Tibetans can seek Indian citizenship: Lobsang Sangay

[Kolaps]

Exiled-Tibetan can apply citizen in Taiwan. Republic of China, under their law, must accept any people from their former territory who asking for citizenship, including Outer Mongolia.

A lot of exiled-Tibetan already became Taiwan citizen and stay in Taiwan. 

Then Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of Singapore, must be a PRC national?

No, he is a Singaporean.

Under Republic of China's law. If Lee Kuan Yew ask for Taiwan citizenship, Taiwan government can't reject it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Man i will welcome them
So highly Civilized totally different from us north Indians
They are hard workers & will bring good to India

Sure I understand the word freedom.

Indian excuse for everything, lower income? But we got freedom, worse social services? But freedom. Way more people under poverty? But freedom is there. No infrastructure? But freedom....

You can have your "freedom" of thought, we'll take the freedom to travel on road smooth road and fast trains, to eat nice nutritious meals and to afford daily necessities.

Thank you for proving the point.

 

[Genesis]

Thank you for proving the point.

I grew up in Canada, first world with a father who's an engineer, and mother who owns daycare centers you tell me if I know what freedom is.

But to me a iPad, Ps4, cars, houses, money is way more important than some rallies and crap.

Most people on this forum are either HKers, or lives in the west, so mostly all free first world countries, China was never colonized, so we still only speak Chinese and not english.

You won't find a Chinese who only lives in China ever on a forum like this, if only for the reason, their english is about as good as my Canadian French.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I grew up in Canada, first world with a father who's an engineer, and mother who owns daycare centers you tell me if I know what freedom is.

But to me a iPad, Ps4, cars, houses, money is way more important than some rallies and crap.

Most people on this forum are either HKers, or lives in the west, so mostly all free first world countries, China was never colonized, so we still only speak Chinese and not english.

You won't find a Chinese who only lives in China ever on a forum like this, if only for the reason, their english is about as good as my Canadian French.

This is an extremely silly reply, infantile if anything.

You grew up in Canada, in the first world, with a father who's an engineer, and mother who owns daycare centres, and you therefore know what freedom is. And you have the flipping cheek to air your opinions in this forum about what the Chinese citizen living in China likes or dislikes.

From that point of vantage, you also know that an iPad, Ps4, cars, houses, money is way more important than some rallies and crap. Rallies and crap, of course, being your truly elegant summary of what democratic freedom means. We must convince ourselves that this poor little rich kid with a convenient exit route to that contemptible first world country Canada, is really far more at home in a country in the third world which is still paradoxically awash with goodies and ruled by a single party dictatorship, and really, earnestly desires this far more than living free.

Nice going.

One helping of the goodies, hold the rallies. The definitive word on the subject from someone who is not trapped in the backwaters, enjoys the golden fringe of a country recovering from centuries of poverty, and can speak for everyone else, including the large numbers of Chinese slipping out of this prole heaven, if only to semi-free Hong Kong.

And not a lone opinion.

"Most people" on this forum live outside China, in freedom, and despise freedom, things being infinitely better in the China where they do not deign to live themselves.

On a wholly different note, the coda about language, and what it means, or does not mean; for starters, not being colonised, therefore speaking Chinese, not English. Indians speak many languages; if I meet someone whose language I happen to know, we slip between that language and English during conversation, back and forth, with no particular discomfort. Most of the day today was spent in speaking to university students in a western UP version of Hindi with a strong flavouring of Urdu. To those from Bengal, naturally, it would be rude and impolite to speak any other language but Bengali, unless I am consciously playing the fool, being magisterial in front of a mixed audience, or addressing a mixed crowd - like during the faculty meeting with a completely multilingual crowd, with almost every state represented. In this forum, I use English, because - surprise, surprise! - the official language of the forum happens to be English. I could quite comfortably participate in another with Bengali, Hindi or Gorkhali/Nepali as the official languages.

What has colonised got to do with it, other than the ability to speak, write and read English with the same degree of skill as an Indian living in the UK, albeit with a different accent as long as I am speaking it here? Before 1834, if I had been a traveller and had wanted to speak to a local person anywhere in north India, I would have spoken Urdu; in the south, mostly Tamil, even in non-Tamil territories.

And I honestly couldn't understand the last sentence, which was inscrutably Oriental.

if only for the reason, their english is about as good as my Canadian French.

What on earth does that mean, to an ex-colonial wretch, whose English is severely limited to the words and phrases that users of colonised races were permitted to use? And what was the point about the Canadian French, other than to indicate to the hoi polloi that we speak of what the real Chinese want with great authenticity and genuine understanding?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Life is give and take. You cannot have everything going your way. Sometimes you have to sacrifice some. If the overall balance come out good, then it is good.

Would Indian exchange freedom for what China materialisticaly has? I think the answer is probably no going by PDFer.

But can you understand Chinese logic in making that choice?

First, you needn't go by PDF opinion; cast your mind back to the enormous mobilisation of people in (largely) non-violent movements for freedom from British rule. It was not the elite that formed those huge crowds; it was the people. I am a little taken aback with the hint in your post that it was an artificial transfer from one elite to another; surely you, of all people, know better, and have a better grasp on south Asian history than that.

Second, you asked a subtle question, if we understood Chinese logic in making that choice. Was it that simple?

Speaking as one who has studied Chinese history, though not as deeply as other histories, the question that arises is, "Was it truly a choice?" Was not the mobilised military capability of the CPC developed on the premises that a people in dire straits, faced with the brutality of Japanese conquerors and colonisers on the one hand, and the brutality and callousness of a home-grown Chinese dictatorship on the other, would welcome and support completely an honest and populist movement against both these? And was it not beyond your capacity as a people to refuse one-party dictatorship backed by a tough army once the KMT were defeated and in exile on an offshore island?

On the other hand, we did have a choice. We could have used violent revolution; even after independence, there have been, and continue to be opportunities for seeking the kind of regime that you have.

My turn to ask, with no intention to wound: do you understand the Indian logic in refusing the choice that we have but you don't?

 

[Genesis]

This is an extremely silly reply, infantile if anything.

You grew up in Canada, in the first world, with a father who's an engineer, and mother who owns daycare centres, and you therefore know what freedom is. And you have the flipping cheek to air your opinions in this forum about what the Chinese citizen living in China likes or dislikes.

From that point of vantage, you also know that an iPad, Ps4, cars, houses, money is way more important than some rallies and crap. Rallies and crap, of course, being your truly elegant summary of what democratic freedom means. We must convince ourselves that this poor little rich kid with a convenient exit route to that contemptible first world country Canada, is really far more at home in a country in the third world which is still paradoxically awash with goodies and ruled by a single party dictatorship, and really, earnestly desires this far more than living free.

Nice going.

One helping of the goodies, hold the rallies. The definitive word on the subject from someone who is not trapped in the backwaters, enjoys the golden fringe of a country recovering from centuries of poverty, and can speak for everyone else, including the large numbers of Chinese slipping out of this prole heaven, if only to semi-free Hong Kong.

And not a lone opinion.

Jawaharlal Nehru, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, both rich and both studied in foreign lands, perhaps they don't know anything either.

It is because I have experienced both that I can say with certainty, it is because I don't need to worry about where to live and my next meal that I can really see what "freedom," gets me. When someone has to think every second about their next meal, I don't think who's the PM matters that much.

The answer? As long as a system isn't too repressive, and China isn't one, hence why Egyptians are on the streets and not Chinese, my freedom comes from the hard work of my parents and myself.

The fact you see China as such is because you are viewing China with a biased view, I know that view because some of my friends see China as such. But after a few visited with me to Shanghai, Beijing, and my home city of Dalian, they agree, that it's no different than Canada, I mean other than it's China and not Canada.

"Most people" on this forum live outside China, in freedom, and despise freedom, things being infinitely better in the China where they do not deign to live themselves.

I do sometimes live in China, and freedom is desired, media, politics, economy and such, HOWEVER, and this is to my original point, we can't have both food and freedom when we are so far BEHIND the West, so we choose food.

Why do I say we can't have both? China, India, not one person that has written an article that has said India is doing better on anything, even freedom, because a larger number of people care not educated and thus wouldn't even know where to begin to seek their freedom.

If we can have both, I would rather we have both, but name me one country that could when they started so late, and isn't an American dominated country, IE Korea, and Japan.

On a wholly different note, the coda about language, and what it means, or does not mean; for starters, not being colonised, therefore speaking Chinese, not English. Indians speak many languages; if I meet someone whose language I happen to know, we slip between that language and English during conversation, back and forth, with no particular discomfort. Most of the day today was spent in speaking to university students in a western UP version of Hindi with a strong flavouring of Urdu. To those from Bengal, naturally, it would be rude and impolite to speak any other language but Bengali, unless I am consciously playing the fool, being magisterial in front of a mixed audience, or addressing a mixed crowd - like during the faculty meeting with a completely multilingual crowd, with almost every state represented. In this forum, I use English, because - surprise, surprise! - the official language of the forum happens to be English. I could quite comfortably participate in another with Bengali, Hindi or Gorkhali/Nepali as the official languages.

What has colonised got to do with it, other than the ability to speak, write and read English with the same degree of skill as an Indian living in the UK, albeit with a different accent as long as I am speaking it here? Before 1834, if I had been a traveller and had wanted to speak to a local person anywhere in north India, I would have spoken Urdu; in the south, mostly Tamil, even in non-Tamil territories.

And I honestly couldn't understand the last sentence, which was inscrutably Oriental.



What on earth does that mean, to an ex-colonial wretch, whose English is severely limited to the words and phrases that users of colonised races were permitted to use? And what was the point about the Canadian French, other than to indicate to the hoi polloi that we speak of what the real Chinese want with great authenticity and genuine understanding?

The thing about English is no Chinese that only lived in China could speak good enough English to be on this forum, but Indians could, because English is one of your official languages.

That's all I meant, English isn't an accepted language and just like my French, I forgot it as soon as I left high school.





Now one last thing, if there's one thing I know from experience, the White America will forever reign above the other races, unless we have our own strong country.

African Americans will never become respected by the common folk who isn't progressive, because they have their brothers in Africa that are killing each other to weight them down.

A strong China would give me a better bargaining chip than a weak China.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Jawaharlal Nehru, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, both rich and both studied in foreign lands, perhaps they don't know anything either.

The difference is that they didn't go through their experience in Great Britain, the colonising country, not just any other foreign land, and within a relationship hugely different in context than the relationship of China and Canada, and mouth platitudes about preferring the clean, wholesome rule of the British to the underdeveloped, backward terrible hell-hole of an independent India.

They were not hypocrites. They came back and faced the brutal reality of colonial rule and fought it.

It is because I have experienced both that I can say with certainty, it is because I don't need to worry about where to live and my next meal that I can really see what "freedom," gets me. When someone has to think every second about their next meal, I don't think who's the PM matters that much.

Precisely the wrong answer. As long as you have the privilege of being part of a wealthy elite, exploiting an unfree system, you have the luxury of saying that you really see what "freedom" gets you, and you can afford to say that it doesn't matter. It is when you are living in less affluent conditions and you choose to live there as a free man, rather than emigrating to the first world, or enjoying the privileged status of an unfree country, that your opinion is honest and sincere. That is when you put your money where your mouth is.

The answer? As long as a system isn't too repressive, and China isn't one, hence why Egyptians are on the streets and not Chinese, my freedom comes from the hard work of my parents and myself.

Contradictory.

There is nothing called a half-virgin.

What does calling a system not too repressive mean in concrete terms, when the hard work that earns you freedom is hard work in a free country and the freedom is in a free country? What does either the hard work or the freedom have to do with China?

If the Chinese people had accepted their unfree condition so willingly, why was the Cultural Revolution necessary? Why was there a Tienanmen Square at all? Why were there tanks facing unarmed citizens, if they were so rapturously in love with the state?

The fact you see China as such is because you are viewing China with a biased view, I know that view because some of my friends see China as such. But after a few visited with me to Shanghai, Beijing, and my home city of Dalian, they agree, that it's no different than Canada, I mean other than it's China and not Canada.

An imposed view, a straw horse. Make an assumption regarding the views held by another, destroy that assumption, and claim complete understanding and complete resolution of the contradiction.

Contrary to what you believe, my view of China is of an enormously successful country, which sets itself goals and achieves them, which does not fear to take difficult decisions in the present when doing so ensures beneficial results in the future, which has deliberately set out to be rich first and free later. There is much to admire. Everybody would like to go to see and experience the wonderful new China, so different from the backward villages of the old China. But nobody would like to live there.

I admire China, and I am happy to do so from a great distance. Living in China, as a Chinese, permanently, would be abhorrent. As abhorrent as living in autocratic little Singapore.

I do sometimes live in China, and freedom is desired, media, politics, economy and such, HOWEVER, and this is to my original point, we can't have both food and freedom when we are so far BEHIND the West, so we choose food.

And we chose freedom. And continue to do so, in spite of alternatives being available. @Chinese Dragon asked for understanding of China's choice. Why is our own, very different choice so contemptible to you? If you seek admiration and understanding, what, other than a xenophobic racist jingoism prevents you from extending that same admiration and understanding to a different set of ideals?

Why do I say we can't have both? China, India, not one person that has written an article that has said India is doing better on anything, even freedom, because a larger number of people care not educated and thus wouldn't even know where to begin to seek their freedom.

I understand that it is difficult for you to get to know why freedom is important, because you have no experience of living in an unfree condition. That you "do sometimes live in China" in no way qualifies you to speak so glibly about the preferability of unfree prosperity over free poverty. It isn't about getting people to write favourably about your own choice; it's about making that choice. You haven't made that choice. You have chosen to live in a free country, and wax eloquent about the conditions in an unfree country. The best that one can say about this mentality is to call it hypocritical.

Again, we are informed by you that we do not know where to seek our freedom since we are not educated. This is condescending; poor people in a democracy know exactly what they need and how to impose these demands on politicians. Only a person with an uncertain grasp of reality would imagine that education necessarily brings democracy in its wake.

If we can have both, I would rather we have both, but name me one country that could when they started so late, and isn't an American dominated country, IE Korea, and Japan.

Japan was prosperous long before American help. Regarding that help, it achieved nothing for other partners. It did nothing for Pakistan, for instance, after an initial boost. And it is precisely the American market that serves as the foundation for Chinese prosperity.

The thing about English is no Chinese that only lived in China could speak good enough English to be on this forum, but Indians could, because English is one of your official languages.

That's all I meant, English isn't an accepted language and just like my French, I forgot it as soon as I left high school.

Fair enough, I accept that it was a comment made in good faith, imparting information.

But where did it belong in this discussion?

Now one last thing, if there's one thing I know from experience, the White America will forever reign above the other races, unless we have our own strong country.

You are preaching to the choir.

India adopted a course of sturdy independence, and equidistance from the two great powers, part of the time in company with the PRC. India suffered a huge loss of momentum due to the barely-disguised hostility of the Americans. And India stuck to her principles, and didn't sell herself, like some others did. We are still paying the price, and we are still clear that it was then the right thing to do.

Today we are sought out and wooed. Today, we bear in mind the years, decades that we spent in the wilderness, shunned and abhorred by the Americans. it tempers our willingness to befriend them. Friendship, yes, but on terms of mutual respect.

How is it that you fail to notice that?

African Americans will never become respected by the common folk who isn't progressive, because they have their brothers in Africa that are killing each other to weight them down.

How does that affect us? Do you mean to say that Indians should take national decisions which will improve the social and political life of Indians in the US?

A strong China would give me a better bargaining chip than a weak China.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

That is your view, and you are welcome to it. It was not our view, and we hope to stick to what we believe is right.

If you have no objection to that.

Jawaharlal Nehru, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, both rich and both studied in foreign lands, perhaps they don't know anything either.

The difference is that they didn't go through their experience in Great Britain, the colonising country, not just any other foreign land, and within a relationship hugely different in context than the relationship of China and Canada, and mouth platitudes about preferring the clean, wholesome rule of the British to the underdeveloped, backward terrible hell-hole of an independent India.

They were not hypocrites. They came back and faced the brutal reality of colonial rule and fought it.

It is because I have experienced both that I can say with certainty, it is because I don't need to worry about where to live and my next meal that I can really see what "freedom," gets me. When someone has to think every second about their next meal, I don't think who's the PM matters that much.

Precisely the wrong answer. As long as you have the privilege of being part of a wealthy elite, exploiting an unfree system, you have the luxury of saying that you really see what "freedom" gets you, and you can afford to say that it doesn't matter. It is when you are living in less affluent conditions and you choose to live there as a free man, rather than emigrating to the first world, or enjoying the privileged status of an unfree country, that your opinion is honest and sincere. That is when you put your money where your mouth is.

The answer? As long as a system isn't too repressive, and China isn't one, hence why Egyptians are on the streets and not Chinese, my freedom comes from the hard work of my parents and myself.

Contradictory.

There is nothing called a half-virgin.

What does calling a system not too repressive mean in concrete terms, when the hard work that earns you freedom is hard work in a free country and the freedom is in a free country? What does either the hard work or the freedom have to do with China?

If the Chinese people had accepted their unfree condition so willingly, why was the Cultural Revolution necessary? Why was there a Tienanmen Square at all? Why were there tanks facing unarmed citizens, if they were so rapturously in love with the state?

The fact you see China as such is because you are viewing China with a biased view, I know that view because some of my friends see China as such. But after a few visited with me to Shanghai, Beijing, and my home city of Dalian, they agree, that it's no different than Canada, I mean other than it's China and not Canada.

An imposed view, a straw horse. Make an assumption regarding the views held by another, destroy that assumption, and claim complete understanding and complete resolution of the contradiction.

Contrary to what you believe, my view of China is of an enormously successful country, which sets itself goals and achieves them, which does not fear to take difficult decisions in the present when doing so ensures beneficial results in the future, which has deliberately set out to be rich first and free later. There is much to admire. Everybody would like to go to see and experience the wonderful new China, so different from the backward villages of the old China. But nobody would like to live there.

I admire China, and I am happy to do so from a great distance. Living in China, as a Chinese, permanently, would be abhorrent. As abhorrent as living in autocratic little Singapore.

I do sometimes live in China, and freedom is desired, media, politics, economy and such, HOWEVER, and this is to my original point, we can't have both food and freedom when we are so far BEHIND the West, so we choose food.

And we chose freedom. And continue to do so, in spite of alternatives being available. @Chinese Dragon asked for understanding of China's choice. Why is our own, very different choice so contemptible to you? If you seek admiration and understanding, what, other than a xenophobic racist jingoism prevents you from extending that same admiration and understanding to a different set of ideals?

Why do I say we can't have both? China, India, not one person that has written an article that has said India is doing better on anything, even freedom, because a larger number of people care not educated and thus wouldn't even know where to begin to seek their freedom.

I understand that it is difficult for you to get to know why freedom is important, because you have no experience of living in an unfree condition. That you "do sometimes live in China" in no way qualifies you to speak so glibly about the preferability of unfree prosperity over free poverty. It isn't about getting people to write favourably about your own choice; it's about making that choice. You haven't made that choice. You have chosen to live in a free country, and wax eloquent about the conditions in an unfree country. The best that one can say about this mentality is to call it hypocritical.

Again, we are informed by you that we do not know where to seek our freedom since we are not educated. This is condescending; poor people in a democracy know exactly what they need and how to impose these demands on politicians. Only a person with an uncertain grasp of reality would imagine that education necessarily brings democracy in its wake.

If we can have both, I would rather we have both, but name me one country that could when they started so late, and isn't an American dominated country, IE Korea, and Japan.

Japan was prosperous long before American help. Regarding that help, it achieved nothing for other partners. It did nothing for Pakistan, for instance, after an initial boost. And it is precisely the American market that serves as the foundation for Chinese prosperity.

The thing about English is no Chinese that only lived in China could speak good enough English to be on this forum, but Indians could, because English is one of your official languages.

That's all I meant, English isn't an accepted language and just like my French, I forgot it as soon as I left high school.

Fair enough, I accept that it was a comment made in good faith, imparting information.

But where did it belong in this discussion?

Now one last thing, if there's one thing I know from experience, the White America will forever reign above the other races, unless we have our own strong country.

You are preaching to the choir.

India adopted a course of sturdy independence, and equidistance from the two great powers, part of the time in company with the PRC. India suffered a huge loss of momentum due to the barely-disguised hostility of the Americans. And India stuck to her principles, and didn't sell herself, like some others did. We are still paying the price, and we are still clear that it was then the right thing to do.

Today we are sought out and wooed. Today, we bear in mind the years, decades that we spent in the wilderness, shunned and abhorred by the Americans. it tempers our willingness to befriend them. Friendship, yes, but on terms of mutual respect.

How is it that you fail to notice that?

African Americans will never become respected by the common folk who isn't progressive, because they have their brothers in Africa that are killing each other to weight them down.

How does that affect us? Do you mean to say that Indians should take national decisions which will improve the social and political life of Indians in the US?

A strong China would give me a better bargaining chip than a weak China.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

That is your view, and you are welcome to it. It was not our view, and we hope to stick to what we believe is right.

If you have no objection to that.

Jawaharlal Nehru, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, both rich and both studied in foreign lands, perhaps they don't know anything either.

The difference is that they didn't go through their experience in Great Britain, the colonising country, not just any other foreign land, and within a relationship hugely different in context than the relationship of China and Canada, and mouth platitudes about preferring the clean, wholesome rule of the British to the underdeveloped, backward terrible hell-hole of an independent India.

They were not hypocrites. They came back and faced the brutal reality of colonial rule and fought it.

It is because I have experienced both that I can say with certainty, it is because I don't need to worry about where to live and my next meal that I can really see what "freedom," gets me. When someone has to think every second about their next meal, I don't think who's the PM matters that much.

Precisely the wrong answer. As long as you have the privilege of being part of a wealthy elite, exploiting an unfree system, you have the luxury of saying that you really see what "freedom" gets you, and you can afford to say that it doesn't matter. It is when you are living in less affluent conditions and you choose to live there as a free man, rather than emigrating to the first world, or enjoying the privileged status of an unfree country, that your opinion is honest and sincere. That is when you put your money where your mouth is.

The answer? As long as a system isn't too repressive, and China isn't one, hence why Egyptians are on the streets and not Chinese, my freedom comes from the hard work of my parents and myself.

Contradictory.

There is nothing called a half-virgin.

What does calling a system not too repressive mean in concrete terms, when the hard work that earns you freedom is hard work in a free country and the freedom is in a free country? What does either the hard work or the freedom have to do with China?

If the Chinese people had accepted their unfree condition so willingly, why was the Cultural Revolution necessary? Why was there a Tienanmen Square at all? Why were there tanks facing unarmed citizens, if they were so rapturously in love with the state?

The fact you see China as such is because you are viewing China with a biased view, I know that view because some of my friends see China as such. But after a few visited with me to Shanghai, Beijing, and my home city of Dalian, they agree, that it's no different than Canada, I mean other than it's China and not Canada.

An imposed view, a straw horse. Make an assumption regarding the views held by another, destroy that assumption, and claim complete understanding and complete resolution of the contradiction.

Contrary to what you believe, my view of China is of an enormously successful country, which sets itself goals and achieves them, which does not fear to take difficult decisions in the present when doing so ensures beneficial results in the future, which has deliberately set out to be rich first and free later. There is much to admire. Everybody would like to go to see and experience the wonderful new China, so different from the backward villages of the old China. But nobody would like to live there.

I admire China, and I am happy to do so from a great distance. Living in China, as a Chinese, permanently, would be abhorrent. As abhorrent as living in autocratic little Singapore.

I do sometimes live in China, and freedom is desired, media, politics, economy and such, HOWEVER, and this is to my original point, we can't have both food and freedom when we are so far BEHIND the West, so we choose food.

And we chose freedom. And continue to do so, in spite of alternatives being available. @Chinese Dragon asked for understanding of China's choice. Why is our own, very different choice so contemptible to you? If you seek admiration and understanding, what, other than a xenophobic racist jingoism prevents you from extending that same admiration and understanding to a different set of ideals?

Why do I say we can't have both? China, India, not one person that has written an article that has said India is doing better on anything, even freedom, because a larger number of people care not educated and thus wouldn't even know where to begin to seek their freedom.

I understand that it is difficult for you to get to know why freedom is important, because you have no experience of living in an unfree condition. That you "do sometimes live in China" in no way qualifies you to speak so glibly about the preferability of unfree prosperity over free poverty. It isn't about getting people to write favourably about your own choice; it's about making that choice. You haven't made that choice. You have chosen to live in a free country, and wax eloquent about the conditions in an unfree country. The best that one can say about this mentality is to call it hypocritical.

Again, we are informed by you that we do not know where to seek our freedom since we are not educated. This is condescending; poor people in a democracy know exactly what they need and how to impose these demands on politicians. Only a person with an uncertain grasp of reality would imagine that education necessarily brings democracy in its wake.

If we can have both, I would rather we have both, but name me one country that could when they started so late, and isn't an American dominated country, IE Korea, and Japan.

Japan was prosperous long before American help. Regarding that help, it achieved nothing for other partners. It did nothing for Pakistan, for instance, after an initial boost. And it is precisely the American market that serves as the foundation for Chinese prosperity.

The thing about English is no Chinese that only lived in China could speak good enough English to be on this forum, but Indians could, because English is one of your official languages.

That's all I meant, English isn't an accepted language and just like my French, I forgot it as soon as I left high school.

Fair enough, I accept that it was a comment made in good faith, imparting information.

But where did it belong in this discussion?

Now one last thing, if there's one thing I know from experience, the White America will forever reign above the other races, unless we have our own strong country.

You are preaching to the choir.

India adopted a course of sturdy independence, and equidistance from the two great powers, part of the time in company with the PRC. India suffered a huge loss of momentum due to the barely-disguised hostility of the Americans. And India stuck to her principles, and didn't sell herself, like some others did. We are still paying the price, and we are still clear that it was then the right thing to do.

Today we are sought out and wooed. Today, we bear in mind the years, decades that we spent in the wilderness, shunned and abhorred by the Americans. it tempers our willingness to befriend them. Friendship, yes, but on terms of mutual respect.

How is it that you fail to notice that?

African Americans will never become respected by the common folk who isn't progressive, because they have their brothers in Africa that are killing each other to weight them down.

How does that affect us? Do you mean to say that Indians should take national decisions which will improve the social and political life of Indians in the US?

A strong China would give me a better bargaining chip than a weak China.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

That is your view, and you are welcome to it. It was not our view, and we hope to stick to what we believe is right.

If you have no objection to that.

 

[Genesis]

The difference is that they didn't go through their experience in Great Britain, the colonising country, not just any other foreign land, and within a relationship hugely different in context than the relationship of China and Canada, and mouth platitudes about preferring the clean, wholesome rule of the British to the underdeveloped, backward terrible hell-hole of an independent India.

They were not hypocrites. They came back and faced the brutal reality of colonial rule and fought it.

I'm not comparing myself to them, even I am not that arrogant. However, Nehru-Gandhi dynasty does exist in India. I believe Nehru must have been a hugely patriotic and freedom and equal rights aspiring person, but reality is different.

He can no more give freedom to common Indians than I can send emails to someone without a computer.

The rich can and will exploit the poor, the degree of it varies depending on not political system, for China is no more repressive of their poor than India, but of wealth.

Singapore is actually more of a dictatorship than India, but Indians still go, because with money comes security, then comes freedom.

Very hard to stand up to your land owner or employer if you will lose your only means of survival if you piss that person off.

I'm not criticizing India, same thing happened in 1911 to Sun Yat Sen, our founding father, and he found out the exact same thing, by the time he died he was about as much a autocrat as the people he wanted hanged.

Precisely the wrong answer. As long as you have the privilege of being part of a wealthy elite, exploiting an unfree system, you have the luxury of saying that you really see what "freedom" gets you, and you can afford to say that it doesn't matter. It is when you are living in less affluent conditions and you choose to live there as a free man, rather than emigrating to the first world, or enjoying the privileged status of an unfree country, that your opinion is honest and sincere. That is when you put your money where your mouth is.

American system isn't "free," I worked odd jobs during my school years, it pissed me off deeply, IE MCds, KFC, starbucks and such.

The job was one of the things that controlled my life. This condition is still better than China or India for that matter, not because of the system, India is free.

But for the fact, that I warned 1200 dollars a month, not much, but enough to save a few dollars, and I could always find another job, and if worse came to worse there are social programs.

So the difference? Choice, real choice, not fake ones, where I promise you freedom to choice a good working condition or no work and starve. Given THAT choice almost all would choice to eat than to starve.

Contradictory.

There is nothing called a half-virgin.

What does calling a system not too repressive mean in concrete terms, when the hard work that earns you freedom is hard work in a free country and the freedom is in a free country? What does either the hard work or the freedom have to do with China?

If the Chinese people had accepted their unfree condition so willingly, why was the Cultural Revolution necessary? Why was there a Tienanmen Square at all? Why were there tanks facing unarmed citizens, if they were so rapturously in love with the state?

That was 1989, you know how fast China and India changes from year to year, 2010 India and 2013 India is two India. You know that.

As to degree of freedom? Enough freedom to live a normal life and pursue your economic or other goals? That's the degree of freedom China has. So pretty much if you don't do anything too crazy, you will be fine.

Listen to this guy, he's a foreigner.

An imposed view, a straw horse. Make an assumption regarding the views held by another, destroy that assumption, and claim complete understanding and complete resolution of the contradiction.

Contrary to what you believe, my view of China is of an enormously successful country, which sets itself goals and achieves them, which does not fear to take difficult decisions in the present when doing so ensures beneficial results in the future, which has deliberately set out to be rich first and free later. There is much to admire. Everybody would like to go to see and experience the wonderful new China, so different from the backward villages of the old China. But nobody would like to live there.

I admire China, and I am happy to do so from a great distance. Living in China, as a Chinese, permanently, would be abhorrent. As abhorrent as living in autocratic little Singapore.

Nobody? Russians, Africans, other Asians people, including Japanese and Korean people, regular not CEOs, live in China. Europeans, Americans, teaching english, they live in China.

IF you don't want to, I understand, but to say you want to live in India right now? What can you do in India that you can't do in China, that you do on a daily bases, not some abstract thing from some movie.

And we chose freedom. And continue to do so, in spite of alternatives being available. @Chinese Dragon asked for understanding of China's choice. Why is our own, very different choice so contemptible to you? If you seek admiration and understanding, what, other than a xenophobic racist jingoism prevents you from extending that same admiration and understanding to a different set of ideals?

Indian freedom and American freedom is not the same, Americans are those full stomach westerners that Xi talked about, Indians are not this people.

One is annoying due to their bother and looking down on others, and the other is being bothered and being looked down on despite the "freedom."

Like it or not Indians are Asian, we rise and fall on the same coin, an Asian century must include India, 1.2 billion people doesn't just disappear. Our images are tied.

I understand that it is difficult for you to get to know why freedom is important, because you have no experience of living in an unfree condition. That you "do sometimes live in China" in no way qualifies you to speak so glibly about the preferability of unfree prosperity over free poverty. It isn't about getting people to write favourably about your own choice; it's about making that choice. You haven't made that choice. You have chosen to live in a free country, and wax eloquent about the conditions in an unfree country. The best that one can say about this mentality is to call it hypocritical.

I don't doubt I am hypocritical, but so is a lot of revolutionaries. They got money in the bank educated as an aristocrat, but condemn the very people that they are.

There are a ton of things I would like to see changed in China, but a lot of it is economics. Buying a house in Shanghai is about the same as Canadian cities, but the rent received would be 1200+ dollars in Canada easily, but a lot less in China, if the houses are same price.

There's a few more things, but not so much with politics but of economics. For example, as some one who wants one or two kids and won't ever go to a political prison, I'm good politically, and seeing as I never vote anyways I won't miss this. This I can say is most people, at least the people I know.

Again, we are informed by you that we do not know where to seek our freedom since we are not educated. This is condescending; poor people in a democracy know exactly what they need and how to impose these demands on politicians. Only a person with an uncertain grasp of reality would imagine that education necessarily brings democracy in its wake.

Japan was prosperous long before American help. Regarding that help, it achieved nothing for other partners. It did nothing for Pakistan, for instance, after an initial boost. And it is precisely the American market that serves as the foundation for Chinese prosperity.

The term we, is not right, I said uneducated people, not Indians, all uneducated people, not a coincidence that living standards and freedom rose as people became richer or such ideas came from the nobles. Robespierre was not poor.

Fair enough, I accept that it was a comment made in good faith, imparting information.

But where did it belong in this discussion?

Just that pretty much all Chinese members here at least has a somewhat western education, or else their English would be crazy, because the structure of a Chinese sentence and English one is not the same.

You are preaching to the choir.

India adopted a course of sturdy independence, and equidistance from the two great powers, part of the time in company with the PRC. India suffered a huge loss of momentum due to the barely-disguised hostility of the Americans. And India stuck to her principles, and didn't sell herself, like some others did. We are still paying the price, and we are still clear that it was then the right thing to do.

Today we are sought out and wooed. Today, we bear in mind the years, decades that we spent in the wilderness, shunned and abhorred by the Americans. it tempers our willingness to befriend them. Friendship, yes, but on terms of mutual respect.

How is it that you fail to notice that?

This is just in response to my assumption that you mean I have no business discussing China as I do. And I'm saying a strong China is in my interest.

How does that affect us? Do you mean to say that Indians should take national decisions which will improve the social and political life of Indians in the US?

Just an example, that the day Chinese are accepted is the day Chinese are victories. Indian miss America? What did she do to deserve some of the things said? I mean other than having a poor country as her origins. How is Austria or Germany any more American? Especially that America has went to war with them twice, two majorly destructive wars.

Indians didn't do this much destruction on the Americans now did you?

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

That is your view, and you are welcome to it. It was not our view, and we hope to stick to what we believe is right.

If you have no objection to that.

You views are welcomed, and we will see which works better in the coming decade, Autocratic and controlled China or Free and democratic India.

Food and iPhones first? Or vote and speech first? We are lucky to be able to see the result of these two systems on similarly sized countries.

 

[JSCh]

First, you needn't go by PDF opinion; cast your mind back to the enormous mobilisation of people in (largely) non-violent movements for freedom from British rule. It was not the elite that formed those huge crowds; it was the people. I am a little taken aback with the hint in your post that it was an artificial transfer from one elite to another; surely you, of all people, know better, and have a better grasp on south Asian history than that.

FYI, I did not intended to hint at transfer from one elite to another. I understand that Indian fight for independent is a people's choice, Chinese would do the same.

What I said is an attempt to make others understand Chinese choice.

In my previous to previous post, I mentioned "equality" in strictly state-planned economy. "equality" like freedom is an ideal that every Chinese would like to have. But the policy to implement strict/artificial equality leads to overall low standard of living.

Therefore Chinese having that lesson, are skeptical of ideology that might not deliver.

That is what I meant when I said, "Life is give and take. If the overall balance come out good, then it is good." meaning just like giving up strict equality, Chinese are willing to sacrifice some freedom if the overall balance is good.

According to poll, the majority of Chinese citizen are happy with the way things are going in China.

Certain Indian PDFer seem to have this condescending attitude that Chinese willing to accept thing as they are somehow reflect negatively on Chinese people on either morality or cognitive reasoning ability.

That is why I try to explain.

Second, you asked a subtle question, if we understood Chinese logic in making that choice. Was it that simple?

Speaking as one who has studied Chinese history, though not as deeply as other histories, the question that arises is, "Was it truly a choice?" Was not the mobilised military capability of the CPC developed on the premises that a people in dire straits, faced with the brutality of Japanese conquerors and colonisers on the one hand, and the brutality and callousness of a home-grown Chinese dictatorship on the other, would welcome and support completely an honest and populist movement against both these? And was it not beyond your capacity as a people to refuse one-party dictatorship backed by a tough army once the KMT were defeated and in exile on an offshore island?

On the other hand, we did have a choice. We could have used violent revolution; even after independence, there have been, and continue to be opportunities for seeking the kind of regime that you have.

My turn to ask, with no intention to wound: do you understand the Indian logic in refusing the choice that we have but you don't?

I have no intention of criticizing Indian choice of freedom in fighting for independence against a imperialist colonizer.

But I think that freedom is not the same freedom that Indian refer to, is it not? Chinese fight tooth and nail against Japanese colonizer as well. Fighting against colonizer is for national self-determination. PRC/CCP is Chinese, we are already self-determined.

I think you have a too negative view of CCP. Ask any Chinese you meet, do they think PRC/CCP are looking after their interest as a nation/people? I think the answer would be a resounding yes. Since you study Chinese history, then you should know that one of the primary factor that CCP gain popular support and won the civil war is because CCP is not viewed as a traitor to foreign power.

And FYI, this is one of the main reason why Chinese would support CCP today.
Chinese knows deep down that PRC/CCP is the only one that is willing and able to look after their interest, despite whatever reason that Chinese is unhappy with CCP. Because like I said "Life is give and take".

I have no problem with whatever choice that Indian made. I only hope that Indian would understand why Chinese made their choice, you do not really have to agree to it.

And about your question, why would you think that Chinese people are not capable of overthrowing CCP if they do so wish? We Chinese people are the most rebellious people. Since ancient time, Chinese philosophical thought already stipulated that Chinese people has the right to rebel against our emperor. And emperor is supposed to be son of god and a living god too.

If the son of god do not treat the people well, then the people could even topple god! Maybe that is one of the reason why religion never truly take hold in China. The people of China is bigger/higher even than god!

Outsider/foreigner often think that Chinese are just passive receiver of Chinese policy. China has a population of >400 millions, do you really think that it is possible to force policy on that many people by violence?

Why didn't the Chinese revolt? the answer is simple, the Chinese people is a willing participant in all those policy. Think about it, there is really no other possible answer. Today, with 20-20 hindsight, it is easy to see the mistake of the past, but that is viewing history outside of its social and historical context.