UKC

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

eh why do that? someone explain it to me in simple talk.. i have a headache and cant be bothered to fry my eyes reading the long article ( sorry)

In reply to Pauline:

which part of "Everest Closed - Chinese Olympic bid stops climbers" did you want explained?

anyway on the one hand i agree with Jack's point about the motivations behind the ban and the possible effects on the (maybe) open side, but it seems like it would be a good idea to allow the mountain to "rest" for a season.

In reply to Morgan Woods: i somehow doubt that the Chinese are being influenced by environmental concerns. I agree it should be allowed to rest at some point but i dont think Nepal should give into Chinese pressure. Also giving it a rest would affect the livelyhood of many people not just publicity craving westerners so maybe it should be sacrificed for the greater good of the himalayas.
It would be fantastic if some climbers or better still tibetan climbers could 'intecept' the chinese and their olympic torch.

In reply to JoeL 90:


And kill them or something? What an odd suggestion... not really in the Olympic spirit, are we?

PS. BTW, Tibetans are Chinese too... some will be in the Olympic team perhaps... will you boo them too?

In reply to Morgan Woods:

>>but it seems like it would be a good idea to allow the mountain to "rest" for a season

Presumably you think that there is an environmentat problem? This would be solved by cleaning the mountain.

The arbitrary authoritarian way in which the Chinese have shut down access is not good news, It's going to increase pressure later on and damage the livelihoods of the everest industry.

Havig said that I think the typical climber attempting Everest whould be more richly rewarded spending that time and money getting real mountaineering training and experience and then doing a few 4000ers in the Alps under their own steam.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: That's a bit like saying that the Welsh are English. Tibetans are not Han Chinese. I would be surprised if there were any Tibetans in Team China in a few months time - it's not all one big happy family over there.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: I dont think killing them would be good, obviosly. But to disrupt it in some way would be a great acheivement. Ive nothing against Chinese athletes btw but the olympics isn't simply a celebration of sport its highly politicised Berlin '36 and Munich '72? for example. I dont think it would be a good idea out of some xenophobic hatred of Chinese people more from a desire for all to have the right to free speech to bring the tibetan issue back into the press and minds of people would be good and anysort of protest of this kind would do that.

Also i think your understanding of nationality is poor. To be occupied by another country doesn't make someone that nationality. You wouldn't refer to the poles or the fench in WW2 as Germans/Nazis, would you? Think before you write alot of your posts seem to defy conventional logic.
ta,
Joe

In reply to Mutl3y:

No, it's a bit like saying the Welsh are British.

In reply to JoeL 90:

If you look at the wiki article on Tibet they will give you a fair selection of the views on both sides as to whether Tibet is part of China or not... BTW even the Dalai Lama, despite being a CIA stooge, recognises this. Once you've read it you will be in a position to decide by yourself... it's not black and white as you and others appear to think.

The games have not been politicized by the Chinese but by the enemies of China. They did the same for the Moscow games... much less for the ones held in the USA for some reasons and yet there would have been quite a few reasons to boycott those games too if one puts short term politics above the Olympic ideal.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It would be if "Britishness" and "Chineseness" were the same concepts. They are not. I can and have become a citizen of Britain but I could never ever become a Chinese citizen even if I was born there.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


... as indeed most of the Soviet Bloc did.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: The Tibetans are of different ethnicity and religion to the majority of China. The Welsh essentially control their own future as a nation and chose to be tied to Britain. China is not a democracy and the Tibetans cannot decide their future and instead any who go against the goverment are purged. therefor tour comparison is a rather silly one. I say stupid things but some of the nonsense you post is unbelievable.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: The games are politicised by the enemies of China due to its terrible human rights record. Countries should require a certain level of transparency in their political systems. The Soviet union and present day china are hardly some utopian ideal of communism they are the result of a failiure of international socialism. Which in both these cases seems to have reverted to autocracy in one form or another where people are purged for their beliefs.

I dont read wikipedia i prefer books as i can have some idea the author has some knowledge of what they speak.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

er no i think he meant what he said the first time.

In reply to DougG:

Yes, I read the wiki article too

Interesting to see how it has always taken place in more or less the same countries though, probably because of the cost. I think there would be much to be gained by reducing the number of sports to make it possible in countries with less financial possibilities... or changing the format somehow to make the games less enormous... get back more to the original spirit of the first Olympic games?

In reply to Morgan Woods:

Duh I get everest is closed!

I also get that it stops climbers, I just dont get what it has to do with china's olympic bid?! Call me thick i dont care!

So what has it to do with the olympics?

In reply to JoeL 90:


I really think you could give it a try, a recent survey considered it to be better in many ways to commercial encyclopedias. The Tibet article is fairly well balanced and by no means pro-Chinese, but at least it gives you the facts and figures, even from sources like the CIA world resources site, not a commy website by any means.

What harm could it do you just to read it... the population figures over the years, with breakdown by ethnic group would help you a little as apparently you are not aware of the reality. Unless that is a deliberate choice, of course?

How can you be sure that the author of a book gives you valid info... for any book that says one thing you'll find one that says the opposite, they can't both be right, can they?

In reply to SI A:

I think I know what I meant in my post better than you or Mutby do

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Are you saying that Tibetans are, by virtue of being occupied by China, Chinese? That doesn't make sense to me. There are ethnic differences too, but that's beside the point really.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It depends on their subject. If the book deals with facts then obviously one is wrong and the other right. However if the book is one of hisorical analysis or a polemic or critique of some kind then there will no doubt be many different books saying different things which one is right and which is wrong depends on you point of view but in reality they are all right or all not wrong depending on how you veiw such things. Come on. Your 58, im meant to be the one viewing the world in black and white.

In reply to JoeL 90:


It's not obligatory!

You said:


So I am just pointing out that you have no intrinsic certainty that what a book says is true because there are always other books which say the opposite (on subjects of history, philosophy, politics etc).

I suggested reading the Wiki article on Tibet because it seems to be particularly good and attempts to present both sides and also give figures (that the population went from 1.2 million 1951 to almost 3 million in 2007 so your figure of 20 million Tibetans killed is quite impossible, even allowing for a degree of error).

You would also see census figures which show that according to the 2000 census in Tibet there were 2,427,168 (92.8%) ethnic Tibetans and 158,570 (6.1%) Han Chinese... hardly signs of a mass takeover by "outsiders" and this was 30 years after the reaffirmation of Chinese sovereignty.

One can always contest figures but the ones given are confirmed by other sources that I have seen... if you can provide others with where they came from and which seem physically possible then why not do so?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
so your figure of 20 million Tibetans killed is quite impossible, even allowing for a degree of error).

What?! where did i say this?


I dont want to contest the figures i dont quite see what your getting at, stop the bombardment of demographic figures which presumerably are from a rather secrative government responsible for seizing Tibet in the first place ('51?) then purging the minorities of occupied by china in the cultural revolution. Takovers dont need to imply re-sttlement of any area simpl holding it against the will of the people of the country, and not allowing the peoples of a country to decide whether or not to rule themselves. The welsh, the scottish and gibraltans all have this as they are ruled by a democracy. China is ruled people who aren't chosen by the people and so have no right to be there.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Obviously not, but the truth can be a matter of opinion and so can be many things. Something being a book doesn't make it fact but the author makes the book and if s/he is a well repected on the subject they write about then their opinions make better reading than a website where anyone can add anything, even though its largely accurate.

In reply to JoeL 90:

The figures are from the wiki article as an example of what there is to read there.

You are right you didn't say 20 million, my mistake, I apologise.

Gibraltar isn't a country it is a bit of Spain that was taken for a military base there in a treaty after a war that the Spanish lost. Obviously some of the local Brits employed there may prefer to maintain the present situation but it is a bit of an aberration really... Hong Kong was handed back and I think it would be a good gesture if the same was done with Gibraltar.

I simply think that Tibetans are a lot better off now than when run by a bunch of monks and feudal war lords - most of the population were serfs and had appalling lives - the evil power of religion and superstition is demonstrated when the Dalai Lama called them to revolt organised by the CIA in 1956 many of these serfs went to their death in order to defend an order that maintained them as land slaves. It also demonstrates that the Dalai Lam is no more a pacifist than Chiang Kai Shek! just another smiling hypocrite out for number one.

It's all in the long wiki article, with counter articles from the feudal side... very interesting reading and lots of references to continue one's studies.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Disingenuous as ever.

Then again, you have in the past shrugged your shoulders at the millions of deaths caused by Mao`s regime. Funny how that`s progess but if iot was perpetrated by a right wing regime it would be tantamount to genocide.

Nothing better than a sad old commie mass murder apologist.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Just to let you know anyone can add/update Wikipedia articles including the Chinese authorities (and occupied Tibetans!)

In reply to Bruce Hooker: imho feplacing feudal lords with an attempt at one state communism, something which is obviously impossible to acheive. Its about as useful as replacing the Tsars of Russia with the Bolsheviks they both do the same thing ie vicious oppression and aspire to totalitarian rule but under a different name although the Bolsheviks unfortunately did it 'better' than the tsars. I dont think condoning the take over of another country is a clever thing to do. I personally am not religous but i think people should have the right to chose their religion not have the religion of failed communism forced upon them.

the tibetans desrve the right to decide their future and Chinas whether or not they are economically better off under China the point is they dont have free speech or the ability to pressure the governement for independance. The situation is unacceptable.

Also i think its very difficult to decide whether the Tibetans are any better off than before due to the secracy of China. The revolt of 1956 seemed perfectly legitimate, its comparable to the resistance movements of WW2 except rather than resisting against Facism they were resisting against a country led by people whod seemingly mis-read Marx, again different names but very similar in practice.

In reply to lummox: ahh, i hadn't read his posts in the past, i understand now. His comments seemed without logic. i know know hes under the control of the Marxist religion. He seemed far to sure of his beliefs and un-accepting of others to be an atheist.

In reply to PondLife:

It's probably more tricky for the occupied Tibetans to put forward their views than it is for the Chinese authorities, although I'm sure Tibetans have people outside of China representing them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Repub...

In reply to Bruce Hooker: "Gibraltar isn't a country it is a bit of Spain that was taken for a military base there in a treaty after a war that the Spanish lost. Obviously some of the local Brits employed there may prefer to maintain the present situation but it is a bit of an aberration really... Hong Kong was handed back and I think it would be a good gesture if the same was done with Gibraltar."


More or less the entire population are 'Brits' (even if many, such as my Granparents, speak Spanish in preference to English), presumably they should be allowed to have a say in whether they stay British or become Spanish ? last time they were asked (some 5 years ago) some 95% voted to stay British

In reply to lummox:

It has been perpetrated by other regimes, and not only right wing, how many died in WW1 and WW2? Neither of which were started by communist countries, although you conveniently have a blind spot there...

It's not your fault, it's the way we were all brought up but it is not prohibited to think for oneself and see the world as it really is!

In reply to JoeL 90:


Did they have any freedom at all under the Dalai Lama and his cronies? Not only that but they had little food, forced labour, no medicare, no roads, no hospitals, half the life expectancy, many times higher infant mortality... etc etc. At least try and look at the objective reality...none of the books written by travellers there when it was feudal say otherwise, not even the British army officers who invaded Tibet at the beginning of the last century, and one could hardly tax them of being lefties

In reply to Doug:

I know this but it is a bit of an anachronism isn't it? I'm surprised the Spanish take it so well... does it date back to the Treaty of Utrecht?

In reply to JoeL 90:

PS. I have not been a member of any political party for a long time... I was an active member of the French Communist Party leading up to the Union of the Left victory that brought Francois Mitterand to power in 1981 but I left the party a few years after... Lummox is extrapolating again. BTW, if you think Marxism is a religion then I can understand why you follow the line you do, it isn't a religion but it does have some aspects of religion contained within it which explain its power in mobilising suffering people to give up their lives for future generations... This is both its strength in the short term but its weakness in the long... but that another discussion.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Im not suggesting that the Dalai Lama be reinstated more that the Tibetans should have the rights to free speech and control of their contry if they wish.

Medalling in the affairs of other countries by invading them and imposing religion on them (in this case a strange brand of communism) in the name of helping them advance is an arrogant thing to do. South Korea with the help of Americans invading north korea would make it much better of finacially it doesn't make it a clever idea. Similarly if Britain/France or any other wester power incaded some poverty stricken sahel country killing all who opposed them theyd be much better off economically but it just isn't the right thing to do.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yes it does. In the past the Spanish didn't take it well & went out of their way to make live on the Rock difficult but recently seem to have decided that the inhabitants weren't likely to vote to be become Spanish if Spain was acting as a bully/idiot

In reply to Bruce Hooker: it may be another discussion but it seems to influence your thinking much like a religion. It blinds you to evils which people do in the name of Marxism. Essentially it is a religion. It is based on flawed economic thinking as i suppose youd expect from someone who was no great economist. Many of its key theories such as the theory of surplus value have been proved wrong by time. It is not a rational beleif Marx was a man of his time and created a theory to support his veiws on revolution at the time. He also made some very funny judgements such as the 1848-49 revolutions as being the downfall of capitalism when in fact they were the begining of a new stage of it.

Also Marx was typically of the middle class rebels without a cause who later followed him such as the arrogant baby boomers like you who followed him in the 60s and beyond in that he had very little dealings with the class he chose to base his theory around. This is a presumption about you - sorry if its wrong but you seem to care very little for human cost and instead deal in absolutist ideals.

It has no place in todays world and had no real place after universal suffrage was introduced in many countries. Where so called communist states do exist they are simply the same old power hungry autocratic thugs under a new label.

It is very much a religion. No sound evidence suggests that the mythical third stage will happen as it was prophesised but the beleivers keep faith - in fewer numbers as they either die off, reach senility or realise theyre now quite rich and would rather keep their money than help the poor so vote Conservative.

It seems quite ludicrous to me to portray the Dalai Lama as a CIA stooge.
And Wikipedia being open to any contributions, is not really a reliable source of information. I wouldn't be surprised if that page had been edited by some official in one Chinese ministry or the other.
As far as I know, Tibet used to be an independent country for a long while before the Chinese invaded it and suppressed essential individual freedoms.

Evening All,

I know that the Chinese are attempting to take their Olympic torch to the top of Everest.

That is why they want everyone off Everest... the environmental concerns are just a cover-up.

Also a total ban means no demos or protests.

My guess is that anyone protesting would just be shot and dropped into a crevasse.

I know that there is a new road that has been built all the way to base camp and have pictures to back that up.

So can someone tell me who (what team) is taking the torch up Everest.

Also can anyone tell me more about the use of pure oxygen near a naked flame?

http://www1.boc.com/uk/sds/medical/Medical_Liquid_Oxygen_110.pdf

Wouldn't that be funny... oxygen mask off at the summit... Booooooom !!!!!

Enjoy the Olympics everyone... and the picture of the Everest Summit with a flaming Chinese climber jumping off it.

Viper

In reply to francois:

As you are Fench you must know the "Quid" yearly encyclopedia. I don't think this can be edited by the Chinese government! If you look up China it says much the same as wikipedia. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but really doubtful edits are corrected, they have a whole mechanism to try and reach consensual, balanced articles. They may not always manage but the section about Tibet has been stable for quiet a while - it gives both sides of the question in a critical way - so I think it is fairly reliable... it leaves the reader to decide which version to believe.

Concerning the independence of Tibet question, it is quite complicated, at one time even a Tibetan ruler reigned over much of China!

A more important point to my view is that I think we should try and get away from the Club Med picturesque "monks and monasteries" point of view and try to imagine the reality of life for the average Tibetan... there is little doubt that they are much better off now than before 1950... for monks to be well dressed and fed without working in one of the poorest backward parts of the world someone else must be having a pretty rough life!

Heinrich Harrer, a personal friend of the young Dalai Lama and hardly a pro-communist (he was a nazi in fact before escaping to Tibet from a British internment camp in India during WW2) describes in "7 Years in Tibet" the extreme poverty outside the monasteries, at the foot of the Potola in the meat market for example, in vivid details... I can't see why he would have lied about this.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Communist, Nazi same sort of thing in this sense; both aspire to totalitarialism and both brutally opress and purge those who they do not agree with.

Also i dont think anyones going to get involved in a debate over which rulers the Tibetans were better off under as it simply isn't the point and so many variables and facts are needed to asses it. The point is they are an occupied country and deserve basic rights such as free speech and the right to decide on their nationality and be able to do so legally.

Your point abot Tibetans once owning much of china is silly, the Vikings once owned much of britain but i think the Norwegains and Danes could rightly feel a touch pissed off if we invaded them because of that.

In reply to JoeL 90:

My point about the history of the region is to show it is not black and white, the Chinese have as strong a claim on the region as do a lot of other countries on some of their regions... take a look at French history, for example. It doesn't justify an invasion, it questions whether there was an invasion or not. The British did invade Tibet though and were involved in the treaties that are argued about now. Large sections of land that was part of Tibet is now under Indian control but the Chinese have relinquished their claims on this in order to reduce tension between the two countries.

At least you are honest and admit you don't care about whether ordinary Tibetans are "better off" or not, you may be callous but at least you are not a hypocrite.

Concerning communism perhaps you should try to find out about its origins, the theory and the objectives - Stalinism wasn't one of them originally - then compare it with the original and final objectives of the nazi movement... they are somewhat different as you could easily find out if you wanted to.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Ahh, those wonderful thoughtful communists, how lovely of them.


I think youll find i said i did not wish to argue about it as the facts aren't sufficeintly reliable and better off is very hard to define, maybe when one-state communism collapses in China then the evidence will be released which is needed for such an argument. I dont wish to see people suffering oppression in any forms they currently suffer chinese oppression. this is what needs dealing with now.


When i use communism for te Chinese and soviet union its obviously not the right word but then you do seem ever so keeen on defending countries which clearly aren't communist. Obviously the original ideal was a great idea which would be a great success in its original ideal. Unfortunately for it to work it needs to be international one-state communism was never though possible and predictably has failed and is simply another name underwhich autocrats assume power.

I agree if measuerd purely on what they set out to acheive then communism is a far nicer prospect than social darwinism but in reality both ideals bring the same thing. Communism is a nice idea but it would only work if the Marxist dialect is correct as hes got so much wrong already i thing having faith that it will suceed is akin to having faith in god, ie irrational. Nothing wrong with being irrational of course.

In reply to JoeL 90:

It's all looking a wee bit nasty in Tibet at the mo...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7296041.stm

In reply to JoeL 90:


But you don't mind them starving, having no health care, 40 year life expectancy etc etc... fair enough!

In reply to Fauvé:

Yes, I was just listening to the news on the radio... buddhist monks are funny pacifists! It rather shows why they are not always popular though.

I predicted a few weeks ago on a nearly identical thread to this one that we would see more and more "spontaneous incidents" popping up as the Olympic Games got closer, alas it looks like I am being proved right. It's a good indication that US foreign policy is floating a bit at present; although the official line is one of cooperation with China their are clearly a few hawks that can't accept a compromise.

Those of us who wish to help the Chinese people, including the Tibetans, can do their bit by not falling for such cold-war antics.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I have some friends in Tibet, and as you rightly said, the official line is that it's all rosey!

They have said that there are more and more localised incidents in the cities, not only by the Monks, but small protests by Joe Public over the Chinese reign.

They reckon that on the major run up to the Olympics, there will be a growing number of high profile demonstrations. It will be interesting to see how the Chinese deal with them, especially as they are in the public eye because of the Games.

In my humble opinion, the Chinese are on a losing battle at the moment what with all the publicity surrounding not only the Games but China as a whole. With more and more Western media agencies entering the country, they are putting themselves into the limelight.

I personally hope that they drop themselves right in it, having travelled there (China) they are not doing the world a great favour with their massive growth.

Fauvé

Must add, have met Monks on travels in Tibet, they can be right angry miserable buggers, only the minority though! :0)

Just a thought:- How will they stop climbers from climbing it anyway? So:-no fixed rope or overcrowded campsites. Sounds nice and clear for the right sort of ascent. Haven't there have been quite a few unofficial ascents of peaks in the Himalaya already...?

In reply to Fauvé:

It's all that Kung Fu perhaps... why do you hope the Chinese have problems? I certainly don't, I think they have suffered enough at the hands of history (and our countries - assuming you are French, remember the Summer Palace affair?) and deserve to be allowed to build there own future in their own way. I dread to think what would happen if the country fell apart again.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I just think the way the Chinese are completely draining every resource they have in such a quick way in order for them to becaome a global import/export leader is a truly bad thing. Pollution levels are ridiculous.

They are treating their people in a shameless way, not setting up appropriate working conditions, exploiting children etc etc.

What makes me laugh are the constant pleas of corporations complaining to governments that their products are being counterfeited in China and distributed all over the world. Simple answer, don't move your production to China because it's cheaper and you can make more profit!

Basically China is having a massive boom which while probably a good thing for Westerners, in the long run, the ordinary Chinese people will suffer. If their Country falls apart, then they only have themselves to blame, by themselves, I mean Government, companies etc, not the normal everyday chap or chapess.

:0)

I

In reply to Bruce Hooker: I dont quite know where you got that impression from. I dont like countries being ruled on the ideals of a religion of any kind and dislike feudalism like one-state communism. My dislike of one state communism is partly due to the enourmous famines its caused ie 30s Russia. I think the issues which surround tibet currently need to be addressed rather than feudalism in the 50s which was obviosuly wrong and of course people suffering from stavation and no health care is wrong. Its kind of a given do i really need to say somethings wrong to avoid being labelled as someone who condones it.

Chinese communism will soon collapse and hopefully a socialist democraticically elected governement will take its place to prevent pure capitalism from creating huge divides between rich and poor, which, despite being a so called communist state still exist in China.

In reply to JoeL 90:


Like in Russia, you mean?

I hope not, for their sakes.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: no i hope it doesn't go the way of Russia i unreastricted capitalism unleashed overnight on a planned economy is a very bad idea as shown by russia. That was why i wish for a governemnt which will be socialist within a capitalist economy like scandanavian countries. I appreciate this is a rather naive vision and china will doubtless go the Russian way. Its a great shame for the chinese people that such a stupid form of govermnet has been forced on them.

As you support communism it seems and not just the ideal but individual states. Does this make you a supporter of forced famine and purging of minorities as well as spending huge amounts on arms while neglecting the needs of the countries people?

In reply to JoeL 90:


Who forced it on them?

In reply to JoeL 90:


I'm no supporter of communism, but Cuba, although not the Eden of free speech and political opinion has one of the most developed healthcare system in the world, streets ahead of the NHS. Not bad for the spawn of all evil.
I seem also to remember that the Sandinistas in Nicaragua had started developing a hell of a good system until they were scuppered by the US.

A.-

In reply to ArnaudG: I agree Cuba has benifitted expecially, ive only read breifly about the Sandinistas but ill take your word for it. I like the idea of communism, however i think democracy is better as communism relies on having a leader with the countries intrests at heart where as in a democracy the leader can be held to account by the electorate.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

This in from the BBC today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7296677.stm

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: I think we need to get one thing straight here, It's not the chinese side of Everest it's the Tibetan side