting, “No!”

    Bhutan is an independent country which is a member of the United Nations. Beijing knows this even if you don’t.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @denk
    , @showmethereal
  222. Vidi says:
    @Pincher Martin

    They don’t have professional polling in Tibet, so it is you and not I who is being evasive by continually begging for an answer to a question that really shouldn’t be asked because it really can’t be answered with any precision.

    You said flatly “A clear majority want the 14th Dalai Lama back” (link) (emphasis added).

    So obviously you have the information that you now proclaim is not available. Your honesty is therefore questionable — to say the least. Hence I am justified in being sceptical and asking for some proof. As liars tend to be evasive, I was quite specific in my demand, and I repeat it:

    What percentage of all ethnic Tibetans in Tibet Autonomous Region want the Dalai Lama and his torturers back?

    First, a recap: Palden Gyatso was a Tibetan monk. As I have shown, those monks were into torture — the Dalai Lama’s palace, the Potala, had chambers dedicated to inflicting pain. So it is likely that Palden himself did some torturing, or was involved in it.

    You’re simply repeating what you said before, and it’s a heavy and unproven indictment against not only all Tibetan monks, who are a large part of Tibet’s population

    What is proven is the existence of the torture chambers in the Dalai Lama’s palace, the Potala. About as firmly demonstrated is the acquiescence of Tibetan monks to the torture: over many decades, not a single monk in all Tibet (or in Dharamsala), as far as I know, has denounced the vicious practice. Hence all these monks were and are as guilty of the torture as if they themselves had wrung the screams of agony from the victims. Palden Gyatso was a monk of this sort. Therefore, he was guilty. Truly, quite a simple syllogism.

    As you avoided my question once more, I repeat it: Why should I believe a man who’s so cruel? Palden claimed to have been tortured, yet he was not sufficiently honest to admit that he himself had practiced torture, or had caused some people to be tortured, or by his acquiescence had allowed them to be tortured. Why should I believe an obviously dishonest and cruel man?

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  223. Vidi says:
    @Pincher Martin

    I just took the numbers from the top left-hand graph, which shows China’s GDP in US dollars. If you move your mouse along the beginning of the line in that graph (which begins in 1960) it will show you each year of China’s GDP, including the precipitous drops in both 1961 and 1962.

    When I visit the World Bank page you cited (link), the GDP panel shows no graph but says “No data is available for the specified locations”. Some other panels show graphs, so the problem is not with my browser.

    When I download the page’s CSV file, I find no hint of the numbers you claim to see on that page.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  224. @Vidi

    You said flatly “A clear majority want the 14th Dalai Lama back” (link) (emphasis added).

    Yes, and I stand completely behind that comment. But it wasn’t based on a poll, but on my wide reading about Tibet and my travels there.

    This isn’t an American bipartisan issue where the splits are rarely more than 60/40 in favor of any particular candidate. Loving the Dalai Lama in Tibet is more like loving mom and apple pie in America. Even those Americans who didn’t have a good relationship with their mother, and prefer eating cherry pies to apple pie, assume the attitude. Except in Tibet, it’s even more so.

    One of the ways foreign travelers to Tibet used to ingratiate themselves to Tibetans was to pull out a small wallet-sized photo of the Dalai Lama and watch the locals fawn over it. I never tried the trick myself, but only because I used a Chinese-language tour when I traveled there and I figured that if the Chinese have any local spies inside Tibet, the Mandarin-language travel agency handling foreign tourists would be the place they have them.

    What percentage of all ethnic Tibetans in Tibet Autonomous Region want the Dalai Lama and his torturers back?

    92.1%. Now prove I’m wrong.

    What is proven is the existence of the torture chambers in the Dalai Lama’s palace, the Potala. About as firmly demonstrated is the acquiescence of Tibetan monks to the torture: over many decades, not a single monk in all Tibet (or in Dharamsala), as far as I know, has denounced the vicious practice. Hence all these monks were and are as guilty of the torture as if they themselves had wrung the screams of agony from the victims. Palden Gyatso was a monk of this sort. Therefore, he was guilty. Truly, quite a simple syllogism.

    Well, you may be stupid but at least you’re consistently stupid.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Vidi
  225. denk says:
    @Pincher Martin

    TAM ‘massacre’

    You’r a gawd damned liar.

    But none of this excuses China’s dominance over Tibet. If the history of Tibetan Buddhism is bloody, so is the history of China. The Tibetans have a unique culture which is quite different from the Chinese.*

    The difference bet a Indian hearlander and ‘Indian’ NE, or bet a whitey and native Americans are like day and night.
    Can you differentiate bet a Han and a Tibetan ?

    More to the point.

    Are YOur Indian cousins willing to let go of ‘their’ NE, Sikkim, Bhutan ?
    ARE WHITES WILLING TO GO BACK TO WHERE THEY bELONG…OUTTA USA, CANADA, OZ, NZ ?

    [MORE]

    *Han, who hated these outsider dynasties when they actually ruled China, later adopted them as Chinese dynasties because that allowed the Han to lay claim to lands and territories the Han themselves had never previously conquered on their own. Like Tibet*

    As a Tibet expurt, do you know that there was inter royal marriage bet Tibet and Tang [?].
    The relics of princess WenChen still stand as tourist attraction today.
    Still , the Tibetans continued their attack on China.
    Tibet eneded up conquered by Yuan as part of China until this day.
    Thats called karma.

    Can you say the same about whiteys conquer of North America, Oz, NZ, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, GUam, Chago island, OKinawa, Jeju…….2000 miles away from home?
    Thats outright colonisation, in supposedly enlightened 20c forchrissake,

    So you’r like the father of a serial rapist who has the cheek to lecture someone on child bearing.

    As for Nepal, its actions speak more about China’s malignant influence than anything else.*

    Did I forget to mention, CIA was the ring leader in that 2001 palace massacre ?
    https://monthlyreview.org/author/waynemadsen/

    But if you really believe it, then just demand that Beijing give Tibet the same autonomy that India gives Bhutan.*

    Did you ask the Bhutanese whether they want the Indian army lording over them like proconsul ?

    *

    blaming the CIA for instability in Asia or for Tibetan attitudes toward the Chinese is a non-starter. The CIA wishes it had been that competent*

    Sounds like a shyster lawyer pleading for his serial arsonist client.
    your honor
    No doubt my client wanted to burn down the house, but he only succeeded in destroying part of it.
    Have mercy , my client hasnt been very successful in his career’

    The CIA doesn’t have such mind-bending powers, no matter how much of their LSD you take*

    Thats how [[[they]]] silence Frank Olsen ,he knew too much about the mind bending program, MKULTRA.

    Was he funded in part by the U.S.? Yes, and who cares. *

    Now thats the kind of good gringo the ptb LOVE,.

    Go and play yourself honey,.
    Daddy have got work to do.

    Once again, we have a congress and a federal bureaucracy tossing around our money so some jerks can play at being power brokers around the world. The National Endowment for Democracy is a hoax. Now everyone in Latin America knows we were up to our ears n trying to get rid of Chavez. The whole thing backfired. The politicians walk away and we pick up the bill. Some democracy. But what I really want to know is, is there a Ritz in Caracas, so the hacks on the gravy train can meet to overturn a democratically elected government at our expense? And this stuff happens because we let it happen. If we choose to be a nation of sheep, we have only ourselves to blame.’

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/04/richard-cummings/i-met-her-in-venezuela/

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  226. @Vidi

    I have given two separate links to the information. Here they are again.

    See IMF-WEO information here.

    See the World Bank data here.

    For the World Bank data, just take the numbers from the top left-hand graph, which shows China’s GDP in US dollars. If you move your mouse to each dot along the beginning of the line in that graph (which begins in 1960) it will show you China’s GDP for each year, including the precipitous drops in both 1961 and 1962.

    ON EDIT I’m not sure why the World Bank link went dead after I posted, so just try the following link and see if you can go to it on your own.

    https://data.worldbank.org/country/china

    You’ll know it’s the correct link if they show eight different dot graphs at the top.

    • Troll: vot tak
  227. @denk

    Denk,

    Have you found Bhutan on a map yet? I just want to know when we can start a serious conversation.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @denk
  228. Vidi says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Yes, and I stand completely behind that comment. But it wasn’t based on a poll, but on my wide reading about Tibet and my travels there.

    So after you couldn’t evade me any more, you finally admit that you’ve no evidence, reliable and documentable, for your assertion that a “clear majority” of Tibetans want the Dalai Lama restored to power.

    I’ve given plenty of reasons for the average Tibetan to prefer the current situation, with the Dalai Lama exiled and no longer torturing people. The overwhelming majority of the common people in the TAR probably prefer to eat regularly, live longer, be far wealthier than they were, and not be tortured.

  229. denk says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Bhutan, Tibet

    Wake me up when whiteys are willing to let go of North America, Oz, NZ…..

    The ptb love pussies like you who fly half way across the globe to stand up to China.

    Do you have the cojones to speak truth to power at home and pay the price,
    honey ?

    Antiwar activist Kathy Kelly has been arrested over 60 times and was jailed before for participating in peaceful protests. She has been nominated three times for the Nobel Peace Prize but has never won

    https://sainthoward.blogspot.com/2014/

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  230. @Vidi

    Evidence is not just polling. You’re an idiot for believing otherwise.

    Even the Chicoms don’t dispute the Dalai Lama is incredibly popular in Tibet, which is why they still refuse to allow him back into his homeland even though he’s now an octogenarian and hasn’t been there since 1959.

    What exactly do the Chicoms have to fear? Your lurid fantasies about an eighty-three-year-old monk reopening torture chambers in the Potala Palace ain’t it.

    I’ve given plenty of reasons for the average Tibetan to prefer the current situation…

    You’ve given absolutely nothing. What you’re doing is speculating about a place and people you don’t have the first clue about in the confident way that some dumb people do when they think they can bluff their way through a subject.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Vidi
  231. @denk

    So you haven’t found Bhutan yet. I’ll give you a clue: It’s the little country located between India and Tibet that’s not named Nepal.

    • Troll: vot tak
  232. Anonymous[363] • Disclaimer says:

    Instead, Tibet looks grungy and haggard compared to its independent neighbor. And Tibet’s GDP per capita is lower than in Bhutan ($7,089 to $10,627, both IMF figures), despite Bhutan not having any native industry that gives it an advantage over its neighbor.

    ————————————————————————————–

    You are comparing Bhutan’s ppp figure with Tibet’s nominal figure.
    Again from IMF, Bhutan’s per capita (nominal) figure is only $3,423.

    Tibet’s ppp figure should be around $14,000.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @d dan
  233. @Anonymous

    You are comparing Bhutan’s ppp figure with Tibet’s nominal figure.
    Again from IMF, Bhutan’s per capita (nominal) figure is only $3,423.

    Tibet’s ppp figure should be around $14,000.

    On reinspection, I did make the mistake of using Tibet’s USD-converted figure from this map here at Wikipedia, which is based on World Bank data.

    But the PPP figure given for Tibet at the same source, located lower down on the same page below the map, is $11,579, not $14,000.

    That’s very comparable to Bhutan’s PPP figure given by the World Bank here ($11,613).

    So they’re approximately equal.

    I hereby retract my claim that Bhutan is wealthier per capita than Tibet and instead merely claim that China’s great transfer of wealth to the autonomous region has not made Tibet any wealthier than the independent Thunder Dragon Kingdom.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  234. denk says:
    @Vidi

    The mofo martin is here to play game.
    Not worth our time.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  235. d dan says:
    @Anonymous

    His claim on Bhutan alone already contains so many mistakes. Besides the wrongly quoted figure, consider:

    1. Bhutan has less population than Tibet. Small population typically is easier to improve than country/ region of bigger population.

    2. Bhutan has smaller area, also more urbanized than Tibet. Tibet has huge and extremely rural area.

    3. Also, for fair comparison, we have to look at the gdp of Bhutan and Tibet in 1950. They started differently. Tibet was dirt poor with a medieval serf system in 1950.

    4. Politically, Tibet experienced constant externally sponsored color-revolutions, uprising, threats and a brief war in 1962. Not much for Bhutan.

    5. No technological or economic restrictions/embargo of commercial goods was imposed to Bhutan by the West. This was different for China/Tibet.

    And so on…

    • Agree: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  236. @d dan

    1. Bhutan has less population than Tibet. Small population typically is easier to improve than country/ region of bigger population.

    2. Bhutan has smaller area, also more urbanized than Tibet. Tibet has huge and extremely rural area.

    If you had said urban conglomerations generally see a faster rise in wealth than the hinterlands, and therefore independent cities and city-states – like Singapore, Hong Kong, Monaco, etc., as well as small urbanized countries like Denmark and Belgium – see faster growth than countries with large rural populations, then you would’ve been correct.

    But Bhutan is not an urban conglomeration. It has no large cities. Only around 40% of the country can be defined as urban, which places it in the bottom quarter of the list for all countries.

    Thimphu is the biggest city in Bhutan with 115,000. Lhasa is five times more populous, and it’s not even the largest city in Tibet. (Shigatze with 700,000 is larger.) Bhutan’s second biggest city has a whopping 27,000 people in it.

    I’m unable to find any exact stats on the level of Tibet’s urbanization, but it has certainly become more urbanized in the last fifty years. Indeed, that is part of China’s plan to take over Tibet, by moving more Han Chinese into Tibet’s cities. So I’m sure the level of urbanization between the two are fairly comparable.

    3. Also, for fair comparison, we have to look at the gdp of Bhutan and Tibet in 1950. They started differently. Tibet was dirt poor with a medieval serf system in 1950.

    I looked and couldn’t find any.

    But I did find life expectancy figures for both, and Bhutan’s life expectancy in the 1950s was lower than Tibet’s (approximately 31 compared 35), which suggests their GDP per capita was approximately equal.

    However, I found nothing to show that Bhutan’s starting point in 1950 was higher than Tibet’s. If you found something to the contrary, why don’t you show us.

    4. Politically, Tibet experienced constant externally sponsored color-revolutions, uprising, threats and a brief war in 1962. Not much for Bhutan.

    Almost all of Tibet’s turmoil since 1959 has been caused by China.

    5. No technological or economic restrictions/embargo of commercial goods was imposed to Bhutan by the West. This was different for China/Tibet.

    Until the last couple of decades, when the West was not embargoing China, nearly all the rise in wealth in lowly developing countries like Tibet came from doing simple things like building roads and schools, improving what little agricultural Tibet has, and allowing simple industries (like mills) to develop. Nothing the West did from the 1950s to 1970s damaged Tibet’s prospects in developing any of those areas.

    *****

    And since you have come up with a list of things you believe favor Bhutan’s economic development over Tibet, let me show you a couple of things you left out that are in Tibet’s favor over Bhutan as far as the economic stats go.

    1) Migration. Han Chinese are moving to Tibet. They now comprise around 10% of the population of the Tibet Autonomous Region. These recent migrants are wealthier than the local Tibetan people and generally live in Tibet’s cities. Beijing subsidizes them, but those subsidies do not go to the Tibetans.

    Bhutan, on the other hand, also has a migrant problem, but unlike Tibet the people who move to Bhutan are generally poorer, not wealthier, than the locals. Not all the Lhotsampas are migrants, but many are – and they generally move to Bhutan because it is wealthier than either Nepal or most of India’s nearby states (Assam, Bihar, and West Bengal).

    2) China has built roads, dams, airports, railroads, and other infrastructure in Tibet, and some of this has undoubtably improved the lives of Tibetans. But a lot of it has merely been built to help control the Tibetans or keep control of Tibet. That military expenditure, however, still counts as part of Tibet’s GDP and therefore raises the average per capita incomes even if none of it actually improves the Tibetans’ lives at all.

    Bhutan does not have nearly as much of that kind of wasteful expenditure propping up its economic stats. Military spending is less than 2 percent of the country’s GDP.

  237. Vidi says:
    @denk

    The mofo martin is here to play game.

    I know. He has lied and will continue to lie. As I said to someone a lot like him (I think they work in the same office), “cowardice and deception both really stink”.

    Not worth our time.

    It’s my turn to throw out the garbage, I suppose.

  238. Vidi says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Evidence is not just polling.

    You asserted that a “clear majority” of Tibetans want the Dalai Lama restored to power. I am simply asking you to back that up with some reliable and documented evidence.

    You’ve given absolutely nothing. What you’re doing is speculating about a place and people you don’t have the first clue about in the confident way that some dumb people do when they think they can bluff their way through a subject.

    You’re projecting; bluffing — which is basically lying — is your tactic, not mine. I gave strong reasons for the people here to doubt your flat assertion, and in earlier comments I had every single point backed up. In contrast, you have given zero documented and reliable evidence, offering only your opinion — and as I have caught you lying (link) and you did not correct yourself, your word is worthless.

    You removed my reasons and then claimed that I gave “absolutely nothing”. So here they are again:

    I’ve given plenty of reasons for the average Tibetan to prefer the current situation, with the Dalai Lama exiled and no longer torturing people. The overwhelming majority of the common people in the TAR probably prefer to eat regularly, live longer, be far wealthier than they were, and not be tortured.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @Vidi
  239. @Vidi

    You asserted that a “clear majority” of Tibetans want the Dalai Lama restored to power. I am simply asking you to back that up with some reliable and documented evidence.

    And I told you. Read any good book on Tibet and discover just how immensely popular he still is there.

    Until China frees Tibet, there will be no way to measure the precise degree of welcome the Dalai Lama would receive if the Tibetan people could choose their own leaders. But it’s clear he is enormously popular and would be the default choice. So your question is just as tendentiously dishonest as a slaveowner asking me to demonstrate by a poll that a clear majority of slaves actually want to be free.

    However, here’s a sampling from the last few decades showing the Dalai Lama’s popularity and how keen the CCP was initially to work through him.

    Many of China’s more than 6 million Tibetans still venerate the Dalai Lama, despite government prohibitions on displays of his picture or any public display of devotion.

    *****

    China, which has ruled Tibet with a heavy hand since its forces invaded in 1951, considers the Dalai Lama a separatist and traitor for advocating Tibetan self-rule. The Dalai Lama remains immensely popular in Tibet.

    *****

    From a footnote to an excellent scholarly article about why Beijing imposed a ban on the Dalai Lama’s image in 1996:

    Schwartz, 21. The influx of tourists to Tibet is undoubtedly a blessing and a curse to the Chinese government. Though the economy in the region has stabilized through international dollars, the connections made between outsiders and Tibetans are of great concern to the Party. As Schwartz writes, “many Westerners visiting the region have had the experience of Tibetans slipping into their hands or pockets handwritten notes, often addressed to the United Nations. The notes typically proclaim the independence of Tibet, the oppression of the Tibetan people by Chinese invaders, and the loyalty of Tibetans to the exiled Dalai Lama.”

    *****

    Beijing has also implicitly recognized the Dalai Lama’s authority by negotiating with him during several junctures over the last sixty years. The above source describes how Deng handled it:

    In 1978, discussions between Beijing and the Tibetan Government in Exile led to the release of many political prisoners held captive since the Chinese invasion in 1959. An agreement was also reached by the Chinese government in 1979 allowing a delegation of the Dalai Lama along with his brother Lobsang Samten to visit Tibet and report to Dharamsala according to conditions outlined by the ruling Communist government. The Tibetan response to this delegation, however, may have unintentionally caused more paranoia in the minds of CCP leaders. Tibetans throughout the TAR greeted the delegation with cheers for the Dalai Lama’s long life and shouts proclaiming Tibet’s independence. A total of three delegations visited Tibet; the second was expelled and a fourth tour was planned but never executed.8

    Mao also considered the Dalai Lama Tibet’s leader – but still subordinate to Mao, of course – and welcomed him to negotiations over the region’s status. Here’s a famous photo from 1955 of the two together with the Panchen Lama (Dalai Lama is on the right):

    So the Chinese communists considered the Dalai Lama the rightful leader of the Tibetan people (subordinate to CCP rule, of course) and worked through him to rule Tibet until 1959. Even afterwards, as I show above, when the Dalai Lama’s government was in exile they still negotiated with him over political matters. In fact, when the Dalai Lama went into exile, the CCP at first tried to claim he was kidnapped.

    You’re projecting; bluffing — which is basically lying — is your tactic, not mine.

    No, you’re clearly in over your head on this topic. Have you ever visited China and Tibet? Have you read a history or even a good book about Tibet? If so, name it.

    You earlier even admitted being unaware that the CCP had banned displays of the Dalai Lama’s image in China and Tibet. You didn’t trust that this well-known fact was accurate. If you don’t know that, what other basic information about Tibet do you not know?

    This is not the time to wow everyone with your google searches. Not when you’re dealing with people who actually know something about this subject.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Troll: d dan
    • Replies: @showmethereal
    , @vot tak
  240. @Pincher Martin

    I’m glad you show the picture of the Dalai Lama and how much of a hypocrite he was. His brainwashed followers believe he was divine… Yet he was smiling and laughing with Communist Mao and serving in the People’s Congress. Was that picture before or after he started working with the CIA?
    Btw- of course Mao knew the Dalai Lama was the leader of the Tibetan cult. The CPC received the mandate of heaven. For 200 years prior to that photo leaders in Beijing have approved who the Dalai Lama would be.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  241. @Pincher Martin

    I can’t take you seriously anymore because you don’t actually talk reality – or you are deliberately trying to skirt around what you don’t want to face. So I will keep this short.

    China and Tibet first got intertwined over 1000 years ago when the Tibetans thought they could challenge Han and lost. That’s fact. Later they became fully subjugated by other dynasty’s. Unless you believe only single ethnic groups should have their own country – your idea is nonsense (but maybe that is your idea since you ignore the refugee issues with Bhutan and claim they are the modern Shangri-La). Tibet has been a part of China proper for close to 3 centuries. No matter the past issues – China is not going to give up the water resources now. It’s a wrap.

    Nobody knew nor cared about the Dalai Lama. His sole purpose in the western world is to try to make China look bad. You admitted yourself earlier that Tibetan history of violence isn’t taught. Neither is the history of serfdom and Dalai Lamas. Those are facts. The history is white washed to make ppl feel sorry for him in the west. If we was a westerner and lived like that – he would have been labelled a cult leader – plain and simple.

    Who cares if the CIA was inept??? That’s not the point. The point is they willing supported drug trafficking in the Golden Triangle — and later in Central and South America – whenever they thought it would help their mission. Everything else you copied and pasted does nothing to disavow that (much of which I knew and more than your citations actually).

    Bhutan has it written it its law that India controls it’s foreign affairs. That is not in dispute – no matter how obtuse you are. It is almost like Hong Kong to Beijing.
    Bhutan has driven out it’s second most prominent ethnic group. Again – you are only fooling those who know nothing.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  242. Vidi says:
    @Vidi

    And I told you. Read any good book on Tibet and discover just how immensely popular he still is there.

    You did claim that a “clear majority” of Tibetans want the Dalai Lama and his torturers back. So prove it by citing reliable and documented evidence. Vague words like “many” do not count. I want something more specific that supports the phrase you used, which was “a clear majority”.

    If you obtained the information from a book, cite the book and quote enough of the relevant passages for me to judge whether the “evidence” there is even as credible as a liar like you.

    And yes, you are the one who must give the proof. As you made the claim, the onus is on you.

    ** ** **

    On my part, I gave many, many reasons to be strongly sceptical of your claim. As you have completely avoided those points, I repeat them once more:

    I’ve given plenty of reasons for the average Tibetan to prefer the current situation, with the Dalai Lama exiled and no longer torturing people. The overwhelming majority of the common people in the TAR probably prefer to eat regularly, live longer, be far wealthier than they were, and not be tortured.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  243. @showmethereal

    Btw- of course Mao knew the Dalai Lama was the leader of the Tibetan cult. The CPC received the mandate of heaven. For 200 years prior to that photo leaders in Beijing have approved who the Dalai Lama would be.

    Actually, the power of the Yellow Hat sect of Buddhism, and hence the power of the Dalai Lamas, goes back to the Mongols when they were still a power in Central Asia, but no longer in control of China. It was an alliance with the Mongols during the Ming that allowed the Yellow Hat sect to rise to dominate Tibet.

    Even when the Qing later defeated the Ming, the Mongols, and Tibet, the Manchus respected the Yellow Hat’s claim to power and allowed the Dalai Lamas to continue ruling Tibet so long as they accepted Qing authority (which they didn’t always do). The Qing emperors played politics with the Dalai Lama succession, but playing politics with outsiders has always been a normal part of the Yellow Hat’s success. The Qing were respectful enough to play the game within bounds by respecting local authority so long as the Tibetans didn’t cause trouble for them (which, again, was not always the case). It wasn’t just a matter of the Qing emperor grabbing some compliant Tibetan boy out of a monastery and making him the Dalai Lama.

    I’m glad you show the picture of the Dalai Lama and how much of a hypocrite he was. His brainwashed followers believe he was divine… Yet he was smiling and laughing with Communist Mao and serving in the People’s Congress. Was that picture before or after he started working with the CIA?

    You appear shocked that the 14th Dalai Lama played, and still plays, politics, but almost all of Dalai Lamas, if they reached maturity, played politics. As I explained above, that’s how the Yellow Hat first gained their power in Tibet. It certainly wasn’t through prayer.

    If you want to criticize the 14th Dalai Lama, criticize him for playing politics well with everyone in the world except the one power he most needs to play successful politics with: Beijing.

  244. @showmethereal

    You focus too much on irrelevancies.

    China and Tibet first got intertwined over 1000 years ago when the Tibetans thought they could challenge Han and lost. That’s fact.

    Who cares? One could say the same thing about Vietnam and China or Korea and China.

    Later they became fully subjugated by other dynasty’s. Unless you believe only single ethnic groups should have their own country – your idea is nonsense (but maybe that is your idea since you ignore the refugee issues with Bhutan and claim they are the modern Shangri-La). Tibet has been a part of China proper for close to 3 centuries.

    Yes, I think when a coherent ethnicity has a distinctive culture, history, and a previous tradition of independence, that allowing it to form its own country is a good idea. Certainly if Tibet was free to choose its future, independence is what it would choose.

    No matter the past issues – China is not going to give up the water resources now. It’s a wrap.

    Well, I completely agree, but that’s a matter of power not morality.

    Tibet is ruled by China, not because of history or because Beijing’s rule is so good for the Tibetan economy or because the Dalai Lama was a torturer, but because neither the Tibetans nor anyone else in the world could stop the PLA from marching up there in the 1950s and taking control of it.

    That’s the only reason Tibet is under China’s control. So don’t try to come up with historical or economic justifications. Just tell it like it is.

    Nobody knew nor cared about the Dalai Lama. His sole purpose in the western world is to try to make China look bad. You admitted yourself earlier that Tibetan history of violence isn’t taught. Neither is the history of serfdom and Dalai Lamas. Those are facts.

    But why did the PRC have the right to tell the Tibetans how to live? Are the Chinese free? Is Chinese history bloodless?

    Once again, even after you just admit that China’s control of Tibet is about dominance, you still retreat back to a simple and untrue morality tale about China fixing Tibet’s messed-up system when the real story is just one of power. China had it, and Tibet did not.

    So don’t try to dress it up with morality.

    Who cares if the CIA was inept??? That’s not the point. The point is they willing supported drug trafficking in the Golden Triangle — and later in Central and South America – whenever they thought it would help their mission. Everything else you copied and pasted does nothing to disavow that (much of which I knew and more than your citations actually).

    The ineptitude of the CIA is key to understanding their lack of power in Asia, which in turn contradicts your point of view that they were at the center of all events there.

    The CIA didn’t destabilize Tibet, not because it didn’t want to, but because it didn’t know how.

    Similarly, the CIA didn’t run the drug lords in Burma; those drug lords used the CIA for their own economic benefit.

    If a sparrow farts and dies in Lhasa, the CIA is not automatically responsible for it. Prove your allegations rather than just state them.

    Bhutan has it written it its law that India controls it’s foreign affairs. That is not in dispute – no matter how obtuse you are. It is almost like Hong Kong to Beijing.
    Bhutan has driven out it’s second most prominent ethnic group. Again – you are only fooling those who know nothing.

    You have no clue what you’re talking about.

    Is Hong Kong a member of the UN?

    Does Hong Kong have diplomatic relations with 50 countries?

    Did Hong Kong begin as an independent country?

    Does Hong Kong have a completely different language and culture from China?

    You’re mistaking Bhutan’s small and isolated regime in the nineteen-forties, and therefore its need for relying on a bigger friendly power, for some vassal status. Rather than compare Bhutan and India’s relationship to the Hong Kong/China relationship, one ought to compare it to West Germany and the U.S. during the entirety of the Cold War.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Showmethereal
  245. anonymous[363] • Disclaimer says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSWaFsLgEpU

    This is how Tibetans are treated in China.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  246. @Vidi

    I’ve given enough proof. You’re just playing a game where that proof is never enough for you, which is the only game the ignorant know how to play, since they don’t know how to properly discus the topic.

    If you obtained the information from a book, cite the book and quote enough of the relevant passages for me to judge whether the “evidence” there is even as credible as a liar like you.

    I’ve provided more documentation in this thread to support my arguments than any poster other than Godfree Roberts, who is the thread creator. I’ve provided more facts, more economic data, more history, and more links.

    Do some of your own work. I’m not here to educate ungrateful idiots. Not unless they pay me for my time. And I’m quite expensive.

    I’ve given plenty of reasons for the average Tibetan to prefer the current situation, with the Dalai Lama exiled and no longer torturing people. The overwhelming majority of the common people in the TAR probably prefer to eat regularly, live longer, be far wealthier than they were, and not be tortured.

    Well, you’re wrong, as I’ve already shown.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Troll: vot tak
  247. @anonymous

    Hilarious. Now you know the kind of idiots who believed in Potemkin villages.

    Those media tours in Tibet are strictly controlled and choreographed. The guy just didn’t wander into your average Tibetan middle school on your average school day.

    China knows it has an image problem and it works hard to combat that problem by controlling the message that gets out to the rest of the world.

    • Troll: vot tak
  248. @Pincher Martin

    This is boring now. The Dalai Lama is a cult leader who will NOT be reincarnated – no matter what you and his fans think.

    In 1950 nobody considered Tibet a country.

    And you obviously are making up your own reality on Bhutan also from a political and ethnic standpoint. Stay safe in the land of delusion where you make your abode.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  249. @Showmethereal

    I agree it’s becoming boring, but mainly because you’re arguing like a PRC hack.

    Try to raise your intellectual game.

    In 1950 nobody considered Tibet a country.

    You mean other than the Tibetans.

    There are many countries today that were not recognized as countries in 1950. The number of sovereign nations has almost doubled in the last 70 years.

    And you obviously are making up your own reality on Bhutan also from a political and ethnic standpoint. Stay safe in the land of delusion where you make your abode.

    Everyone here is free to read all about the history of India-Bhutan relations and decide for themselves which of us is delusional

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Troll: vot tak, Showmethereal
    • Replies: @Showmethereal
  250. @Vidi

    Tibetans’ opinions of Chinese government are mixed.

    In 2000 professor Melvyn Goldstein asked a sample of Tibetans from across the TAR “Do You Have a Better Life Now Than Your Parents Did?”

    90% of the 60-79 year-olds–born between 1920-1940 whose parents lived almost entirely before Chinese policies kicked in–answered, “Yes”.

    What about independence? Goldstein didn’t question them on that thorny subject but, shortly after the 2008 riots, the Tibetan Government in Exile, TGIE, secretly conducted a survey and learned that only 29% (5,000 out of 17,000) of Tibetans living in Tibet want renzig, independence

    47% (8,000) preferred to remain part of China with limited ‘true autonomy’.

    The remaining 4,000 either wanted the status quo or had no opinion.

    So the TGIE went with the Middle Way approach because, if only 29% wanted independence so soon after the after the ’08 riots, that figure was probably never going to rise, because Tibetans’ real incomes have risen 400% since then and, while some people like independence, everybody likes a 400% wage rise.

    Sadly, the Chinese government had offered the Dalai Lama the Middle Way in the 1980s but, because he demanded that parts of Gansu, Sichuan, and other multi-ethnic provinces in China be included in his ‘Tibet’, the deal fell through.

    What would you find if you polled Native Hawaiians, Lakota Indians or Australian Aborigines on whether they want their territories to be independent states?

    Of course, our ‘democratic’ media are not interested in the opinions of Native Hawaiians, Lakota Indians or Australian Aborigines who are actually part of the issue. Only rich white people’s opinions matter.

    • Thanks: vot tak
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  251. @Godfree Roberts

    You’ve already cited that survey. It is skewed for two reasons.

    First, even the Dalai Lama’s official position is that he does not want independence. Many Tibetans know this. The Dalai Lama does, however, want more autonomy, which perhaps is similar to the “true autonomy” picked by 47% of Tibetans.

    Second, most Tibetans know that independence from China is impossible. It’s not happening. They censor themselves accordingly.

    So altogether, independence and “true autonomy” were picked by 76% of Tibetans in the TAR. A super majority. It’s clear that those Tibetans who want true autonomy would, like the Dalai Lama, take true independence if they could get it. But they know they can’t.

    What would you find if you polled Native Hawaiians, Lakota Indians or Australian Aborigines on whether they want their territories to be independent states?

    Well, one major difference between all those groups and the Tibetans is that only the latter represent 90% of the people living in their homeland if that homeland is defined as the TAR.

    Native Hawaiians, Lakota Indians or Australian Aborigines are all tiny majorities in their ancestral homelands.

    90% of the 60-79 year-olds–born between 1920-1940 whose parents lived almost entirely before Chinese policies kicked in–answered, “Yes”.

    Name any part of the world where this was NOT true in the year 2000.

    You know what the average income per capita (PPP) was in 1940 in the United States, which was the wealthiest nation on earth?

    Around $10,000 inflation-adjusted dollars. The average life expectancy was 62. Most people still listened to the radio to get their news and entertainment.

    And that was the richest nation on earth in 1940.

    So did life in Tibet improve by the year 2000 for those born between 1920 and 1940? Of course it did. It vastly improved. It also improved everywhere else on earth outside of Tibet.

    Try not to grade China’s control of Tibet on a curve where everyone passes.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  252. vot tak says:

    “Only rich white people’s opinions matter”

    And they have to ascribe to what zionazia-nazia demands. No exceptions allowed.

  253. vot tak says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Noting zionazi-gay trolls get unlimited posting rights here, not the listed limitations for countering them.

  254. @Pincher Martin

    What’s your real name?
    Who pays you?
    Where do you live?

    And btw, Melvyn Goldstein is on a first-name basis with the Dalai Lama and is married to the daughter of the famous Tibetan aristocrat, Surkhang Wangchen Gelek.

  255. @Godfree Roberts

    My name’s Dudley Do-Right. I’m originally from Canada, but I now live in the U.S. Rockies where I am employed by the American government to write pro-American propaganda on extremist websites.

    And btw, Melvyn Goldstein is on a first-name basis with the Dalai Lama and is married to the daughter of the famous Tibetan aristocrat, Surkhang Wangchen Gelek.

    I didn’t question Goldstein’s survey or credentials, merely your interpretation of his survey results … or at least the way you presented the survey here.

    The Dalai Lama himself says he does not want independence from China. He would give Beijing military and diplomatic control of Tibet.

    But Beijing still calls him a “splittest.” So the fact that a large plurality of Tibetans (47%) surveyed by Goldstein are asking for “true autonomy” means they, too, are likely guilty of splittism in the PRC’s eyes. If you combine that with the percentage of Tibetans still calling for “renzig” you get a super majority of Tibetans who are unhappy with the present situation – or at least as it stood in the year 2000 when the survey was conducted.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  256. @Godfree Roberts

    BTW, the following comment is from my second post in this thread (post #111) and my first post on Tibet.

    Many Tibetans have moved beyond the desire for independence from China simply because they recognize it’s no longer realistic or helpful to their interests. But they don’t like the Chinese nor do they fear India, which unlike China has never even demonstrated any desire to swallow the whole of Tibet, let alone fulfilled it.

    So with the first substantive sentence in my very first post in this thread, I had already recognized what Goldstein’s survey shows.

    The vast majority of Tibetans would like independence, but they know they’re not getting it. So they now merely ask for more autonomy from Beijing, which they are also not getting right now but at least stand some chance of getting.

    The thing that saves Tibet is that living on the Tibetan plateau is extremely hard for any people not evolved to live at high altitudes. I was sick my entire week in Tibet. Even the tough Han Chinese are generally not up to it. So unlike Xinjiang, Beijing has found it difficult to encourage more Han to permanently emigrate to Tibet, even though going by the numbers alone it ought to be easy for more than a billion Han to swamp three million Tibetans.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Troll: d dan, vot tak
  257. @Pincher Martin

    None of your argument is based on intellect but on your feelings for the Dalai Lama.

    You are too disjointed to be taken serious. When someone points out a fact that blemishes what you said – you quickly change focus.

    Citing Wikipedia and then talking about raising intellect…? Yikes. But yeah why dont you use Wikipedia to learn about the ethnic group driven out of Bhutan en masse and are refugees in Nepal. Were they part of the survey to ahow Bhutan as the happiest place on earth? This is clown hour.

    But I see from your comments you have a hatred for the Han. When Tibet was controlled by Mongols and Jurchen people – as respective dyansties (which were “Chinese” dynasties whether you like it or not) you dont have the issue. Your comments betray you— your problem is with Han people.

    And up to 1950 Tibetans couldnt have considered themselves a nation. Some did – but not most and that is why between 1911 and 1959 Tibetans who wanted independence were killing other Tibetans who didnt care for it. You admitted earlier you knew Tibetans fought Tibetans.. Stop the folly.
    Face it – your worship the Dalai Lama tried to play slick like his forebears who tried to strike a deal with the British. Instead of the Brits he played a game with the CIA. He lost. He should repent his sins and admit it and be humble. Do you know what most nations do to people who serve in the national legislature and conspire with foreign governments???? In any lqnguage that is called a TRAITOR. He only has one life to live – unlike what you cult followers of his think. He should openly express his sorrow and maybe China might let him visit again before he dies.
    China is not going to give up the water resources of Tibet willingly. Especially when its a place they had the final say on for centuries and not just since the 1950’s. A change in ethnic leadership of China does not mean its not China. You have a better chance of the US giving up the headwaters to the Colorado River to the natives or even Mexico.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  258. @Showmethereal

    You are too disjointed to be taken serious. When someone points out a fact that blemishes what you said – you quickly change focus.

    I think I’m the only person in this entire thread to admit a mistake and issue a retraction. See my post at #236. What mistake have you admitted to in this thread?

    So there’s been no change in my focus. I’ve been consistent and honest since the beginning. See my first post on Tibet in this thread at #111.

    Citing Wikipedia and then talking about raising intellect…?

    It’s best to play to the audience’s strengths, and in your case when you try to discuss Bhutan, Wikipedia is a sufficiently appropriate counter to your nonsense. You decided to learn about Bhutan only after I mentioned it in this thread as a very good comparison to Tibet. Before then, it was terra incognita to you, as it is to most people.

    But yeah why dont you use Wikipedia to learn about the ethnic group driven out of Bhutan en masse and are refugees in Nepal.

    While Wikipedia is a sufficiently appropriate counter to your knowledge about Bhutan, it is not sufficient to counter my knowledge about Bhutan.

    I’ve already mentioned the so-called refugees above. Most of them were illegal aliens who had no right to settle permanently in Bhutan. After many years’ residence in the country, Thimphu finally decided to remove them after they began acting out.

    My sympathies on this matter are entirely with the majority ethnic Bhutanese (Ngalops and Sharchops) who do not wish to see their country inundated with outsiders. They were right to push the recently-arrived Lhotshampa people out of Bhutan just as the Tibetans would be right to push the recently-arrived Han people out of Tibet if they only had the power to do so and just as Americans would be right to push illegal immigrants out of the United States.

    But I see from your comments you have a hatred for the Han. When Tibet was controlled by Mongols and Jurchen people – as respective dyansties (which were “Chinese” dynasties whether you like it or not) you dont have the issue. Your comments betray you— your problem is with Han people.

    I lived ten years among a predominantly Han people in Taiwan. I speak Mandarin. My wife is Chinese.

    So I like and respect the Han just fine. What I don’t like are the PRC hacks who are either Beijing’s slaves or, when they live abroad, still in mental servitude to Beijing. The free Chinese are wonderful people; the enslaved Chinese who justify the enslaving of others are disgusting creeps to be simultaneously pitied and insulted.

    And up to 1950 Tibetans couldnt have considered themselves a nation. Some did – but not most and that is why between 1911 and 1959 Tibetans who wanted independence were killing other Tibetans who didnt care for it. You admitted earlier you knew Tibetans fought Tibetans.

    You’re misrepresenting Tibet’s recent era of independence. The 13th Dalai Lama at the time, who was clearly the leader of Tibet and recognized as such by both Tibetans and Chinese, declared Tibet an independent nation. He then went to war with the Chinese warlords who were in control of neighboring areas where Tibetans lived close by with Chinese in what are Chinese provinces. The Tibetans lost those battles.

    The problem for Tibet in that era was not Tibetan-on-Tibetan violence, which you misrepresent as a type of civil war on the part of some Tibetans in defense of Chinese rule, but the fact that the Tibetan leaders made the mistake of not using this period of chaos in China to search for foreign allies who would recognize Lhasa as independent. Instead the Tibetans closed off their land to foreigners. That was a huge mistake. Other than a handful of British and Indian diplomats, who had selfish reasons for wanting to negotiate with Lhasa, almost no one was allowed in.

    So when 1950 rolled around and the PLA began making its way to Lhasa, few other countries cared in the slightest what was happening.

    • Troll: vot tak, showmethereal
    • Replies: @showmethereal
  259. @Pincher Martin

    The Dalai Lama changes his story to fit the circumstances. He was offered–and signed–a VERY sweet deal in the 50s and a very good one in ’85. But he wanted “Tibet” to include half of China. He cares nothing for Tibet, nor for fulfilling his spiritual role for his people. Never has.

    • Agree: showmethereal
  260. vot tak says:

    Anti-Chinese Racism Sets Stage for New McCarthyism

    https://www.unz.com/article/anti-chinese-racism-sets-stage-for-new-mccarthyism/

    An article documenting actions of some of pincher martin’s co-workers.

  261. @Godfree Roberts

    Not a single one of your five sentences in this short paragraph is true. Not one. How can you condense so much disinformation in such a tightly-wound post?

    Last night I read Melvyn Goldstein’s The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet and the Dalai Lama. It’s a short book and I was able to finish it in one sitting. Goldstein is the social anthropologist whose 2000 survey findings you’ve mentioned twice in this thread.

    The book was published in the mid-nineties, but it covers in a thorough if brief manner all the important events in the relationship between the Dalai Lama’s government in exile and Beijing through 1996, including the small U.S., British and Indian roles affecting that relationship. It also has two chapters on the relationship between China and Tibet before the CCP overran it in 1950, one on the Imperial era (pre-1911) and one on the “era of de facto independence” (1912-1950).

    He was offered–and signed–a VERY sweet deal in the 50s…

    The “sweet deal” you say the Dalai Lama was offered in 1951 he signed under the barrel of an invading Chinese army. His negotiating team was so fearful of that invasion they didn’t even bother to notify the Dalai Lama of what was in the Seventeen-Point Agreement before they signed it on his behalf.

    Here is how Goldstein describes it:

    Tibet, for the first time in its 1,300 years of recorded history, had now in a formal written agreement acknowledged Chinese sovereignty. In exchange for this concession, China, in points 3, 4, 7, and 11, agreed to maintain the Dalai Lama and the traditional political-economic system intact until such time as the Tibetans wanted reforms….

    The Seventeen-Point Agreement gave Mao the political settlement he felt was critical to legitimize unambiguously Tibet’s status as a part of China. However, this legitimization was achieved by allowing Tibet to retain its feudal-theocratic government and economy, at least for the foreseeable future. Such a concession clearly set Tibet apart from other nationality areas since it was only with Tibet that Beijing entered into a written agreement with the traditional government allowing it to continue to rule.

    Goldstein convincingly describes Mao’s conduct toward Tibet in this period (1951-1959) as that of a moderate. Many hardliners in the CCP wanted to destroy Tibet’s way of life, but Mao thwarted them in the fifties by arguing that the CCP would push for only gradual change.

    However, Goldstein also points out that the Dalai Lama was given no choice but to agree to the Seventeen Points or move to India. Nor did he or any of the other Tibet leaders have confidence that Beijing planned to keep its word. Nor did the Seventeen Points extend to what Goldstein calls “ethnographic Tibet,” which included the Tibetan communities in China’s provinces, rather than “political Tibet,” which was centered on Lhasa.

    This created a huge problem for both Lhasa and Being that Goldstein describes in this way:

    However, the situation in ethnographic Tibet was very different since these Tibetans were not part of political Tibet (or the Seventeen-Point Agreement). Therefore, when Sichuan province became caught up in the nationwide “socialist transformation of agriculture” campaign in 1955-1956, so did these areas. In late 1955 Li Jingquan, the party secretary in Sichuan, authorized the start of democratic reforms throughout his province, including minority areas. This quickly led to a bloody rebellion in Tibetan areas, which spilled over into political Tibet as refugees (and rebels) from ethnographic Tibet fled to the safety of Lhasa and its environs. They became a major factor precipitating the 1959 uprising in Lhasa.

    The Dalai Lama, who actually supported some modern reforms for Tibet, also began feeling pressure from conservative Tibetans who began making things uncomfortable for PLA troops stationed in Tibet with artificial food shortages and low-level resistance.

    Mao also had his conservative faction in the CCP wondering why Tibetans were exempt from what was happening in the rest of China. Mao tried one last attempt to save his gradualist policy in 1957 when he reduced party cadres and troop levels in Tibet and promised the Dalai Lama he would not implement socialist reforms for at least six years (and maybe not even then). But it was too late. A riot broke out in Lhasa and the Dalai Lama fled to India. Both sides repudiated the Seventeen-Point Agreement.

    You write:

    [The Dalai Lama was offered] a very good [deal] in ’85.

    There was no specific deal offered in 1985. There were a series of ongoing negotiations between the exiled Tibetan government in Dharamsala and Beijing all during the late nineteen-seventies and the first half of the nineteen-eighties as Deng tried to recover something from the wreckage of what happened to Tibet from 1959 to 1976 when the CCP destroyed Tibet’s monastic way of life.

    Those negotiations centered around two frameworks. The first was Deng’s point that everything was negotiable except Tibetan independence. That ended up not being true. The CCP would not negotiate over giving up party control of Tibet nor would it countenance something along the lines of “one country, two systems” that the Dalai Lama suggested. It also reacted negatively to the Dalai Lama’s suggestion of allowing more democracy in Tibet.

    The second negotiating framework was the Five-Point Policy offered by CCP General Secretary Hu Yaobang, which again showed that despite Deng’s offer to negotiate everything but independence, the Chinese were not sincere in that offer. The CCP wanted the Dalai Lama to come back to China and Tibet, but under their terms.

    But [the Dalai Lama] wanted “Tibet” to include half of China.

    No, he did not. He wanted to include “ethnographic Tibet,” which meant those Tibetans who lived in Sichuan, Yunnan, Qinghai, and Gansu provinces. But he wasn’t asking for physical control of all those provinces, and it’s likely something could’ve been worked out that ended in greater independence for Tibetans living in those areas.

    Goldstein also describes the considerable political pressure the Dalai Lama was under to include those “ethnographic Tibetan” areas in negotiations with Beijing:

    Complicating this was the future status of “ethnographic Tibet.” The exile government was deeply committed to the re-creation of a “Greater” Tibet, which would include in one administrative unit both political and ethnographic Tibet. Such had been the goal of previous Tibetan governments (as at the Simla talks in 1913-1914) and it was deeply cherished, but it was especially important in exile because of the large numbers of Tibetan refugees from those ethnic areas. The Dalai Lama had worked hard since 1959 to meld the disparate refugees into a unified community by including Tibetans from ethnographic Tibet as equals in the exile government, and by setting as a fundamental political objective the inclusion of their areas in a future “free” Tibet. However, the goal of a Greater Tibet was not at all politically realistic. Tibet had not ruled most of these areas for a century or more, and it is difficult to see how China could have handed over large areas in Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu, and Yunnan, many of which included Chinese and Chinese Muslim (Hui) populations that had migrated there well before the Communists came to power in 1949. However, if Dharamsala decided not to pursue a demand for a Greater Tibet, it would be breaking faith with the Eastern Tibetans in exile. Like the forsaking of independence, this issue was highly contentious and if it became known that the Dalai Lama was willing to consider it, the unity of the exile community could be permanently split.

    So the Dalai Lama couldn’t very well NOT negotiate with the Chinese over ethnographic Tibet without splitting his Tibetan supporters. Besides, we saw what happened in the nineteen-fifties when the CCP policies in “ethnographic Tibet” created an exodus of refugees of those western Tibetans back into Eastern Tibet where they created political problems for Lhasa.

    • Troll: vot tak
  262. BTW, I don’t think anyone here other than the mildly retarded vot tak takes the poster Vidi seriously, but here is what Goldstein had to say about the Dalai Lama’s popularity among Tibetans.

    Working in tandem with these constraints against conciliation and compromise was the view of leaders in Dharamsala that they, in a sense, held the upper hand. The visits of their fact-finding delegations had revealed that the majority of the people of Tibet were behind the Dalai Lama, so they felt they brought a powerful chip to the bargaining table—the Tibetan people’s loyalty.

    What Goldstein is referring to are the Tibetans, even in the Chinese province of Qinghai, who treated the visiting exiled Tibetan delegation, which included the Dalai Lama’s brother, like rock stars.

    The reaction of Tibetans to that delegation shocked the CCP.

    Later, when writing about the future, Goldstein makes this comment:

    [The Dalai Lama] would have to use his enormous prestige and charisma to change the attitude of Tibetans (in Tibet) toward being part of China. His stature in Tibet is so great that he could certainly do that if he tried and if Beijing supported his efforts by promptly phasing in the changes suggested here. Once begun, such a process could be implemented over a decade, even if most Tibetans in exile chose not to return. For China, this solution would close the book on the Tibet Question since major support for Tibetan independence in the West would end if the Dalai Lama accepted such a solution. For the Dalai Lama, it would mean preserving a true, homogeneous ethnic homeland for his people.

    This supports everything I’ve been saying to Vidi about the Dalai Lama’s popularity in Tibet and contradicts everything he’s seen saying about it.

    • Troll: vot tak
  263. @Pincher Martin

    The Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet:

    The local government of Tibet will drive imperialist forces out of Tibet, China will not alter the existing political system, all government officials will maintain their positions and the status, functions and powers of the Dalai Lama will remain unchanged. Tibet will carry out reforms in accordance with the wishes of its people, through consultation with its leaders rather than by compulsion; the Tibetan people will exercise autonomy under their government and Tibetan religious beliefs, customs and habits, monasteries and their incomes will be respected; Tibet will remain a theocracy and retain its autonomy in most military and diplomatic matters; Tibetan troops will be trained and integrated into the PLA and Beijing will guarantee peace with bordering countries.

    American diplomat Robert Ford[1] wrote, “There was no sacking of monasteries at this time. On the contrary, the Chinese took great care not to cause offense through ignorance. They soon had the monks thanking the gods for their deliverance. The Chinese had made it clear they had no quarrel with the Tibetan religion”. The government allocated $500,000 to renovate the Buddhist temple in Beijing and granted additional funds to Tibetan Muslims for a pilgrimage to Mecca, in 1957.


    [1] The Making of Modern Tibet By A.Tom Grunfeld

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  264. @Pincher Martin

    A riot broke out in Lhasa and the Dalai Lama fled to India.

    US Ambassador Chas. H. Freeman, Director for Chinese Affairs at the U.S. Department of State from 1979-1981:

    “I don’t see any reason why Tibet being part of China should be any more controversial than Wales being part of the United Kingdom. The periods when they were put into that position were about the same. I recall, as probably most people don’t, that the the Central Intelligence Agency, with assistance from some of China’s neighbors, put $30 million into the destabilization of Tibet and basically financed and trained the participants in the Khampa rebellion and ultimately sought to remove the Dalai Lama from Tibet–which they did. They escorted him out of Tibet to Dharamsala. 8/31/18 ..https://supchina.com/podcast/legendary-diplomat-chas-w-freeman-jr-on-u-s-china-strategy-and-history-part-3/

    The Dalai Lama was born in China and there is no such place as ‘ethnographic Tibet”.

    You appear to be a professional propagandist.
    What is your name?
    Who pays you?
    Where do you live?

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @vot tak
  265. @Godfree Roberts

    Did you just not read what I wrote?

    Yes, I’ve already described the Seventeen-Point Agreement with more thoroughness than you do here.

    In my post which you respond to, here is what I wrote or quoted about that agreement:

    “In exchange for this concession, China, in points 3, 4, 7, and 11, agreed to maintain the Dalai Lama and the traditional political-economic system intact until such time as the Tibetans wanted reforms…”

    “…this legitimization was achieved by allowing Tibet to retain its feudal-theocratic government and economy, at least for the foreseeable future.”

    “Goldstein convincingly describes Mao’s conduct toward Tibet in this period (1951-1959) as that of a moderate.”

    “Mao tried one last [time] to save his gradualist policy in 1957 when he reduced party cadres and troop levels in Tibet and promised the Dalai Lama he would not implement socialist reforms for at least six years (and maybe not even then). “

    So I admitted that Mao initially took a gradualist approach in the 1950s compared with what came afterwards. It was still an agreement negotiated under a gun. The Tibetan negotiating team in Beijing was so worried about the ongoing advance of the PLA into Tibet that they didn’t even bother to tell the Dalai Lama, who was back in Tibet waiting to hear for them, what they had agreed to under his name.

    And as Goldstein explains, at no time in history until this agreement had Tibet agreed in writing that they were under Chinese sovereignty. Not under the Yuan and not under the Qing.

    • Troll: vot tak
  266. @Godfree Roberts

    The Dalai Lama was born in China …

    So what? The Tibetans have never cared where the new incarnation of the Dalai Lama was born so long as he is legitimized through the Tibetan theocratic system they put in place in Lhasa. One Dalai Lama was born in what is now India. Several were born in what is now Sichuan. And an early Dalai Lama was a Mongol born in Mongolia.

    … and there is no such place as ‘ethnographic Tibet”.

    Don’t be thick. “Ethnographic Tibet” is how Goldstein describes the area where Tibetans live in neighboring Chinese provinces that were once part of Greater Tibet.

    *****

    As for that Chas Freeman quote, had the Dalai Lama listened to the CIA, he would have never signed the Seventeen-Point Agreement. The Agency didn’t want him to agree to it, but he eventually signed it anyway.

    You appear to be a professional propagandist.
    What is your name?
    Who pays you?
    Where do you live?

    What you mean here is that you are finding it impossible to contradict my points and so you need to result to innuendo and intrigue to delegitimize the presumed motivation behind my arguments that you are unable to contradict with your own sources and counterpoints.

    No one pays me to write this stuff. I just do it out of the goodness of my heart to combat the pro-PRC stupidity I see being pimped around here.

    • Troll: vot tak
  267. vot tak says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    “You appear to be a professional propagandist.”

    Agree.

  268. “Ethnographic Tibet” is how Goldstein describes the area where Tibetans live in neighboring Chinese provinces that were once part of Greater Tibet.

    Precisely.

    And now Tibet is part of Greater China.

    And Taiwan will soon be.

    • Replies: @Kundalini
  269. Precisely.

    And now Tibet is part of Greater China.

    So then why did you suggest that the Dalai Lama’s desire to add “ethnographic Tibet” to “political Tibet” was a show-stopper for his negotiations with Beijing in the 1980s?

    You wrote in #262 that “…[the Dalai Lama] wanted “Tibet” to include half of China.”

    But if all Tibet – both “ethnographic” and “political Tibet” – is subsumed under China, what difference would it make? Just give the man what he wants. Beijing controls it all anyway.

    • Troll: vot tak
  270. Kundalini says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    This mofo Martin has shown his indianesque by boasting his shallow knowledge and his travel experience, though in his real life, he doesn’t know how to provide 3 meals a day on the table…
    It’s a wasting time to even read his psychotic belief. His mental gymnastic and tongue yoga are quite telling…

    • Agree: showmethereal, d dan
    • Replies: @vot tak
  271. @Godfree Roberts

    Pincher Martin is a hypocrite. Imagine if a Native American tribal leader was a member of the US Congress while working with the KGB who was arming his tribe for an uprising against the US. He would be the first to call for the death penalty for treason. Yet he considers the Dalai Lama a saint

    • Agree: d dan, Mary Marianne
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  272. @showmethereal

    I don’t think Showmereal is mildly retarded like vot tak, but he has great difficulty in following the thread of the discussion.

    Where in this discussion have I ever said the Dalai Lama was a “saint”? To the contrary, I’ve stated to Showmereal on several occasions (most recently in post #246) that I consider the exiled Tibetan leader to be a politician with many secular aims, just as almost all previous Dalai Lamas were politicians. And no politician is a saint.

    He would be the first to call for the death penalty for treason.

    The Dalai Lama owes no allegiance to China, and the CIA hasn’t armed Tibetan rebels since the 1970s.

    China itself has since on several occasions expressed a willingness to negotiate with the “traitor,” and even invited him to visit China. So why it is that you think others need to condemn the Dalai Lama more strongly than Chicoms themselves did? Are you trying to prove yourself more Red than the Reds? Perhaps in much the same way that some Catholic converts try to be more Catholic than the Pope?

    As for my own views on the PRC, sic temper tyrannis.

    • Troll: vot tak
  273. As a native Chinese–born in China of ethnic Tibetan extraction–the Dalai Lama owes the same allegiance to his motherland as any citizen.

    Nor can he legitimately complain about ‘independence’, as US Ambassador Chas W. Freeman[1] observed:

    I don’t see any reason why Tibet being part of China should be any more controversial than Wales being part of the United Kingdom.The periods when they were put into that position were about the same.

    Nor did he have a legitimate complaint about Beijing’s relationship with Lhasa, as he made clear n his 1998 conversation with Professor Dongping Han[2], at Brandeis University:

    He agreed to meet Chinese scholars and China scholars in the Boston area behind closed doors. He said that in 1950, on his way to Beijing for talks with the Chinese central government, he was filled with doubt about Tibet’s future. But on his way back, he was filled with hope for Tibet and China’s future because he saw with his own eyes how Chairman Mao and other Chinese leaders were working hard for the Chinese people. He also said that Chairman Mao treated him like a younger brother, and he was able to talk with Chairman Mao freely and candidly for three days with the help of an interpreter. No Chinese leader, he said, ever treated him like Chairman Mao did. It seemed that behind closed doors and in the absence of reporters, the Dalai Lama could be disarmingly candid and persuasive.

    Nor did he have legitimate fears about returning to Lhasa, as Mao commented,

    “If the Dalai Lama is willing to return home and is able to get rid of the reactionaries, then we hope he will. But is it possible for him to change his own world outlook? If he wants to return, he can do so tomorrow…Indian newspaper stories say he plans to return but the two statements he made thoroughly oppose the Central Government and the big family of the motherland and advocate Tibetan independence. As a result, he has blocked his own way back. Even so, we must leave leeway for him by electing him Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress and Chairman of the Preparatory Committee of the Founding of the Tibet Autonomous Region”.

    The CIA’s efforts to destabilize Tibet were not, as you earlier claimed, bumbling, amateurish, or ineffectual. They were highly professional, as John Kenneth Knaus[3], the CIA’s Tibet Task Force Commander recalled, “This was not some CIA black-bag operation. The initiative came from…the entire US government”. The Agency built a nuclear-powered monitoring station which, with the help of local Sherpas, they placed in the Himalayas to spy on Chinese missile tests. When that failed they developed a nuclear-powered spy drone to overfly China.

    Nor has the CIA stopped stirring up trouble. After another failed revolt in 1987 the Agency transferred responsibility for Tibetan programs to its civilian arm, the National Endowment for Democracy, NED, but returned a decade later to orchestrate a massacre during the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

    ________________________________________

    [1] US Ambassador Chas. H. Freeman, Director for Chinese Affairs at the U.S. Department of State from 1979-1981.
    [2] The Socialist Legacy Underlies the Rise of Today’s China in the World– by Dongping Han. Aspects of India’s Economy Nos.59-60 (Oct 2014)
    [3] Orphans Of The Cold War America And The Tibetan Struggle For Survival April 25, 2000
    by John Kenneth Knaus

    • Agree: vot tak
    • Thanks: Mary Marianne
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  274. vot tak says:
    @Kundalini

    The troll is not Indian, it is zionazi-gay/israeli, or a combo of that and their pathetic colonial far right freakshow. The pindo cia is a prostitute owned by 2 pimps, of which one has more clout – and it ain’t the nazi half I’m taliking about…

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @Kundalini
  275. @Godfree Roberts

    As a native Chinese–born in China of ethnic Tibetan extraction–the Dalai Lama owes the same allegiance to his motherland as any citizen.

    Thank God few people use your standard, Godfree, or thousands of foreign-born German-American doughboys who fought bravely against their former homeland in WW1 would’ve been expected to turn their weapons on their fellow American soldiers.

    As the latest incarnation of the Dalai Lama, Lhamo Thondup was accepted as an authority by the Tibetan people as a child and trained accordingly. He therefore became not just a Tibetan, but the Tibetan. The circumstances of his birth were – and are – irrelevant. This has been true of several other Dalai Lamas in the past.

    It’s exceedingly strange that the Tibetans, who in many ways are an incredibly xenophobic people, would be so willing to accept a foreign-born supreme leader, but such are the mysteries of religion.

    Nor can [The Dalai Lama] legitimately complain about ‘independence’, as US Ambassador Chas W. Freeman[1] observed:

    Freeman has no more right to circumscribe what the Tibetans can “legitimately claim” than the CCP has. Of course Freeman can pronounce what U.S. policy toward Tibet will be (if anything), but he has no right to tell Tibetans what to think.

    This fits a pattern. As Goldstein points out in The Snow Lion and the Dragon, America has often been a “bad friend” to Tibetans, encouraging them to act out against the Chinese when it is in America’s interest (but not Tibetans’ interest) for them to do so, but then often turns around and tells the Tibetans NOT to act out when it is in America’s interests for the Tibetans to be passive, but perhaps not in the Tibetans’ interest for them to be so.

    For example, the CIA in 1951 tried to get the Dalai Lama to reject the Seventeen-Point Agreement with Mao and go into exile, but to the Dalai Lama’s credit, he rejected the CIA’s advice and tried to cooperate with the CCP for the sake of his people.

    Goldstein:

    The U.S. government and CIA had played a relatively minor role in the Sino-Tibetan conflict up to then [i.e., 1951], but this was the heyday of the Cold War and the U.S. government’s China policy was to harass and obstruct the new Communist state whenever possible. Chinese aggression in Tibet provided a new opportunity to do this, and Washington jumped at the opportunity. However, from the U.S. perspective, charges of Chinese Communist aggression would have little resonance if the Dalai Lama returned to Lhasa and ratified the agreement, so a major effort was made to persuade him to denounce the Seventeen-Point Agreement and flee into exile.

    As we know, the Dalai Lama rejected the CIA’s advice. He went back to Tibet and tried to work with the CCP for the next eight years.

    The CIA’s efforts to destabilize Tibet were not, as you earlier claimed, bumbling, amateurish, or ineffectual.

    They were all those things.

    Here, for example, is how Goldstein describes the CIA’s efforts after the Dalai Lama went into exile in 1959.

    The Tibetan rebellion also failed dismally. The CIA’s support for the guerrillas was too little too late, and the Tibetan guerrilla forces were unable to achieve their initial hope of holding some territory within Tibet as a “Free Tibet” base of operations. The CIA subsequently assisted the guerrillas in establishing a safe-haven base of operations in northern Nepal, but the subsequent raids into Tibet from Nepal had no impact on the political situation in Tibet.

    It didn’t get much better after that. And then that support stopped in the late sixties and early seventies when Kissinger went to work on rapprochement with China.

    Goldstein notes:

    This book is not the appropriate venue to detail the tacks and turns of U.S.-Tibet relations over the past five decades; it suffices to reiterate that U.S. support for Tibet diminished substantially after Nixon and Kissinger initiated rapprochement with China in 1969-1971. For the decade following detente, Tibet remained an obscure issue in U.S. foreign policy. The Dalai Lama was not even permitted to visit the United States until 1979….

    The CIA had informed the Tibetan guerrillas by the late 1960s that they were terminating U.S. financial support.

    The CIA had no role in the 1987 riots, which were a spontaneous reaction to the liberalization occurring not only in Tibet but throughout China after more than two decades of repression.

    Nor has the CIA stopped stirring up trouble. After another failed revolt in 1987 the Agency transferred responsibility for Tibetan programs to its civilian arm, the National Endowment for Democracy, NED, but returned a decade later to orchestrate a massacre during the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

    Sounds like a bunch of cranks have taken up occupancy in your head and are now charging rent.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  276. @vot tak

    It’s good to see that vot tak finally has someone at his own low intellectual level who he can talk to. I was getting worried that he might get lonely by pressing that “troll” button all the time.

    • Troll: vot tak
  277. Kundalini says:
    @vot tak

    Thanks for the info. This agency has created massive propaganda disseminators on global networks so much so that many learned persons have even fallen prey to these predators unwittingly.
    The more the world has changed, the more it remains the same.

  278. @Pincher Martin

    foreign-born German-American doughboys who fought bravely against their former homeland in WW1 would’ve been expected to turn their weapons on their fellow American soldiers.

    Those brave German-born doughboys are in no way resemble Chinese-born Chinese citizens of ethnic Tibetan extraction.

    It’s exceedingly strange that the Tibetans, who in many ways are an incredibly xenophobic people, would be so willing to accept a foreign-born supreme leader, but such are the mysteries of religion.

    Many accepted Mao as their supreme leader and, as you are doubtless aware, still worship him in their home shrines.

    The CIA had no role in the 1987 riots, which were a spontaneous reaction to the liberalization occurring not only in Tibet but throughout China after more than two decades of repression.

    Get a grip! In 1987 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that sought to publicly denounce human rights violations in Tibet, and invited the Dalai Lama to speak at the U.S. Congressional Human Rights Caucus, where he reiterated that Tibet was a sovereign nation being illegally occupied by the Chinese. Goldstein himself argues that this was one of the major catalysts that led to the Tibetan riots of 1987 less than a week after the Dalai Lama’s speech. He makes the argument that Tibetans percieved the leader in-exile’s speech to American congress a declaration of support for Tibetan nationalism by the American government, and that this perception led to protest movements throughout monasteries and communities in Tibet shortly thereafter.

    The signs that the USG/CIA/NED continues stirring up trouble in Tibet are patently obvious, as this week’s Congressional actions and your professional presence in this obscure corner of the Internet attest.

    What galls me as a taxpayer is the wasted effort. From our firebombing of Wuhan in 1944 to our introduction of the Coronavirus there in 2019, we have spent $100 billion in 2020 dollars
    trying to overthrow/subvert China.

    Not only did we fail but, in the process, we made ourselves ridiculous in the eyes of the world: we look and act like losers.

    By the end of 2021 we will be diplomatically, scientifically, socially, and economically irrelevant for any purpose other than the one that you pursue: futile lying, dissimulation, hypocrisy, and the immiseration not only of our own people, but of 80% of the world’s population.

    I suggest you start sending out your CV.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  279. @Godfree Roberts

    Those brave German-born doughboys are in no way resemble Chinese-born Chinese citizens of ethnic Tibetan extraction.

    I was only testing your proposition that one’s birthplace ought to determine one’s loyalty for life. It turns out that even you don’t much agree with it.

    Many accepted Mao as their supreme leader and, as you are doubtless aware, still worship him in their home shrines.

    Well, just as you can take the black out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the black, so it seems that you can take the Tibetan out of the Feudal/Theocratic mindset, but you can’t take the Feudal/Theocratic mindset out of the Tibetan.

    When the CCP took away the monks and the monasteries and left nothing else to be worshipped, some Tibetans took to worshiping Mao. You and those Tibetans share much in common.

    As for the 14th Dalai Lama, he is not of Tibetan extraction, but belongs to the ethnic group called the “White Mongol” or Tu or Monguor. I actually did not know this until a couple of days ago.

    Get a grip! In 1987 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that sought to publicly denounce human rights violations in Tibet, and invited the Dalai Lama to speak at the U.S. Congressional Human Rights Caucus, where he reiterated that Tibet was a sovereign nation being illegally occupied by the Chinese.

    This has nothing to do with the CIA, but you are correct that I should not have used the word “spontaneous” to describe the 1987 riots.

    The signs that the USG/CIA/NED continues stirring up trouble in Tibet are patently obvious, as this week’s Congressional actions and your professional presence in this obscure corner of the Internet attest.

    The CIA should pay me for my work. I would do a much better job than the people they normally hire.

    But the US assisting or promoting human rights abroad is not the CIA’s typical bailiwick. It’s certainly not what most people complain about when they complain about the CIA. Nor is there any reason to believe that the US government needs the CIA to fund things like the VOA Chinese-language broadcasts or to control the Dalai Lama’s actions abroad. Nor is there anything wrong with such funding. If a U.S.-funded radio broadcast into Tibet can make Tibetans riot, then there is something wrong with Chinese rule there.

    What galls me as a taxpayer is the wasted effort. From our firebombing of Wuhan in 1944 to our introduction of the Coronavirus there in 2019, we have spent $100 billion in 2020 dollars
    trying to overthrow/subvert China.

    Lots of laughs. If we truly introduced the coronavirus into China (spoiler alert: we didn’t), then that by itself cost us much more than $100 billion when it backfired against us. The CBO estimated in June that it could cost us several trillion dollars of economic activity.

    You really go off the rails by the end of your post.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  280. vot tak says:

    You are a failure, shlomo. Nobody here thinks your comments are legit discussion. Everybody saw through your dishonest manipulations and debating tricks. You had to get a co-worker from the sailor zio-establishment troll hq club* to come here to back your propaganda. This is a common zionazi-nazi-gay web troll tactic where one propaganda troll starts spamming a site or conversation thread and soon after is reinforced by its co-workers.

    Your crap isn’t working. So what do you do? You double down on what isn’t working like the typical neocon neanderthal. You lot think your attempts to ram your propaganda home will get people believing the bs, but instead people are more in more seeing you for what you are: arrogant bs’ers who see others as “marks” to exploit. The likudite attitude of how to “make friends and influence people”. 😀

    * This is a zpc/nwo far right equivalent of their fake left hangouts such as justthetalk.com or horstmann’s moon of alabama blog, and many, many others. While these all outwardly present what seems to be very different politics, the reality is they promote the establishment oligarchy running the west in general, and zio-power in particular.

    • Replies: @vot tak
    , @Pincher Martin
  281. vot tak says:
    @vot tak

    This was intended as a reply to martin.

  282. @vot tak

    If I’m not having an impact on this debate, why do you give me so much attention? Why are you following me around like a little lost puppy? My nearly every post in this thread has a response from you.

    As for your description of me, not a single noun you use is correct. I’m not Jewish. I’m not a Zionist. I’m not gay. I’m not a Nazi (even if I am attracted to many elements of fascism). I’m not a Neocon. I’m not a Likudite. And I’m not in league with anyone here.

    You mistake malice for accuracy. You mistake passion for an agenda. You mistake precision for lies.

    In brief, you’re an idiot.

    • Troll: vot tak
  283. @Pincher Martin

    “I lived ten years among a predominantly Han people in Taiwan. I speak Mandarin. My wife is Chinese.

    So I like and respect the Han just fine. What I don’t like are the PRC hacks who are either Beijing’s slaves or, when they live abroad, still in mental servitude to Beijing. The free Chinese are wonderful people”

    Now I see where your comedy comes from. You are sore the PRC overtook the ROC. Well if you had ANY SENSE you would know the ROC claimed Tibet as well and still lists Arunchal Pradesh as South Tibet. Your handlers didn’t tell you? The ROC was just too weak – but they still claimed Tibet. Yeah I’m gone now – another one of these clowns… No wonder everything else you said was full of half truths and misinformation. You belong to that brigade.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  284. @showmethereal

    Now I see where your comedy comes from. You are sore the PRC overtook the ROC.

    Overtook?

    The average Taiwanese today is considerably wealthier than the average Chinese. He’s also freer. He lives in a country where he can pick his leaders, not in an enslaved country where his leaders are chosen for him.

    Well if you had ANY SENSE you would know the ROC claimed Tibet as well and still lists Arunchal Pradesh as South Tibet.

    Chiang Kai-shek’s fantasies about unifying greater China under his rule died before he died. The only thing he gave the world that was worth a damn was his son, Chiang Ching-kuo, who proceeded to guide Taiwan’s economic and political transformation until it was recognized as one of the Four Little Dragons.

    Had the young Chiang Kai-shek been as worried about lifting up his people to wealth and freedom as he was in unifying China than the Chinese would be a free people today.

    • Troll: vot tak, showmethereal
    • Replies: @Showmethereal
  285. @Pincher Martin

    Most educated people in the world who have studied the matter–and that includes a billion Chinese–are of the opinion that the virus originated in the US, and out esteemed host, Ron Unz, has written about it:

    Our Coronavirus Catastrophe as Biowarfare Blowback? RON UNZ • APRIL 21, 2020. https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-coronavirus-catastrophe-as-biowarfare-blowback/?showcomments

    • Agree: vot tak
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  286. d dan says:

    For readers who are interested in some of China’s environmental efforts and achievements:

    1. China is feeding 20% of world population with just 6% of world’s arable land.
    2. China increases its forest coverage from 16.6% to 22% from 2000 to 2020.
    3. China plans to have peak CO2 output by 2030, and CO2 neutral by 2060, the most ambitious goals among major countries.

    So how does China do that? Part of the efforts are through afforestation and reforestation:

    Afforestation is the establishment of a forest or stand of trees in an area where there was NO previous tree cover.
    Reforestation is to replant with forest-trees; restore to the condition of forest or woodland.

    Afforestation is generally more difficult than reforestation because the conditions for plants survival may simply not exist (e.g. in desert). China has the largest afforestation area in the world: 1990-2015. The latest numbers continue to indicate China lead other countries.
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-where-afforestation-is-taking-place-around-the-world
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/239433/top-afforestation-countries/

    25% of the trees planted in the world in the last few years were planted in China. Even NASA acknowledges that the results are visible through satellite:

    A recent Boston University (BU) study tracking satellite data of vegetation coverage found that the world is indeed getting greener overall, largely thanks to an ambitious reforestation program underway in China.
    “China alone accounts for 25 percent of the global net increase in leaf area with only 6.6 percent of global vegetated area,” says lead researcher Chi Chen of BU’s Department of Earth and Environment. “This is equal to the net greening in the three largest countries, Russia, the United States and Canada, that together hold 31 percent of the global vegetated area.”

    https://ecoanouk.com/reforestation-projects/

    The following is a collection of interesting videos by Chinese government and foreigners about some of the Chinese anti-desertification projects. Some of these projects dated back to the 1950s:

    China’s war against desertification, part 1, 2 (New China TV):

    In 1986, the city of Aksu in China’s Xinjiang began an ambitious tree-planting project that looked to turn swaths of desert into forest. The result was over 13 million acres of green that became the Kekeya greening project (CGTN video):

    China’s green growth through solar plant in Datong, Shanxi province, and other research and planting projects by Xinhua reporter Colin Linneweber:

    Informative video about how China turned desert into productive land:

    A foreigner personal experience working in Chinese anti-desertification project and making friends with Chinese workers:
    https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Ak4y1z79T/?spm_id_from=333.788.videocard.0

    Another foreigner who works in many countries green projects. His views on reforestation and anti-desertification in Lhasa Tibet with water efficient Groasis Waterboxx:

    China has many research projects on how to combat desertification. The following video shows 6 interesting and innovative methods China uses to convert desert into productive lands rich with crops, by Richard Aguilar:

    Other videos of Richard Aguilar about China’s big desert transformation projects:

    • Thanks: vot tak, showmethereal
  287. @Godfree Roberts

    I didn’t say you weren’t in the right place. But Chinese views on it are worthless.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  288. @d dan

    When China does something, it does it big and sloppy. Battling desertification is one thing. But battling a desert is quite another. And some of those videos look like China is battling deserts, not desertification.

    The desert is not the enemy. It’s just another environment. So if you are moving water from one area of China where it is naturally abundant to another area where it is naturally scarce, you are almost certainly negatively affecting both environments over the long term. Especially since China already has a major problem with water resources.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @d dan
  289. xcd says:
    @KlcTan

    In tyranny or imperialism, just as in gangsterism, they try to overwhelm the opponent with atrocities. You may even see this in a legislature: the outnubered opposition trying to bring up an issue it has just got the proof for, whereas the government is already into the next project of plunder.

  290. xcd says:
    @Alfred

    “China’s Clean Air Policies are Triggering Additional Global Warming”

    That pollution itself was concealing or ameliorating warming – by reducing insolation – was known for some time. The larger volcanic eruptions confirmed this. Therefore, the initial result of cleaning up industries will be negative. The captains of capitalism cannot win this battle with the planet.

  291. xcd says:
    @Shi Tou

    Agree. This sentence is a poor part of the otherwise useful essay:

    ..China, forewarned by our experience, never lost awareness of its environment.

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  292. xcd says:
    @vot tak

    3. If riduculed or rebuffed, a zionazi, simply waits for the next opportunity or victim to repeat the same hackneyed contention.

  293. xcd says:
    @vot tak

    By uneven development, you probably mean imperialism.

    • Replies: @vot tak
  294. vot tak says:
    @xcd

    Agree, it is another way of referring to imperialism which the author of that article is using.

  295. d dan says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “… and sloppy”

    I know, I heard that 127 times already. Look at their Great Wall and Grand Canal – they lasted only a thousand years. Why couldn’t they built something that lasted forever? Pretty sloppy.

    “… you are almost certainly negatively affecting both environments… “

    Agree again. Those Chinese doctors should not help patients kill their cancer cells when there is a chance to killing healthy cells too. Pretty reckless.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  296. @xcd

    Did you see the movie, Erin Brockovich?

    She spent a decade trying to get one polluted site, which had been killing and maiming people for 50 years, cleaned up.

    And it wasn’t toxic enough to qualify as a superfund site.

    There 1344 Superfund sites in the USA right now, and $4.5 billion has been spent on cleaning up 413 of them, leaving 931 yet to be cleaned up.

    How many Superfund sites does China have?

  297. @d dan

    I know, I heard that 127 times already. Look at their Great Wall and Grand Canal – they lasted only a thousand years.

    Well, you’re wrong about the Great Wall. I’ve visited three different sections of the wall and they were all built well into the Ming, which makes them around 500 years old. They have also since been refurbished under the CCP.

    The earlier sections of the wall, some of which are over 2,000 years old, are barely visible.

    I’m less familiar with the history of the Grand Canal, but given how wrong you are about the Great Wall…

    Agree again. Those Chinese doctors should not help patients kill their cancer cells when there is a chance to killing healthy cells too. Pretty reckless.

    A desert isn’t a cancer. And recent desertification in China has been caused by Chinese modernization.

    What are the Song and Yuan equivalents to the Cathedrals? Or the Han equivalents to the Parthenon? The Forbidden City was, like the Great Wall, built during the Ming.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @d dan
  298. @Pincher Martin

    It’s as hard today as ever to change a man’s mind when his income depends on his NOT changing it.

    But I’ll give it one last shot: in 2021, most of the opinions that matter are in China. That’s what this chart is screaming:

    That’s why they’re eating our lunch.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  299. d dan says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “… they were all built well into the Ming, which makes them around 500 years old. They have also since been refurbished under the CCP.”

    Damn, those sneaky Chinese – keep rebuilding and refurbishing old structures and buildings – even on their Great Wall. Europeans never needed to do that for their buildings.

    “What are the Song and Yuan equivalents to the Cathedrals? Or the Han equivalents to the Parthenon?”

    I don’t know. Maybe they liked to play with terra cotta instead of Cathedrals. Or maybe they got burned down by the usual thieves like Yuanming Yuan? They should have build fire-proof cathedrals like the Notre Dame instead:

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  300. @Godfree Roberts

    It’s as hard today as ever to change a man’s mind when his income depends on his NOT changing it.

    Not a single penny I’ve earned has come from my rhetoric on China. Nor is it likely to. Nor do I post quasi-sourced articles on the internet posing as an expert.

    That’s why they’re eating our lunch.

    Don’t be juvenile. You’re comparing attitudes in fully-developed countries with those in what is still a developing but fast-growing country.

    China’s had a good run over the last thirty years, so its people are confident and optimistic. The government is also careful to make sure they don’t hear anything that would cause them to question their leadership.

    But these runs end. They always do.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  301. @Pincher Martin

    In China, these runs take between 400-500 years to run, so don’t hold your breath.

    In the meantime, China outguns us militarily, economically, financially, technologically, scientifically, and socially.

    We’re not in the same league.

    • Agree: d dan
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  302. @Pincher Martin

    Ahhh…. See i love when trolls keep posting. They end up exposing themselves. So you must be a DPP sycophant. So now Chiang Kai Shek is a bad guy too…?? Well this is as bad as you pretending that ethnic strife didnt happen in Bhutan.
    So you claim Taiwan are now the good Han people since they have had 30 plus years of democracy…. Yet in the same breath you praise a monarchy (again one that exiled a huge portion of their population) and absolutley fawn over a fake man-god known as the Dalai Lama. Tibetan culturenwas based on feudal cult worship of him… What democracy was there to be???? He is still held as divine. No democracy there. You are past comical.

    I disagree with Godfree Roberts. I dont think you are a professional troll… Anyone who reviews your work would want their money back.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @Kundalini
  303. @d dan

    Indeed… Some of the things they did were amazing. There were some bumps along the road which they had learned from. For instance they planted only one species of tree in certain places… But that is never a good idea because all it takes is one disease or pest to wipe it out. They also planted certain plants in the desert that sucked up all the ground water and made things worse. But good for them – they leanred from both experiences and were able to correct both. Some really remarkable things going on in those deserts…

    • Replies: @d dan
  304. d dan says:
    @Showmethereal

    “For instance they planted only one species of tree in certain places… They also planted certain plants in the desert that sucked up all the ground water and made things worse. “

    Some of the video mentioned their latest research on choosing the best species for planting in desert-like environments. They are also using genetic techniques to create crops that can be grown in those environments (can’t remember in those videos or not). See for example, Yuan Longping’s 袁隆平 work on hybrid rice that can be grown in salty areas. Finally, they are sharing the results with UN and countries in Africa and elsewhere, helping others to fight against desertification.

    Check this paper, “Agriculture and crop science in China: Innovation and sustainability”:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214514117300144

    The next decades will be exciting to see.

    • Replies: @Showmethereal
  305. @d dan

    Damn, those sneaky Chinese – keep rebuilding and refurbishing old structures and buildings – even on their Great Wall. Europeans never needed to do that for their buildings.

    But the Great Wall is not a building. It has served no purpose except as a tourist site for more than two hundred years. The CCP refurbishment was done for the sake of tourism, not historical preservation. In the late Qing, foreigners were more impressed by the Great Wall than were the Chinese.

    Where the wall has not been recently repaired, it is falling apart. In some areas it has completely disappeared. So how does any of this history contradict what I said earlier about when China builds something it does it “big and sloppy”?

    One does not even need to go to Europe to find more interesting older architecture than in Beijing. One can go to Southeast Asia, Mexico, Peru, the Middle East and find many older architectural wonders that have held up better than anything China created before the Ming. For example, I found the temple complexes I visited in Cambodia more impressive than any contemporary architecture that was built in China at the time. Even when the temples were abandoned and the jungle reclaimed them, they still impress:

    I don’t know. Maybe they liked to play with terra cotta instead of Cathedrals. Or maybe they got burned down by the usual thieves like Yuanming Yuan? They should have build fire-proof cathedrals like the Notre Dame instead:

    The Chinese built with materials that wouldn’t last. So if you go to Beijing today, you can tour the Forbidden City (Ming), the Summer Palace (Qing), the Lama Temple (Qing), the Temple of Heaven (Ming), and the Drum and Bell Towers (originally conceived and built by the Yuan, but relocated and built better by the Ming and Qing). But as my parentheticals show, they date back only to the most recent dynasties.

    Beijing has an amazing history, but that history does not include its architectural wonders, most of which are fairly recent.

    By contrast, Rome’s architectural wonders have held up much better and are much more impressive than anything found in Beijing.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @d dan
  306. @Godfree Roberts

    In China, these runs take between 400-500 years to run, so don’t hold your breath.

    For some strange reason, you have internalized the rhythm of China’s dynastic histories and then doubled their length.

    A very good run for a Chinese dynasty was 250 years, but the final half of that period was usually marked by decline.

    For example, the last Chinese dynasty, the Qing, lasted 268 years. That’s a very good run for a Chinese dynasty. But the high point of the Qing was the period in which just three emperors ruled, from the Kangxi to the Qianlong, representing 135 years of the Qing dynasty or more than half the length of the entire dynasty (1661-1796).

    But the final 100 years of the Qing was a period of decline, and the final 70 years was a train wreck.

    There is no reason to believe the modern era, however, is subject to the rhythms of Chinese dynastic cycles.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  307. d dan says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “The Chinese built with materials that wouldn’t last.”

    You don’t even know you just answered your own question and refuted your own statement?

    Chinese preferred using wood/clay than stones/metal for constructions, for cultural, religious, cost and other practical reasons (e.g. less cold in winter). These explain why Qin’s Epang Palace (阿房宮), Han’s Weiyang Palace (未央宮), Tang’s Daming Palace (大明宮), and hundreds and thousands more others had been destroyed throughout history.

    Is this actually a proof (i.e. what you claim) or an explanation (i.e. what you failed to consider) why the construction seem “sloppy” to you? Your bias and lack of objectivity in analysis are so obvious.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  308. @Showmethereal

    So you must be a DPP sycophant. So now Chiang Kai Shek is a bad guy too…??

    Keep guessing. Eventually, you’ll get something right even if it’s just by accident.

    I’m a American. Why would I care about provincial Taiwan politics? If anything, I’m more to the KMT side, which is where my wife is at.

    Besides, most Taiwanese do not want to declare independence. They are satisfied with the status quo, which is de facto independence and peace.

    But it’s a plain fact that the Taiwanese are able to choose their own leaders and the Chinese are not. Hence, the Taiwanese are free and the Chinese are not.

    It’s also a plain historical fact that Chiang Kai-shek focused very little on governing Taiwan and left many of the local details up to his son, who did a very fine job of modernizing Taiwan and yet gets very little credit today. Chiang, meanwhile, kept dreaming of retaking the mainland.

    Yet in the same breath you praise a monarchy (again one that exiled a huge portion of their population) and absolutley fawn over a fake man-god known as the Dalai Lama. Tibetan culturenwas based on feudal cult worship of him… What democracy was there to be???? He is still held as divine. No democracy there. You are past comical.

    And yet that God-king has advocated serious democratic reforms for Tibet, which makes him more of a progressive than the CCP!

    You keep focusing on the past instead of updating your knowledge about what’s going on. The Dalai Lama is now progressive; it’s Beijing’s leadership which is regressive.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @Showmethereal
  309. @d dan

    Chinese preferred using wood/clay than stones/metal for constructions, for cultural, religious, cost and other practical reasons (e.g. less cold in winter). These explain why Qin’s Epang Palace (阿房宮), Han’s Weiyang Palace (未央宮), Tang’s Daming Palace (大明宮), and hundreds and thousands more others had been destroyed throughout history.

    Stating it as a cultural and religious preference does not excuse it. The ancient Chinese were capable of using stone.

    They just didn’t do it very often.

    Cultural reasons? One can be sloppy for cultural reasons.

    Is this actually a proof (i.e. what you claim) or an explanation (i.e. what you failed to consider) why the construction seem “sloppy” to you? Your bias and lack of objectivity in analysis are so obvious.

    Stone is an obvious superior building material if you want to build something that lasts. That’s why so many societies and cultures have used stone to build their monuments. Because, you know, they actually wanted them to last.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @d dan
  310. @sarz

    What do you mean there are no original Montanans left? The Crow are still around. Withdraw from Montana and let Crow civilization flourish!

    Okay, I’m joking. I’m not politically correct. But Tibet is no more of Americans’ business than Montana is of the business of the Han Chinese.

    As for implying I’m paid by the Chinese, that’s the weakest possible argument. It’s what you say when you don’t have a real response. I make pro-China comments because there are two things I’m decidedly against: One, hypocrisy, and, two, war against China or any other nuclear-armed superpower for the sake of liberal ideology or the Westphalian system or some such garbage.

    • Agree: showmethereal
  311. @d dan

    Yes – I had heard of hybrid rice and the sharing with African countries. Thanks for the article. I will check it out.

  312. d dan says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “One can be sloppy for cultural reasons.”

    You continue to repeat your own unproved claim (argumentum ad nauseam), and expect others to refute it (reversal of “burden of proof”) – something that you have done a few times already in this thread. So, in addition to your lack of objectivity and bias, you also don’t know the law of logic and rule of engagement.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  313. @d dan

    Sloppy is not a term that can be objectively proven or disproven, so stop acting all butt-hurt about it.

    China has been primarily known for large public works that were more famous for their size than their engineering prowess. There’s nothing special about the Great Wall or the Grand Canal other than they are both huge works that – at least in parts – have been worked on for more than two thousand years.

    Since China has almost always been the most populous country on the planet and since it had nearly unlimited corvée labor for public works and since it has the longest continuous history of any country still existing today, why is it impressive that the Chinese could – and did – pull off such large engineering projects?

    How impressive would Hadrian’s Wall be if the Romans had spent two thousand years working on it, on and off, instead of just six years?

    A modern example of the “big and sloppy” approach by China is the Three Gorges Dam. It is the world’s largest power station and all manner of superlatives were attached to it when it was first built. But it’s been an environmental headache and even its structural integrity has been questioned.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @d dan
  314. @Pincher Martin

    Our current, republican, dynasty has reached the end of its assigned life while theirs is just beginning.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  315. @Godfree Roberts

    The U.S. Republican system of government still commands the most powerful military, the largest GDP, the most innovative society, and easily the highest GDP per capita income in the world among large countries (including three to four times that of China).

    That’s after 244 years, which is well after the length of time that even the great Chinese dynasties were obviously falling apart.

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  316. Kundalini says:
    @Showmethereal

    – I used to live in China
    – I speak Chinese
    – my wife is Chinese
    – I’ve traveled to China and other parts of the world
    – I have many Chinese friends and get along well with them, but I hate their government
    Conclusion:
    95+% he is Indian, graduated from Google University and suffering from delusional perturbation.
    Just wasting our time to read his drivels…..

  317. @Kundalini

    You probably have it correct. I actually was finding him comical… But yeah – delusion is sad.

  318. @Kundalini

    You appear to have made up a pseudonym just so you can talk about me. I’m honored. You not only waste time reading my “drivel,” but you even waste your time creating noms de plume so you can write about me.

    If you keep this up, I’ll soon have my very own stalker. Not counting vot tak, of course. But he thinks I’m an Israeli, whereas you think I’m Indian.

    • Replies: @Kundalini
  319. @Pincher Martin

    If the military is so powerful, how come it has never won a war, got its ass kicked by a volunteer group from China, and is currently losing five wars simultaneously?

    You can’t spend GDP per capita, nor infer anything from it.

    China has the highest home ownership on earth, their kids graduate high school three years ahead of ours and live longer, healthier lives–while we have more drug addicts, suicides and executions, more homeless, poor, hungry and imprisoned people than they do.

    Starting as the poorest nation on earth, they opened that gap in just 70 years.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  320. @Pincher Martin

    Against my better judgement I will engage you one last time to point out how your logic is poor and you supposed facts are very “challenged” in their accuracy.

    Chiang was a war time man. Utterly corrupt – but had he not taken all the treasury of the whole of China to Taiwan alomg with many elites it might look like the Philippines today. That is the money Taiwan used to stabilize and modernize. Chiang also sent his son to the Soviet Union to receive his education and training. No democracy there either. In fact – do you know why he carried out assassinations in the US? Yes – he did. People he didnt like were hu ted down and killed in California for example. All the US did was say “please dont assassinate anyone on our soil” – so instead he did them at home. You seem to have no clue of real history. Thats when they started to prod him towards loosening political reigns.
    The ROC in Taiwan became developed under martial law! It only became democratic AFTER. Since then by almost any measure – progress on the island has slowed or stalled. TSMC is tye only thing that gives the island any prominence anymore.
    The same can be said of South Korea and Japan and Singapore. All became developed under military rule or autocracy. AFTER – is when they opened up the vote. Of them – only Singapore is still able to move and shake dynamically rather than become lethargic. Many would attribute that to the fact that while Singapore is a “democracy” – its single party rule can make the right decisions – rather than waste time playing politics.
    You claim to be an American and yet you probably dont know for most of US history only white male landowners could vote. Only as the country developed were more and more people allowed to vote. Universal suffrage is only a small portion of US history. Now it is more divided than ever. Chinese people in the PRC know and understanding these things. Most are in no rush to be like Taiwan. In case you didnt know many mainlanders travel to Taiwan to watch the elections. Some hope for it on the mainland – but most are not impressed and see it as messy amd unproductive.

    Now as to the Dalai Lama. Again with your fake history. It was the PRC that made him abolish feudalism and serfdom. He only began to embrace reforms many years later when his western handlers taught him what to say in order to get support from people like you.

    But yeah I am done wasting energy… Carry on.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  321. @Godfree Roberts

    If the military is so powerful, how come it has never won a war, got its ass kicked by a volunteer group from China, and is currently losing five wars simultaneously?

    The Neocons have us involved in wars we can’t win because victory is premised NOT on military victory but on changing the mindsets of populations that can’t be changed. The Neocons believed, and probably still believe, that we can do for Afghanistan and Iraq what we did for Germany and Japan.

    That has nothing to do with military ability and everything to do with the stupid ideological underpinnings of what the Neocons expect a military should be able to do.

    You can’t spend GDP per capita, nor infer anything from it.

    Sure you can. GDP per capita is literally a nation’s income divided by its number of people. And if you use PPP (which I did), it is derived from what you can buy with that income.

    China has the highest home ownership on earth, their kids graduate high school three years ahead of ours and live longer, healthier lives–while we have more drug addicts, suicides and executions, more homeless, poor, hungry and imprisoned people than they do.

    None of this is true. Except perhaps for the drug addicts.

    Besides, don’t be a hypocrite. You just wrote an article about how environmentally-friendly China’s policies are, but China’s building boom, which allows for its home ownership rates, is environmentally unfriendly (not to mention financially unstable). Many empty buildings sit in China, the result of Chinese banks lending out money to builders who will never make any money from their projects, which means the Chinese banks will lose that money.

    How environmentally friendly do you think it is to have countless ghost cities you’ve built in the last two decades? All that carbon used for nothing. All that fresh water that has to be hooked up to their drinking and sewage systems.

    China can do this because of its incredibly high savings rate, high growth rates, and, most importantly, because state-owned bankers don’t evaluate the risks of lending money to the developers in the same way a rational bank would be forced to do. None of those things will continue indefinitely and when it ends it will end ugly.

    Starting as the poorest nation on earth, they opened that gap in just 70 years.

    China wasn’t the poorest nation on earth 70 years ago, and since it was among the richest countries on earth 200 years, one can say that China has merely caught back up to where it should have been.

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  322. @Showmethereal

    Against my better judgement I will engage you one last time to point out how your logic is poor and you supposed facts are very “challenged” in their accuracy.

    …and…

    But yeah I am done wasting energy… Carry on.

    You’ve said this from the beginning of our discussion. Either commit to the discussion or stop posting. But enough with this passive-aggressive nonsense where you are backing out of a debate even as you go further into it.

    Chiang was a war time man. Utterly corrupt – but had he not taken all the treasury of the whole of China to Taiwan along with many elites it might look like the Philippines today.

    This is absolute rubbish. It shows you don’t have the first concept about either basic economics or how wealth is created.

    Unless you are born in a country filled with oil or sandy beaches where rich tourists like to flock, wealth is created entirely by the productivity of the people who live in that country. Taiwan has no oil and it has no sandy beaches where rich tourists like to visit. Its wealth – like that of Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, and China – has been created entirely by the work and intelligence of its people.

    So the difference between the Philippines and Taiwan has nothing to do with your stupid origin story about the corruption of Chiang Kaishek and other KMT elites – something which has been true of every Third World elite class, including Japan’s. The Taiwanese are just that much smarter and harder-working than the Filipinos, and when given the right incentives they produce at a far higher rate.

    Productivity is the key to a nation’s wealth, with the minor exception of countries like Saudi Arabia (oil) and the Bahamas (sandy beaches). But even those countries are dependent on a global system where wealth is continually produced by (mainly) pushing the technological frontier and (less importantly) improving human capital.

    East Asian, Western European, and the Western European offshoots (U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) countries are the chief examples today who produce more than ever because of how they create and apply technology. Taiwan, China, and the rest of East Asia are all in that class.

    The ROC in Taiwan became developed under martial law!

    Martial law was dropped in 1987. Democratic reforms began immediately, starting with the establishment of opposition parties (including the DPP).

    And Taiwan’s economy was nothing special in 1987. It was in the top 50 countries in per capita income (PPP), but only around a third of the United States. Its $7,484 PPP per capita was still below Romania, Mexico, and Puerto Rico’s.

    From an American film in 1987:

    Can’t imagine that sentiment being expressed today.

    Since the ending of martial law, Taiwan’s per capita GDP (PPP) has gone up sevenfold. It is now among the top 20 countries in per capita income. It is no longer behind Mexico. It is now ahead of Australia and Canada (see 2019 ranking).

    The notion that any of this economic progress over the last 33 years has anything to do with what Chiang stole from the mainland in 1949 or with martial law is so ludicrously stupid that it’s hard to understand how a grown man would believe it.

    The same can be said of South Korea and Japan and Singapore. All became developed under military rule or autocracy.

    Your history is completely wrong with Japan. When the Allied occupation ended in 1952, Japan was still an economic basket case. So the Japanese economic miracle took place under a democratic government. Japan was a democracy in the mid-fifties and sixties, which were the takeoff point for its modern economy.

    South Korea resembles Taiwan. It began its economic miracle under authoritarianism, as you suggest, but it continued strong growth even as it underwent democratic reforms starting in the 1980s when its economy was still developing.

    There’s no reason to believe China couldn’t do the same. The CCP just refuses to let go of its slaves.

    You claim to be an American and yet you probably don’t know for most of US history only white male landowners could vote.

    Of course I know this. But you exaggerate the time line. But the time of Andrew Jackson, a white male didn’t usually have to own land in order to vote and by the end of Jackson’s tenure any adult white male could vote.

    So it’s not true that for “most of US history only white male landowners could vote.”

    But here’s the thing. Mass democracy was still a relatively unknown and unproven commodity in the 19th century. Even allowing all white male landowners to vote in 1800, as the U.S. did, was still pretty radical and progressive compared to how the rest of the world handled their politics.

    We know a lot more about democracy now than we did back then. We know that blacks, women, and mass suffrage in general don’t lead to a country’s downfall, which is something we didn’t know back in 1800. (The Founding Fathers distrusted widespread democracy, which is why we have an electoral college and originally had indirect elections for senators.)

    Is China somehow excused from the implications of that knowledge? Is the CCP allowed to keep slaves for over a century just so it can develop along a similar timeline. That’s like saying that until China produces more horses and wagons, it can’t produce cars.

    • Troll: showmethereal
  323. @Pincher Martin

    China has the highest home ownership on earth, their kids graduate high school three years ahead of ours and live longer, healthier lives–while we have more drug addicts, suicides and executions, more homeless, poor, hungry and imprisoned people than they do.

    None of this is true.

    Note the distribution:

    PISA/OECD [1]: “Only two percent of American and three percent of European fifteen-year-olds reach the highest level of math performance, demonstrating that they can conceptualize, generalize and use math based on their investigations and apply their knowledge in novel contexts. In Shanghai, it’s over thirty percent… We’ve tested[2] twelve Chinese provinces and even in some very poor areas found performance close to the OECD world average”. Wendy Kopp[3]: “A couple of decades ago, Shanghai’s school system was plagued by the same problems we’re facing. There were significant disparities between the achievement levels of native children and the children of migrant families and overall educational levels were low. Today, the best international measures show that Shanghai has the highest levels of educational excellence and equity in the world and their fifteen year olds are three grade levels ahead of kids in Massachusetts, our highest performing state”. Shanghai ranks #5 in gaokao scores.

    [Imgur](https://i.imgur.com/PcJNeYK.jpg)

    .Many empty buildings sit in China,

    Says Wade Shepherd[4], “I’ve been chasing reports of deserted towns and have yet to find one. Over and over, I would read articles in the international press claiming that China is building towns that are never inhabited–only to find something very different upon arrival. Ordos, the most famous ‘ghost city,’ took ten years to populate but now has a thriving downtown and rising home prices. Xiangluowan, Lanzhou, Zhengzhou, Zhujiang, and Zhengdong, former ‘ghost cities,’ now host the biggest urban migration in history. Newer cities–backwaters a decade ago–are complete and awaiting occupants while others, like Xinyang New District, are finishing construction”.

    Suicides/100k population: China 9.7, USA 15.3. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-rate-by-country

    Executions[5]:
    Amnesty International recorded 13 executions last year in Singapore = 2.3/million.
    PRC estimated post-trial executions was 2,400 = 1.78 per million citizens.
    PRC estimated pre-trial executions was 0 = 0 per million citizens
    US estimated post-trial executions was 43 = 5.8 per million citizens
    US estimated pre-trial executions was 2,010 = 5.7 per million citizens

    Hunger in America: Compromises and coping strategies. Feeding America, 2014.


    [1] China shines in PISA exams
    [2] Are the Chinese cheating in PISA or are we cheating ourselves? OECD Education Today. December 10, 2013
    [3] Wendy Kopp, founder of Teach for America, to graduates. May 1, 2014
    [4] Ghost Cities of China: The Story of Cities without People in the World’s Most Populated Country. by Wade Shepard. (Asian Arguments). May 15, 2015
    [5] Sources: Amnesty International, US DOJ https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/12/19/poli-d19.html Killings by US police logged at twice the previous rate under new federal program https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/15/us-police-killings-department-of-justice-program

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  324. @Godfree Roberts

    China has the highest home ownership on earth, their kids graduate high school three years ahead of ours and live longer, healthier lives–while we have more drug addicts, suicides and executions, more homeless, poor, hungry and imprisoned people than they do.

    Repeating yourself still doesn’t make any of these things true.

    China has the highest home ownership on earth…

    Home ownership rates around the world (China #8)

    So China’s barely ahead of Nepal and Russia, and it’s behind Cuba and Romania. Looking at this list ought to make you reconsider the entire idea of ranking countries by home ownership. But even without that reconsideration, you were still wrong in your claim. China does NOT have the highest home ownership in the world.

    Your other claims for China are just as silly. You ought to be embarrassed that you are unable to evaluate these “facts” with any objective rigor. Footnoting them doesn’t help your case if you aren’t able to understand what the sources are talking about.

    The PISA scores, for example, are only taken from four of China’s most developed cities/provinces. They are not indicative of the student body in China’s hinterland; they are not even indicative of the student bodies in those cities/provinces as coverage is spotty. Migrant children, for example, were not included. So using those PISA scores to evaluate the entire Chinese educational system is either dishonest or stupid. The Children PISA ignores in China.

    The journal Science ran a 2017 feature story on Scott Rozelle, an economist at Stanford and director of the Rural Education Action Program (REAP). The project implements programs designed to improve health and education in rural China, also conducting research on the programs’ effectiveness. Over several years, REAP administered 19 surveys involving about 133,000 children in 10 poor provinces. The surveys revealed 27% of kids suffering from anemia, 33% with intestinal worms, and 20% struggling with uncorrected myopia….

    School attendance is a problem in rural China, especially for families who cannot afford tuition. (Academic high schools typically charge the highest tuition.) An analysis that combined several studies of rural schooling conducted from 2007 to 2013 found cumulative dropout rates between 17% and 31% in junior high schools. About half of the students matriculated to high school, and only 37% went on to graduate.

    There’s a lot more. You are more than ridiculous for looking at those PISA scores as indicative of China’s overall educational system.

    As for Wade Shepard’s Field of Dreams‘ “Build it and they will come” argument about ghost cities in China, it’s interesting and I admit there’s something to it. As China becomes more urbanized, the Chinese move from rural locations to cities. But what that leaves unsaid are those rural homes which become empty.

    You can’t logically have 90% of the Chinese already with homes, as you claim, and then build more housing without creating empty buildings. Shepard’s argument is that the Chinese will simply fill the newly-built cities with their newer modern buildings and leave the old buildings back in their home villages.

    These new buildings have also been an environmental disaster. From a review of Wade’s book:

    And it is not just the people who are relocated: land and sea is also adjusted, added to, and extracted in order to command the environment for more development. China’s urban expansion has not been foiled by the natural landscape, and the need to require more land is as incessant as it is absurd. Mountains that surrounded the city of Lanzhou in Gansu province for example, were culled and flattened in order to make space for more usable and sellable land. The scale of the operation is unfathomable: “More than 1,000 excavators at a time were unleashed on 700 mountains in a 25 sq km area so a massive new district could be built.” Shanghai’s Nanhui New Town was cultivated by “putting a massive barrier wall out in Hangzhou Bay, which caught the soil as it went out to sea. As the area silted up the wall was repositioned out further and further until the desired amount of land had been reclaimed.” The Chinese governments excessive need to build has placed the whole environment and the citizenry under a form of bondage.

    I think it’s hilarious you think a Gallup poll can capture hunger in China. As for hunger in America, those are most likely obese people reporting their need to have that fourth meal in a day. The U.S. is the only place I’ve been where I routinely see homeless people who are overweight.

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  325. d dan says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “Sloppy is not a term that can be objectively proven or disproven…”

    1. If so, what is the point of bring this up? To vent your feeling and emotion?
    2. Of course, it can be proven. For example, I can reasonably prove that Boeing was sloppy for its 737 Max. Think a bit, I am sure you can come up with many examples yourself.

    “so stop acting all butt-hurt about it.”

    You are the one who invest emotion to your position, and feel irritated when objectively challenged. Your statement is an example of “projection”.

    “were more famous for their size than their engineering prowess.”

    Again, lack of awareness of your own contradiction: you don’t know size/hugeness, by definition, required engineering prowess? Was the construction of Great Wall (and the Grand Canal) simply lego stacking, didn’t involve innovations in logistic management, transportation methods, creation of construction materials, supporting military requirements, nor any need to consider the tough, diverse and changing weather, environments, terrains, varying military strategies and technological needs, etc. Sound simple – I am sure Trump builds longer wall.

    “There’s nothing special about the Great Wall or the Grand Canal other than they are both huge works “

    So what are so special about the Cathedrals and Parthenon? They are not even big.

    “Since China has almost always been the most populous country”

    Why? Some Western/Middle Eastern Empires were larger in areas and lasted longer than many Chinese dynasties. Nothing to do with agriculture techniques, irrigation systems, hydraulic infrastructure, food storage and distribution methods, etc.

    “How impressive would Hadrian’s Wall be if the Romans had spent two thousand years working on it, on and off, instead of just six years?”

    So why didn’t they. Europeans had two thousands of history and lots of invaders too.

    “big and sloppy” approach by China is the Three Gorges Dam

    Here you go again. The 128th times. Don’t need proof – only your feeling is needed for the readers. Most neutral people understand claim needs proof, and the bigger the claim, the bigger burden of proof. But like typical Westerners, you believe BAD claims on China do not need proofs, and the bigger the bad claims, the less need to have proof. The good claims are of course the reverse.

    In summary, you claim Chinese construction was sloppy, offering the only “evidence” that there was not many relic before Ming, which you then disproved yourself with the Leshan Buddha, and explained away by their use of material. After I pointed out this, you then claim that sloppiness can’t be proved.
    ————

    Ironically, you want more examples of sloppiness, look at your own comments. Just a few random examples of the holes and fallacies (e.g. the ones about majority loves Dalai and Bhutan GDP):

    1. You claim “immunity” from rigorous challenges for the (very clear concept of) “majority” (of Tibetans)
    2. You apply reversal of “burden of proof” on others about “majority”.
    3. When forced to come up with a number, you offer a feeble reply (non response) of a link that says “Many Tibetans…”,
    4. You embarrassingly supplement it with (anecdotal) personal experience to prove majority.
    5. You dig in with “non sequitur” argument (banning of Dalai’ photos): countries ban Nazi symbols or communist – does it follow that the majority of their citizens love Nazi/communists?
    7. You compare Bhutan with Tibet without considering the long list of the differences (false comparison) like size, urbanization, population density, connection distances to outside world, pre-existing infrastructure, etc.
    8. You compare final Bhutan GDP with Tibet without bothering to check the initial numbers (incomplete comparison).
    9. You use misleading term (equivocation) to exaggerate the urbanization level of Tibet: Shigatze is a “city” only in administrative term – its areas is actually 5 times of WHOLE Bhutan.
    10. You are not aware (appeal to ignorance) that the West has continuous technological and commercial embargoes on China from 1949 till today (“Until the last couple of decades, when the West was not embargoing China”)
    11. You claim that a lot of rich Han migrated to Tibet without considering that many rich Tibetans migrated out of Tibet too (incomplete comparison).
    12. You discount the benefits of infrastructure (roads, dams, airports, railroads, 5G?) (cherry picking) just because they can be used for purposes you don’t like (“control the Tibetans”)
    13. You fail to note China military spending is also low. After 1962 war (not China’s fault), China put very little military attention in Tibet until the border conflicts last few years (again not China’s fault).
    14. More if I bother to read other comments.

    And your lack self-awareness, e.g. unable to notice you are debating against your own points, or your positions are shifting. After I pointed out the various differences between Bhutan/Tibet, instead of dropping the comparison, you dug in to start debating about the pros vs cons of various factors. It is like when people pointed out you can’t compare China with Taiwan, you start arguing China has more ports and produce less bananas than Taiwan.

    So now you know why commenters keep dropping out from “debates” with you (maybe you are “winning”?) You understand it is very boring for adults to keep pointing out kindergarteners’ mistakes like 2+2=5 (wonder why I didn’t respond to our initial exchange on Bhutan comparison)? But you keep thinking you know more than others. You think you know more about Bhutan than most, and others never heard of it (never mind that Bhutan was a major focus in 2017 Doklam and earlier Sikkim events). You know more about Tibet than anyone. You visited both. You know more about Tibetans. You know Dalai a lot. You know the history, the river. You remind me of the person who says all these:

    Nobody knows more about construction than I do.
    Nobody knows more about campaign finance than I do.
    Nobody knows consultants better than me.
    I know more about drones than anybody.
    Nobody knows more about technology – this type of technology, certainly – than I do.
    Nobody knows more about technology than me.
    I know more about technology than anybody.
    Nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump.
    I know the H-1B. I know the H-2B. Nobody knows it better than me.
    I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me.
    Nobody understands the press, but I think I understand them as well as anybody.
    I mean, I know these people much better than you do.
    I understand things. I comprehend very well. OK. Better than, I think, almost anybody.
    And by the way, who knew the other side of the picture better than me? I knew it.
    Nobody knows more about environmental impact statements than me.
    And I think I know more about the environment than most people.
    I know a lot about wind. And I know windmills very much. I’ve studied it better than anybody.
    I understand the power of Facebook, maybe better than almost anybody.
    I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth.
    Nobody knows more about polls than me.
    I know more about courts than any human being on Earth.
    I understand health care now, especially very well. A lot of people don’t understand it.
    I know the angles. I know every angles.
    I know more about golf than Obama knows.
    And, you know, in the case of Turkey and the Kurds, I could go into a whole story because I understand it, I think better than most.
    Nobody knows more about banks than I do.
    Nobody knows more about trade than me.
    Well, obviously, he doesn’t know about nuclear weapons. I know more about nuclear weapons than he’ll ever know.
    You know Russians better than I do, Kevin, ok?
    I understand the tax laws better than almost anyone.
    Who knows more about lawsuits than I do? I’m the king.
    I know more about offense and defense than they will ever understand.
    Nobody even understands it but me, it’s called devaluation.
    I understand money better than anybody.
    I understand the system better than anybody.
    Nobody knows more about debt than I do.
    Nobody knows the game better than me.
    I know more about contributions than anybody.
    And who knows more about the word ‘apprentice’ than Donald Trump?
    I understand politicians better than anybody.
    Nobody knows politicians better than me.
    Who knows the other side better than me?
    I think I know more about the other side than almost anybody.
    And I understand the other side. Perhaps I understand it better than anybody else.
    I was the fair-haired boy, nobody knows more about it than me.
    I know more than these politicians. These guys don’t know anything.
    I know a lot. I know more than I’m ever gonna tell you.

    I know you feel wrongly BLM-ed in America, and think you can re-BLM the Chinese . So you come to this thread to talk “about China”, “China”, “because China”, “I know China”, “China”, … again like this person:

    So, looks like you are eminently qualified to be the next President of US. When that happens, remember to concentrate on solving the problems of America instead of China, then maybe we could be friend. And with the extra bonus of not hearing my rants or from me at all. Stay safe at the meantime, the country needs you.

    • Agree: GreatSocialist
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  326. @Pincher Martin

    The Pisa tests showed that Shanghai was top of the international education rankings, but it was unclear whether Shanghai and another chart-topper, Hong Kong, were unrepresentative regional showcases.
    Says the OECD’s Andreas Schleicher: “Fairness and relevance are not the same thing”.
    Mr Schleicher says the unpublished results reveal that pupils in other parts of China are also performing strongly. Even in rural areas and in disadvantaged environments, you see a remarkable performance.”
    In particular, he said the test results showed the “resilience” of pupils to succeed despite tough backgrounds – and the “high levels of equity” between rich and poor pupils. In an attempt to get a representative picture, tests were taken in nine provinces, including poor, middle-income and wealthier regions.”Shanghai is an exceptional case – and the results there are close to what I expected. But what surprised me more were the results from poor provinces that came out really well. The levels of resilience are just incredible. Mr Schleicher is confident of the robustness of this outline view of China’s education standards. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-17585201

    Wade Shepherd is not an environmentalist. Nor is there any sign of an environmental disaster. China has nothing to rival our 1,000 unremediated Superfund sites, for example, and Stanford’s Professor of Environmental Science, Gretchen Daily says, “China has eagerly incorporated science into its environmental program and funded far-reaching efforts that could serve as models for other countries. It has become very ambitious and innovative in its new conservation science and policies and has implemented them on a breathtaking scale”.

    Nepal and Russia? The point is that China’s home ownership is FAR ahead of ours.

    You can’t logically have 90% of the Chinese already with homes, as you claim, and then build more housing without creating empty buildings

    . You don’t think the remaining 140,000,000 people want homes, too? Or that those living in places built in the 80s want new homes?

    There are more homeless people in California, our richest state, than in all of China.

    Do you find polls that place America in a good light hilarious? The Gallup poll on food insecurity is consonant with many surveys, and with observable evidence. (Remember, diligent investigators could not find a single photograph of a hungry child even at the height of the 1960 famine).

    I suggest that you take seriously the challenge that China poses to us, rather than trying to dismiss it, and use the data I’ve provided to persuade others to get serious about reform. If we continue down our present path we will, as I said, be irrelevant by the end of next year.

    • Agree: GreatSocialist
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  327. @d dan

    1. If so, what is the point of bring this up? To vent your feeling and emotion?

    I believe it to be true. I can make a decent argument to back it up, but that argument does not have the airtight logic necessary to compel someone who disagrees to grant the argument some power.

    Not all arguments can be strictly objective. At least I will admit that and not waste our time trying to pretend otherwise.

    The question ought to be, why are you pretending otherwise?

    For example, I can reasonably prove that Boeing was sloppy for its 737 Max. Think a bit, I am sure you can come up with many examples yourself.

    Knock yourself out. The difference, of course, is that the Great Wall is just a wall. People have built walls before the Chinese and many have built them since. The Great Wall is not great because it’s a wall; it’s great because it’s big.

    No people other than Europeans have built a large passenger jet of any quality. It’s not quite as easy as building a wall.

    You are the one who invest emotion to your position, and feel irritated when objectively challenged. Your statement is an example of “projection”.

    I’m not the one drawing attention to what was obviously subjective language to score debating points.

    Again, lack of awareness of your own contradiction: you don’t know size/hugeness, by definition, required engineering prowess? Was the construction of Great Wall (and the Grand Canal) simply lego stacking, didn’t involve innovations in logistic management, transportation methods, creation of construction materials, supporting military requirements, nor any need to consider the tough, diverse and changing weather, environments, terrains, varying military strategies and technological needs, etc. Sound simple – I am sure Trump builds longer wall.

    Trump’s problem in building a wall is not a lack of engineering skills in the U.S., but a lack of political skills and willpower. I personally think he doesn’t care.

    I will agree that some aspects of building the Great Wall took considerable organizational skills to pull off, but the most impressive part of the Great Wall is simply its size. That size came down to a nearly endless pool of labor that the emperor could coerce into building whatever he wanted. Getting those materials up some of those hills must’ve been a bitch, but it was something the builders solved with additional labor not cleverness.

    So what are so special about the Cathedrals and Parthenon? They are not even big.

    I never emphasized their bigness. I emphasized how long they lasted. Couldn’t you figure out that was my entire point of contrasting China’s “big and sloppy” with Europe’s smaller and more clever engineering designs that lasted? I wasn’t comparing size.

    For example, the engineering innovations that were perfected for the medieval Cathedrals – including pointed arches, ribbed vaults, and flying buttresses – did lead to larger buildings. But size is not the point of them today. The most beautiful cathedrals are not usually the largest cathedrals. Notre Dame and the Florence Cathedral, for example, are not among the largest cathedrals in the world, but they are among the most beautiful and famous. And unlike the Chinese buildings of that period, they have lasted.

    Here you go again. The 128th times. Don’t need proof – only your feeling is needed for the readers. Most neutral people understand claim needs proof, and the bigger the claim, the bigger burden of proof. But like typical Westerners, you believe BAD claims on China do not need proofs, and the bigger the bad claims, the less need to have proof. The good claims are of course the reverse.

    Is the Three Gorges Dam not big? Yes, it is.

    Are there not serious questions as to wisdom of building it as well as its structural integrity (i.e. sloppy)? Yes, there are.

    So big and sloppy. Like I said.

    Building a damn doesn’t require 21st-century technology. Nor should it require a doctoral thesis to get you to understand this point.

    In summary, you claim Chinese construction was sloppy, offering the only “evidence” that there was not many relic before Ming, which you then disproved yourself with the Leshan Buddha, and explained away by their use of material. After I pointed out this, you then claim that sloppiness can’t be proved.

    Well, building a statue is quite different from constructing a large building which people use. If they could put up gigantic Buddhist statues in present-day Afghanistan before the Tang existed, then surely even the mighty Tang Dynasty could handle the task.

    I mentioned the Leshan Buddha because it shows the early Chinese knew how to use stone and were not adverse to it for religious purposes. Yet they chose to use inferior building materials for almost everything else, which ensured that none of their buildings would last. So nearly everything that people today associate with *ancient* China – the Great Wall, the Imperial Palace, the Summer Palace, etc. – was built in just the last four to five hundred years, which is pretty much synonymous with Europe’s modern era.

    *****

    As to your “fourteen” points (there are thirteen, you missed a number), most of them are silly.

    1) I didn’t claim “immunity.” So why did you put it in quotes? I said it’s a ridiculous standard of proof to ask for polling support in Tibet when it doesn’t have objective polls.

    2) Why not? If they ask me to prove something using polls that don’t exist, then I can flip that question right around on them and ask them to disprove it using polls that don’t exist. In any case, I provided numerous accounts which supported my views. Not that any of you dummies read them.

    3) Did you miss my cite where the Tibetan scholar said that “[The Dalai Lama] would have to use his enormous prestige and charisma to change the attitude of Tibetans (in Tibet) toward being part of China. His stature in Tibet is so great that he could certainly do that if he tried…” That’s the same scholar Godfree Roberts mentions when citing surveys of Tibetans of whom the majority do not favor independence from China.

    4) I don’t recall what you are talking about, but in any case no one here outside of Godfree Roberts has provided the mass of sources that I have provided on all manner of topics related to Tibet and China.

    5) The bans serve completely different purposes. China negotiated with the Dalai Lama for four decades in recognition of his role as leader of the Tibetans even as it was intermittently banning his photo. The few countries which ban communist and Nazi symbols do so on the margins because they are preemptively taking action on their possible revival. But even most of those countries still do not ban the use of the symbols completely.

    7) You have no idea what you are talking about. Bhutan and Tibet are as close to each other as Sweden and Denmark. Whatever long list of differences you believe exist are a figment of your imagination.

    8) I admitted to that mistake and quickly corrected it. If only you were so honest.

    9) I don’t recall making this mistake, if indeed it was a mistake. But I was correct about the larger point of urbanization in Tibet and Bhutan. In fact, the Chinese brag about the increased urbanization in Tibet. To them, that’s proof of their success and yet you are claiming it doesn’t exist.

    You can’t have it both ways. Urbanization is strongly associated with economic growth. If you are going to claim that Beijing has performed admirably in its stewardship of Tibet by helping the TAR to grow by leaps and bounds, then that naturally ought to be demonstrated by similarly large growth in urbanization.

    In truth, both Bhutan and Tibet remain mostly rural populations with similar levels of economic growth.

    10) The U.S. has been mostly open to China for the last four decades. The U.S. even helped China first attain the annually-reviewed Most Favored Nation (MFN) status in 1980 and Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) in 2000, which prevents the U.S. from leveling unilateral tariffs against China.

    Without the U.S. market, China doesn’t grow 10% a year. Whatever U.S. technological and commercial embargoes on China which have existed over the last four decades have been almost entirely for military end-use purposes.

    11) There was no such thing as rich Tibetans after 1949. Tibet didn’t have wealth in the mid-20th century. It still doesn’t have wealth today. And what little wealth Tibet did have went into its temples, which are not exportable. So the idea of a wash between two migrating groups, which differ so much in average income, is absurd.

    12) No I don’t discount the economic benefits of dams, roads, and other infrastructure projects. But they also provide obvious security benefits for the Chinese. And as Bhutan shows, the Tibetans could have gotten most of the economic benefits themselves without the Chinese sitting on top of them.

    13) China’s overall military spending is low, but its military/police spending in Tibet on security is not low compared to the three million people it is there to protect/oppress. And such spending does count as part of Tibet’s GDP. The PLA in Tibet doesn’t just protect the borders from Indian incursions, it also has to pull double duty to putting down any Tibetan riots and rebellions.

    14) Don’t bother If these first 13 points were the best you could do, then any additional work you do would just be a waste of our time.

    So, looks like you are eminently qualified to be the next President of US.

    You’re free to challenge any points I make, but based on what you have shown so far, I don’t think you’re up to that challenge.

    When I’m wrong, I admit I’m wrong. Which makes me unique in this thread. And quite different from the current U.S. president.

    But I’m not going admit I’m wrong just to make you feel good about yourself.

  328. Kundalini says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Creating a pseudonym just to write about you?
    Lol … You are day dreaming.
    I have used this name more than ten years ago when I was active but not on this site.
    I don’t even read all your garbage posts, simply I don’t have time.
    Evidently, I’ve hit a nerve here … ha … ha … ha ,,,..

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  329. @Godfree Roberts

    Regarding your PISA retort, I trust the scholars over the BBC reporting about what OECD bureaucrats are saying.

    But having said that, I don’t dispute that the Chinese are great students. One can see that wherever the Chinese go to school, including in the United States.

    (“U.S. Asians” include many Asians who are not Chinese, including some high-performing Indian-Americans, but I suspect Chinese-Americans overperform that average as the category also includes many Vietnamese, Filipinos and other low-performing Asians students.)

    What I dispute is that the PISA results you saw are indicative of the nation as a whole. That’s a ridiculous assumption, but it was the basis for your claim that Chinese students graduate high school three or four years earlier than American students.

    Nepal and Russia? The point is that China’s home ownership is FAR ahead of ours.

    No, that wasn’t your point. You claimed China was #1 in the world in home ownership. It is not.

    And if China is far ahead of the U.S. in home ownership rates, the same can be said of Russia, Nepal, Cuba, Romania, India, Serbia, Bulgaria, Mexico, Thailand, and Brazil.

    Big deal.

    Wade Shepherd is not an environmentalist. Nor is there any sign of an environmental disaster. China has nothing to rival our 1,000 unremediated Superfund sites, for example, and Stanford’s Professor of Environmental Science, Gretchen Daily says, “China has eagerly incorporated science into its environmental program and funded far-reaching efforts that could serve as models for other countries. It has become very ambitious and innovative in its new conservation science and policies and has implemented them on a breathtaking scale”.

    Gretchen Daily works for the Chinese government to help them find environmental solutions to their many problems. They fund many of her projects. In that role, what is she supposed to say? She knows her access to China is determined by how positive a spin she can put on events and that the Chinese are sensitive to criticism.

    China has a lot of cash sitting around. So no matter what China spends money on, it will spend huge sums. Yet Daily seems to think that such spending is impressive in and of itself rather than just a natural consequence of a cash-heavy country throwing money around.

    You’re insane with this focus on the Superfund sites and the notion that China is more environmentally conscious than the U.S.

  330. What I dispute is that the PISA results you saw are indicative of the nation as a whole.

    OECD’s PISA Director: “”Even in rural areas and in disadvantaged environments, you see a remarkable performance.”

    Ron Unz[1] found Chinese intelligence almost immune to socio-economic factors: healthy Swiss are fifty times richer and receive twice the schooling of poorly nourished rural Chinese–who have carried a heavy disease burden for generations–yet Chinese IQs are consistently higher, “The reported Chinese PISA scores are far above those of the United States and nearly every European country, many of which are almost totally urbanized and have incomes ten times that of China. It is almost unimaginable that any non-East Asian population of rural villagers with annual incomes in the $1,000 range would have tested IQs very close to 100 [the median]. We would certainly expect Chinese numbers to rise further as the country continues to develop, but my point is that East Asian IQs seem to possess a uniquely high floor compared with those of any other population”.

    And if China is far ahead of the U.S. in home ownership rates, the same can be said of Russia, Nepal, Cuba, Romania, India, Serbia, Bulgaria, Mexico, Thailand, and Brazil. Big deal.

    You’re not just dodging the issue, you’re denying its existence of what is a VERY big deal–because US propaganda made a big deal out of our high home ownership for decades. Now that we’ve been overtaken, it’s not a big deal? Is this not a big deal either:

    Low-income housing in Hangzhou:
    Low-income housing in Los Angeles:
    Low-income housing in Seattle:

    You’re insane with this focus on the Superfund sites

    I’m insane for pointing out that we have a thousand and China has none? What’s your problem?

    Far from being rational as you claim–”When I’m wrong, I admit I’m wrong. Which makes me unique in this thread”–you change the subject, insult your interlocutor and do not admit you’re wrong.

    You seem driven to deny even the most authoritative , first hand evidence, like Gretchen Daily’s, if it contradicts your prejudices. Stanford pays Dr. Daily $230K, and she gets funding from across the world because she has a strong department. Saying that she’s lying because some of it comes from China is just more of your ad hominem copout.

    [1] The East Asian Exception to Socio-Economic IQ Influences. Ron Unz. The American Conservative, July 18, 2012

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  331. @true.enough

    More hogwash about China from the synthetic fake-lefties in the USA.
    Not recommended reading.

  332. loren says:
    @sarz

    In 1960s or 1970s it was the kill flies campaign. People were required to bring dead flies in to town managers.
    I read it was a disaster as flies are needed by birds.

  333. loren says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    There is no such place as East Turkestan and Tibet,

    tell that to the Tibetans.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
  334. @Godfree Roberts

    OECD’s PISA Director: “”Even in rural areas and in disadvantaged environments, you see a remarkable performance.”

    The basis for your claim that Chinese students were three to four years ahead of American students in graduating high school was Shanghai’s PISA math results which you extrapolated to all of China.

    You then ignored my counter-evidence from a very detailed Brookings Institution article published last December which found that many Chinese students in the hinterlands are sick and unable to finish school.

    That article, which you obviously didn’t read, relied on studies from the Asia Development Bank, the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Chinese scholars, and a 2017 Science journal meta-study which surveyed over 100,000 students from China’s poorest provinces.

    You countered this with a BBC report based on an OECD bureaucrat’s stump speech.

    As for high Chinese IQ, I’ve never doubted it. But that wasn’t your original claim. You keep shifting your argument around in disingenuous ways that don’t support what you were first trying to say.

    You’re not just dodging the issue, you’re denying its existence of what is a VERY big deal–because US propaganda made a big deal out of our high home ownership for decades. Now that we’ve been overtaken, it’s not a big deal?

    I’m not dodging any issue. You were wrong. You first claimed China had the highest home ownership rate in the world. That is flat-out incorrect, and I proved it.

    You’ve now shifted your argument to the less interesting claim that China has a higher home ownership rate than the U.S. But as I pointed out, many, many, many poor countries have a higher home ownership rate than the U.S. Both former communist and current communist countries are at the top of the list.

    In fact, when you study that list of 53 countries with home ownership rates what jumps out is that the richest countries tend to be near the bottom. Switzerland, Hong Kong, Germany, Austria, and South Korea are the bottom five. And France, Denmark, Sweden, and New Zealand round out the bottom ten with Turkey – the only middle income country at the bottom of the list.

    Among the top ten countries in home ownership rates, Singapore is the only place which should be considered wealthy, although one might make a solid argument for including Hungary and Croatia, two former Communist countries.

    I can think of many good reasons why having a 90% home ownership rate is bad for a country, especially when it is a large country where the government is trying to encourage mobility for economic reasons. But those reasons are fairly abstruse and I’m already having a great deal of trouble getting you to recognize basic facts, so I won’t go into them.

    I’m insane for pointing out that we have a thousand and China has none? What’s your problem?

    It’s insane because Beijing itself has recognized it has far more serious environmental problem than the United States. Gretchen Daily goes over to China to advise the Chinese on how best to cope with their problems. We don’t invite the Chinese equivalent to come to the United States and do the same because there is no Chinese equivalent.

    Stop trying to glorify China more than the CCP tries to glorify it. That’s insane.

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  335. @Kundalini

    Creating a pseudonym just to write about you?
    Lol … You are day dreaming.

    Your posting history shows only four posts, all in this thread and all but one dedicated to me.

    Is that a dream? Or do you have another posting history storied somewhere else?

  336. @Pincher Martin

    I’ve been trying to warn my fellow Americans about China for 15 years and have encountered thousands of denialists like yourself.

    In the space of 15 years, China has overtaken us in almost every measurable dimension, and we’re still in denial. Not a single creative measure has been taken to match what they’re doing.

    As to education–about which I know a great deal–study this guy’s experience and see what it does to your perspective:

    It was the summer of 2000. I was 15, and I had just finished my high school entrance exam. I had made considerable improvements from where I started in first grade, when I had the second-worst grades in the class and had to sit at a desk perpendicular to the blackboard so that the teacher could keep a close eye on me. I had managed to become an average student in an average school. My parents by then had reached the conclusion that I was not going anywhere promising in China and were ready to send me abroad for high school.

    Contrary to all expectations, however, I got the best mark in my class and my school. The exam scores were so good that I ranked within the top ten among more than 100,000 students in the whole city. My teacher and I both assumed the score was wrong when we first heard it but, as a consequence, I got into the best class in the best school in my city, and thus began the most painful year of my life.

    My newfound confidence was quickly crushed when I saw how talented my new classmates were. In the first class, our math teacher announced that she would start from chapter four of the textbook as she assumed, correctly, that most of us were familiar with the first three chapters and would find it boring to go through them again. Most of the class had been participating in various competitions in middle school and had become familiar with a large part of the high school syllabus already. Furthermore, they had also grown to know each other from those years of competitions together. And here I was, someone who didn’t know anything or anyone, surrounded by people who knew more to begin with, who were much smarter, and who worked just as hard as I did. What chance did I have?

    During that year, I tried very hard to catch up: I gave up everything else and even moved close to the school to save time on the commute, but to no avail. Over time, going to school and competing while knowing I was sure to lose became torture. Yet I had to do it every day. At the end-of-year exam, I scored second from the bottom of the class—the same place I began in first grade. But this time it was much harder to accept, after the glory I had enjoyed just one year earlier and the huge amount of effort I had put into studying this year. Finally, I threw in the towel and asked my parents to send me abroad. Anywhere on this earth would surely be better.

    So I came to the UK in 2001, when I was 16 years old. Much to my surprise, I found the UK’s exam-focused educational system very similar to China’s. What is more, in both countries, going to the “right schools” and getting the “right job” are seen as very important by a large group of eager parents. As a result, scoring well on exams and doing well in school interviews—or even the play session for the nursery or pre-prep school—become the most important things in the world. Even at the university level, the undergraduate degree from the University of Cambridge depends on nothing else but an exam at the end of the last year.

    On the other hand, although the UK’s university system is considered superior to China’s, with a population that is only one-twentieth the size of my native country, competition, while tough, is less intimidating. For example, about one in ten applicants gets into Oxbridge in the UK, and Stanford and Harvard accept about one in twenty-five applicants. But in Hebei province in China, where I am from, only one in fifteen hundred applicants gets into Peking or Tsinghua University.

    Still, I found it hard to believe how much easier everything became. I scored first nationwide in the GCSE (high school) math exam and my photo was printed in a national newspaper. I was admitted to Trinity College, University of Cambridge, once the home of Sir Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, and Prince Charles. I studied economics at Cambridge, a field which has become more and more mathematical since the 1970s.. The behavior of my British classmates demonstrated an even greater herd mentality than what is often mocked in American MBAs. For example, out of the thirteen economists in my year at Trinity, twelve would go on to join investment banks, and five of us went to work for Goldman Sachs.


    [1] Excerpted from ‘The Western Elite from a Chinese Perspective’ by Puzhong Yao American Affairs. Winter 2017 / Vol I, No 4. More stories of his studies the and US at http://ajourneytothewest.co.uk/

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Godfree Roberts Comments via RSS