March 18th, 2008
|11:09 pm - Tibet from the Chinese Point of View|
NOTE: Posted this exact same post onto a politics community, saving a copy here on my own lj, so don't mind the weird wording.
Hmm....it looks like the Tibet issue is raising quite a few hairs on both sides of the debate. I was shown this video by my roommate and thought it would be beneficial to share it here with the community. I myself am Chinese by ethnicity (born in Beijing) but moved to the USA when I was 6 and later to Canada when I was 9, so most of my growing up was done here in the West. Therefore, regarding this issue I guess I straddle both sides a bit. I've been called "Westernly brainwashed" by my Chinese friends (Chinese as in international students that have only arrived here in Canada for a few years for school and therefore spent most of their life in China) and "Chinese Communist brainwashed" by my Canadian friends, so I guess I'm not solidly in either camp.
The person who made this video I'm guessing, from his/her language usage, did so in a fit of anger at the increasingly global focus on Tibet as the Beijing Olympics nears. A sentiment I can understand considering any and all of the accusations the West has thrown at China can be tossed back just as harshly. I will be the first to admit that China is not a perfect country and has much it needs to work on, humans rights and media censorship being two of the issues to top that list. At the same time, the one-sided coverage over Tibet has me stunned though not exactly surprised. Increasingly I find myself hesitant and even fearful to voice any appraisal or support for China and its government since any opinion in that line gets you labeled as brainwashed and information in that route gets stamped as propaganda by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party).
There seems to be this giant gap between China and the West, something that's not surprising considering the historical, language and cultural barriers that bar the two sides. For the Chinese, there is also a knee-jerk reaction towards nationalist sentiments in retaliation to any foreign attacks verbally, politically or otherwise due to all the conflicts the country had suffered at the hands of various foreign, and particularly what they label as Western countries, throughout the 20th Century. Whether this paranoia against the West is justified or not, however, is a discussion for another day.
I plead that you watch this video with an open mind in considering that there are 2 sides to the Tibet story, as there are 2 sides to every story. It seems, however, that in this trial over Tibet the defendant has been dismissed and the plaintiff has the floor. When around my Canadian friends even a hint that the Tibet issue should require a debate at all is rewarded with an exclamation of disbelief and discreet accusations that I am brainwashed...apparently CCP (Chinese Communist Party)'s propaganda reaches far and deep still resounding in me after 15 years of living on the other side of the planet, going back to visit for a summer only once within those 15 years. It is unfortunate, particularly when that is the response I received when bringing the issue up in a politics class where I always believed open debate was encouraged. For the first time I like I had stumbled upon a forbidden viewpoint unaccepted by people I had previously thought were very open-minded and accepting of new ideas and views.
The person who made this video is a Chinese student living and studying abroad, therefore do excuse the various grammatical errors in the captions and I apologize for his/her usage of the f-word in parts of the captions...not very professional nor productive in bringing his/her point across I admit, except perhaps as an expression of his/her anger. I do not claim that the facts presented in this video are all 100% accurate, whenever the word "fact" is used I believe it should be taken with a healthy dose of doubt, but I present this video to you merely to relay the reality that another opinion exists and is heavily supported by many Chinese. Amongst the circle of Chinese international students here at my university and amongst the Chinese international students' circles at other universities in Canada this video has gained undisputed support and an outpouring of anger at what they perceive as attacks on China's sovereignty to rule over its land and people. Even amongst my most pro-West Chinese friends that adore picking at the faults of the CCP when alone with me will fiercely defend that very government when asked for opinions on China by non-Chinese individuals...there's almost like a magical switch in them. It seems like the unspoken agreement is that it is better to have a Chinese authoritarian government than a Western-dictated democratic on.
Apparently the bridge between China and the West really does have a long way to be built before the two sides meet...between accusations flying, hidden agendas lurking, and the struggles to overcome rooted barriers, what is true, what is fact, what are the true intentions, what is truly being sought after, the questions must be asked before even a chance at an answer will arrive.
I don't know that the stuff about the Dalai Lama being the puppet of the CIA is going to fly, but there's really no way that the other stuff about Scotland, Northern Ireland, Quebec, and treatment of aboriginal peoples can be denied. All in all, while I don't have an opinion on Tibetan independence, I certainly have an opinion on foreign powers butting in on other countries' sovereignties.
And while we're at it, yes, people need to recognize that there is difference between a liberal democracy and an illiberal one, the difference between a "true" democracy, and one in name only. If democracy comes at the price of having riots every election time, or the fear of violence, is that "true" democracy? Most Americans forget that the Founding Fathers of the Continental States of America tried to keep as much voting power away from the uneducated population as they could... which is why we still have all this stuff about electoral collage and crap like that. Do you really trust 700 million people to make informed decisions about the future of one of the soon-to-be most important countries in the world? Uh, no. Not until they're educated. So Westerns need to quit whining about authoritarian regimes. Yes, they have faults, like media censorship, but simply being "undemocratic" is not one of those faults.
I do kind of want to see a few million people gathered here on Parliament Hill protesting something and watch how the Canadian government deals with that. Would the tear gases come out? The tasers? It would be quite a sight I'm sure, it's so much harder to implement true democracy in a country with a population of over 1.3billion and growing, I mean let's face it, numbers count in this case, and it counts for a heck of a lot.
Hm... to be true, I have my difficulties about the video.
(I have problems with esp. american politics as well, so...)
I'm from Germany. Like that the first arguments concerning "Tibet has been a part of China for somethingthousand years" does not really touch me, a change in the shape of a country is not that unusual to me.
My other problem is that except of the Dalai Lama regime arguments, I don't see much actual arguments in the video.
I absolute understand that the creator of the video critizes the western countries, but in my opinion it's no argument for own actions that others do things as well.
Third problem: Everything connected to China's treatment of Tibet in this video is rather glorified. I believe what it says about spending so much money for Tibetian infrastructure, but I don't see a touch of the current problem at all.
There has to be a reason why all of this started, and I have no clue what it was. There must be a reason for Tibet to want to become indipendent from China, and there must be a reason for China to deny that (another reason than 'you have been ours for xthousand years').
Sometimes I miss the tibetian viewpoint in all of this.
After all, I can't really say that I think one side is right, but what I can say is that I think the whole problem needs a resolution. And just with "We go!" or "You stay!" that won't be made.
I think that when a portion of a country has been deemed as under the rule of that country for centuries, much less millenias, any country would have a difficult time just letting it go at the demand of a portion of that population, otherwise there would be mass chaos. Today this state in the USA separates into a new country, tomorrow that province from Canada, heck knows Quebec would absolutely adore that and have proven so with the recent acknowledgment of the Canadian government towards Kosovo's newly gained independence.
I don't know how it is it Germany, but there is a growing heat against China and particularly its hosting of the upcoming Olympics and many of the pro-boycott camp uses Tibet as their calling card. It's not to say that "well the West did this, so it's ok for us to do it too", it's more of retaliation at the hypocrisy the West uses in its policies towards other countries. I believe the mentioning of the boycott of the opening ceremonies at the Olympics this year was brought up just recently by the Foreign Minister of France, again pointing to Tibet as the reason. Looking back at other countries that have hosted the games, which one hasn't infringed upon human rights and conducted unethically in some form of way or shape? The possibility of a boycott is never even thought up if the country was, say, the USA.
The Central government in China has spent millions, as mentioned in the video, on helping Tibet to develop. Due to their geographic location it is intensely difficult to reach Tibet, and because of their altitude tourists and visitors not used to such heights often have trouble breathing when first arriving, so the area is actually quite isolated from the innerland China. The last bit of the video hits the point that the West has a history of creating chaos and fractures within countries, historically take a look over at Africa, South Asia, Israel/Palestine, the former USSR, and recently Kosovo. I don't believe they purposely do so consciously, I mean I don't think Bush and Harper goes to bed at night pondering "hmm...which country can I split up next? Where can I create some chaos tomorrow?", but it does generally result that with these fractures and internal conflicts, the foreign countries stand to gain enormously.
When a country is at peace and merrily developing, what use have they for the West? When that country falls into chaos it's hard to avoid that some of the different groups will turn to foreign countries that are sympathetic for aid and support, unfortunately in cases that those groups do eventually gain political dominance, they tend to favour the supporting, foreign countries in their economic and political development resulting in neglect of their own people. We have seen countless examples of that historically.
Tibet itself is already a special area in China much like Hong Kong and XinJiang, particularly like Xin Jiang where the majority of the people are an ethnic minority and they receive special privileges, along the power to have their own "government" of sorts under the Central government in Beijing. Your sentiments of confusion at why this whole independence is even debated and brought up by Tibet is precisely the sentiments my Chinese friends feel, it literally came out of nowhere and blind sided all of them.
First: I think different about the situation in China/Tibet than about the video, and my former comment was mostly related to the video.
Well... Germans and their opinion on China... every few days we have news about riots in Tibet. That's all. And then there was that problem between german and chinese gouvernment, because our Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel was visited by the Dalai Lama.
But all I heared in the direction of critizism of the situation in China was critizism towards the gouvernment. But the reason for that might be that -because of our own history- Germans tend to seperate between the gouvernment and the people of a country.
Oh, and most of the China-related news here seem to be about air pollution.
I never heared about the boycott thing either. (That doesn't mean that I want to deny it, just that it's not really a current topic in german news).
I have to partially second what you say about the western politics to help countries to become indipendet from others.
And in general, America is very very good in trying to spread "justice" all over the world, no matter if someone asked for it or not. And very especially it should be the american kind and interpretation of justice.
I guess there have to be strong reasons for parts of the Tibetian people to want to become indipendent from China, else there wouldn't be the riots.
There is a party in the German federal state Bavaria (you remember young Elisabeth? That's the part of Germany she came from) which tries to promote Bavaria as an indipendent country.
But the reaction is that most Germans just laugh about them.
On the other hand, when it comes to the living standard of the people, we of course live much better here, at least referring to the average.
Now that you brought up the topic, I did some research on it, and found out that the german gouvernment actually consider Tibet as a legal part of China, but second religious and cultural freedom for Tibet. Now it's hard for me to judge that, because my image of China is of course formed by what I learn about China here, but... from all I know I can't say that China is a state that proclaims freedom of religion and culture.
What would interest me now is, whether -indipendent from all the western critizism- there are critical voices concerning the situation as well, and if yes, what they think about the situation. Because they should know the situation much better than western politicans do.
The opinion of boycotting the Olympics hasn't gained too much stamina, at least here in Canada though it has been raised be various individuals. I think the governments tend to pay some lip service in that direction but don't really want to take such a radical step in offending the Chinese government due to trade and international relations and all that stuff. The highest political figure whom I have heard actually consider boycotting the games was from the French Foreign Minister who suggested just a few days ago to the European Union Parliament that if the issue with Tibet is not resolved then the consideration by the Union of boycotting the Opening Ceremonies of the games. That was reported on BBC I believe...probably still somewhere on their website if you really want to check since it was so recent.
Officially Tibet is still a part of China. If you google up any map of China Tibet is a part of it, and under the United Nations Tibet does not have a seat in the general assembly as an independent state. I have also been informed by some that Tibet, or I guess the Dalai Lama doesn't want complete separation from China, just that they are allowed autonomy to a certain extent...like...they get to govern themselves but are still under the responsibility of the Central Government in Beijing I guess. That confused me even more since I've been also told that that already happens with Tibet since the majority of the population in Tibet are Tibetans in ethnicity (obviously) the Central Government has allowed them to have a...local government of sort run by their own ethnic group with the ability to make certain state-level decisions. Off to the side but that also occurs with another Chinese "province" XinJiang, which, like Tibet has a population made up of mostly one particular ethnic minority group, so the Central Government lets them run things mostly how they want just that they are still considered a part of China so within Chinese laws.
The Chinese Communist Party, like the theory of Communism, is officially atheist religion-wise, that's no secret. Generally though, most Chinese believe to some extent in Buddhism, with our little temples and such, and there's a fair number of Christians and Muslims as well depending on the region you're in. Tibet has had a history of being heavily religious, and what I don't understand is why all of a sudden, whatever settlement there was between the Central Government and Tibet is now not working between the two anymore. Some have brought up the possibility that conflict began when the Central Government claimed that they will be in charge of selecting the next head of the religion in Tibet back in September of 2007 (head of the religion as in to fill the position of the Dalai Lama once he passes away) when apparently in their religion it's suppose to be chosen by incarnation (like...I think when the Dalai Lama is on his deathbed he somehow knows who he's going to get re-incarnated into and he will point in a direction, and his followers will go in that direction to look for his successor that embody his new re-incarnated spirit...something like that, I don't know the exact details of how it all works). That made sense to me, until just yesterday when the Dalai Lama claimed that if the violence in Tibet doesn't quell he will step down from his position...so now I'm left with even more question marks because if it's suppose to all work through re-incarnation...how exactly does he "resign" from that position??
I think regardless of which source you use to try and analyze this situation none of it is going to be objective. It's either going to slant to the East or towards the West. Even if a supposedly "objective" media existed, that media will have to be basing it's findings on information from one side or the other, so it just simply wouldn't be objective. If you look at Chinese media, that's also heavily censored by the Chinese government, if you look at reports from human rights organizations or other NGO's (non-governmental organizations) most of them are western-based anyway. It's tough, it's really tough, fact and fiction really get blurred and right and wrong are really interchangeable depending on which side you go at it from.
Hi there! I noticed your entry in politicsforum and i looked around your LJ. I think you're quite an interesting person, so i actually added you. I hope you dont mind. Maybe you'd like to add me back as well. See ya! :)
Hello~ Thanks for adding me, I'll be happy to friend you right back. I tend not to say too much on that community, mostly just lurking and taking note of other peoples' views, but Tibet was kind of special in that I get the special seats of sitting smack between the two sides. I do rant on my own journal about politics fairly frequently though lol.
Anyway, nice to meet you :D
Thanks! Actually i've been banned from that forum for quite some time ;) (stupid reasons) but i still keep following it from time to time, cos some of my pals are there. I'm also pretty much interested in politics and i dare say i've got some interesting stories and a lot of diverse views on many topics, so i expect we could share some interesting comments :)
>I'm sure, it's so much harder to implement true democracy in a country with a population of over 1.3billion and growing,
In regards to their "many nationalities" argument, it's hardly a reason to hold onto an area against the peoples' will. At one point me and a friend of mine (he wrote a dissertation about AIDS in China) musing about what would happen to China if liberal rights were granted to the whole country tomorrow- certainly many of these nationalities will begin saying that they aren't too keen on staying part of China. If you look at Australia's history, Western Australia wanted to separate from the federation, and they were allowed to have a referendum on the matter (which didn't pass). If it had passed the federation certainly wouldn't have sent ni the troops, arguing that they can't leave because Queensland is happy with the federal system as it stands.
>the Central Government has allowed them to have a...local government of sort run by their own ethnic group with the ability to make certain state-level decisions
Quite clearly their level of autonomy is insufficient. People don't riot because they want to *pretend* they have less autonomy than they really do.
>the Dalai Lama claimed that if the violence in Tibet doesn't quell he will step down from his position...so now I'm left with even more question marks because if it's suppose to all work through re-incarnation...how exactly does he "resign" from that position??
That is, resign from his position as the exiled head of government. He will remain as a spiritual leader.
There is also the continuing argument in the video regarding 'legitimacy' etc etc. Essentially legitimacy is far more complex than the video makes it out to be. The international system as we know of it today began in 1645 and spread from Europe slowly but surely from then on. It really wasn't fully consolidated until the 1970s, when decolonisation began to take hold.
However, in the interim period there were bouts of state creation, consolidation, etc etc. In the 'official' story, China only joined the international 'story', so to speak, after the opium wars. China's borders weren't recognised though.
At the close of the Second World War, borders essentially became consolidated. Along the lines of sovereignty and non-interference, the borders that existed as of then were respected. From then on, new states were created within existing borders- look at Yugoslavia, the pattern of the breakup of the USSR (especially that no new states were created within the Federation of Russia), etc etc.
Legitimacy became defined along the borders that were set at that moment in time. that China violated a border that was considered to be inviolable is the reason why it is always an issue and a problem. While it may be Euro-centric (I will never deny it), it is the reason why Tibet is considered to be separate.
The video mentions other states' actions, including Australia. In fact, the Australian government, to my frustration, tacitly supports China and doesn't call for independence. I do, and I agree with the video that Aboriginies need to have a better go- something which has been attempted properly since the Rudd government's election. I also agree with the North Ireland/Scotland calls because they want it to happen. I don't know enough about the Japanese cases to comment and the texas thing- well, there are no calls for independence and this harks back to the whole 'expansion of the international system' thing- that's how the world works.
Umm...but Tibet isn't considered to be separate. Any map of China that you find today still has Tibet as part of China, Tibet does not have a seat in the United Nations General Assembly, it is not recognized internationally as a state as of yet. I think there has to be a limit on how far you can take the independence argument, otherwise any little group can just up and decide one day it doesn't like the country it's been assigned to and referendum to separate. That would be mass chaos.
The video mentions that China has 56 ethnicities simply because most foreigners have this impression that Chinese are all the same, black hair, brown eyes, medium-light peach-coloured skin, and Tibet is the only ethnic minority, hence giving them more to back up their argument for Tibet to gain independence. If that were the case, there's an argument that the ethnic majority (aka the rest of China) is more likely to oppress the opinions of this one ethnic minority, whereas once you realize they're not the only ethnic minority the wheels should start turning as to why all these other minorities haven't revolted and just this one.
The legitimacy argument this video brings up is simply to point out that the "legitimacy" used by the West has been defined by the West, what is considered legitimate and acceptable has been dictated by the West ever since their domination from the colonization period. At that time is was Europe, now what is legitimate is defined by the USA, but to the Chinese to be honest there's little difference between the two, it's all lumped under the label of "The West".
At the end of WWII the victors dictated where borders would lie and stay, China having taken a beating at the hands of the Japanese and immediately before that the invasion by the West had little say. Heck the United Nations didn't even acknowledge the Central Communist government in Beijing as the "official" government of China until much later when China started rising in power. All throughout that time period of chaos the seat in the UN's General Assembly was given to Taiwan as the "official" government of China. Apparently 1.3 billion people didn't exist nor did their opinions matter in the eyes of the grand United Nations.
(Cont.'d, comment was too long, couldn't fit into one.)
My point is, there's a side of this debate that's missing, sorely missing. Western media's done an amazing job of censoring it out "legitimately" by labeling any mention for the other side as propaganda, and by labeling those that attempt to bring to light the other side as brainwashed. Heck why listen to a brainwashed person's spewing Communist propaganda right? Therefore, it is legitimate and acceptable to censor it out apparently.
The point of the video itself is that for the Chinese, coming from a Chinese perspective, that is OUR country, we've seen the west attempt to split it up before following the Opium War, China's map at that time looked much like Africa's with one chunk belonging to Britain, another belonging to France, Portugal and all in total 8 Western countries vying for territory on Chinese soil. We've watched the west split Africa up in the Scramble for Africa, we've watched them split the former USSR up, and all that's created in many of these places are mass chaos and conflict, suffering and pain for the people living there as the West watched in the sidelines, coming in under the guise of saviors and heroes. Actions speak louder than words, evidence from history is right in the history textbooks if one reads between the lines. If Tibet's own people truly wanted to separate that's one thing, and apparently that's not even what the Dalai Lama really wants, he still wants to be under China's Central government just as an autonomous region, but China won't bow down when the West is the one pushing for it.
(Cont.'t again, I write too much.)
For the west you can view it as human rights and all that, for China, for the Chinese, it's about the country's sovereignty. If the west breaks through China's sovereignty, how can it protect its people from now on from the west who has time and again proven that they would more than gladly stomp on others for their own gain? Like I said, the vast majority of the Chinese would prefer a Chinese authoritarian regime over a Western-placed democracy due to the very fact that over the 20th century the CCP, despite all of its mistakes, has through its actions proven to the Chinese people that it takes actions and makes policies aimed at helping the Chinese people, its citizens. You can easily argue the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, sure, those were awful mistakes made by the CCP, but no government is perfect, any other government has done just as badly when starting out, it happens, but compared with any of the other options, they've quite frankly failed. The Nationalist Party failed in bringing prosperity to the Chinese people, the west with its democracy invaded China and stuck up signs in shops that said "Chinese and dogs not allowed to enter" following the Opium War, not exactly a great way to convince the people democracy's a great way to go eh? You can give all the reasons and they can make perfect sense, but the bottom line is that for the Chinese, state sovereignty is first on the agenda, with state sovereignty secured and therefore no need to worry about outside interference then we work on food for the people, clothing for their bodies, healthcare, education, human rights, media, and whatever else the people are looking for. Without that sovereignty, one day this country wants you to make this policy, the next day that organization demands you implement that regulation, it's mass chaos, like with those Structural Adjustment Programs implemented on developing countries by the IMF. You can say that's a stupid way to go about it, you can say the Chinese are dumb, you can say that's dangerous and gives the government too much power, you can say that's far too risky, that's the way it is, that's what most Chinese feel is most important, and hey, isn't democracy about following majority will in the first place? The Chinese government doesn't answer and doesn't need to answer to the will of the west, it only has the responsibility to answer to its citizens (ironically precisely because it has sovereignty), Tibet aside, there're still about 1 billion people in that country that supports the CCP's sovereignty to keep Tibet as part of China, so hey, majority rule right? That's democracy, it's a 2-way street. Sometimes the majority of a particular country's population want something different than what the governments and people in the west wants, it's a double-edged sword.
|Date:||March 21st, 2008 11:17 am (UTC)|| |
Yahoo and MSN are supporting the Chinese authorities by posting 'wanted' posters for the rioters on their sites. Two of the 24 on the list have already been caught.
Except it's on Yahoo!China, so it's all in Chinese anyway. It doesn't spread the word to foreigners that the rioters were Tibetans themselves, I'd bet good money most foreigners think the Chinese government started the riots and then are sticking the blame on the Tibetans. That website, "the Observers" is in English on reporting Yahoo and MSN's involvement, but it consistently denounces the 2 companies for supporting China, so it supports exactly what I've posted, any company or media that are seen in support of China get slammed and denounced as bowing to Chinese propaganda.
|Date:||March 22nd, 2008 04:07 pm (UTC)|| |
Regarding the comment: There is a party in the German federal state Bavaria (you remember young Elisabeth? That's the part of Germany she came from) which tries to promote Bavaria as an indipendent country.
But the reaction is that most Germans just laugh about them.
Ya. Majority of Chinese will just laugh about Tibetian too if they only say they want endipendence insdead of putting stores on fire and killing innocent people. Any gorvernment has the right to stop violence and crime on street.
I'm intrigued by the topic of Tibet. And the time spent in class learning about her history is finally coming in handy. Or not D:
Its hard to say, Tibet's situation with China reminds me of Taiwan's conflict with the latter. However the Taiwan situation pales in comparison with the Tibet one.
I think it is unfair of China to try and impose her views on another country. She has suffered, however at the same time what country hasn't?
I think the West is more sympathetic to Tibet due to the Dal Lama in exile among other things. That and it might be because of the CCP. The West hadn't expressed any love towards that..
. Sorry if that sounded all wishy washy... my brain ain't working so well at 3 am... so I'm writing without thinking <.<; >>>;
Apparently the bridge between China and the West really does have a long way to be built before the two sides meet...between accusations flying, hidden
Sometimes I think that should apply to any "Asian" country and the West. Often there is a lot of miscommunication between the side especially with the cultural boundaries.
I think it is unfair of China to try and impose her views on another country.
Yet the West does that consistently to other countries. I think in comparison China imposes very little of its views on other countries, not to mention Tibet has yet to be recognized as a country yet. Even if China wanted to impose its views, I doubt the Western media and politicians would give it the free-ticket to do so here. The West on the other hand have directly imposed their presence through first colonization and then afterwards using "legitimate" means of imposition through organizations of the IMF, the WTO, the World Bank, even the United Nations is, arguably, dominated by Western ideals and ideologies.
In the eyes of the Chinese people, this issue of Tibet should be considered an internal one, and the West's intervention is completely unnecessary. The Central Government in Beijing is merely acting upon the wills and opinions of the majority of its 1.3billion population in insisting that Tibet is part of its territory, why is that not considered democracy in this situation? The population of inhabitants in Tibet's Greater Region is only 0.7% of China's entire population, and only around 49% of that 0.7% is actually Tibetans by ethnicity. By a vast majority, the rest of the Chinese people believes Tibet to be a part of China, so...majority opinions only matter when it coincides with the opinions of the Western powers? That's kind of unfair.
I like how I always end up learning something new from you ;)
now on a serious note,
I had forgotten Tibet wasn't officially recongised as a
I doubt the Western media and politicians would give it the free-ticket to do so here. The West on the other hand have directly imposed their presence through first colonization and then afterwards using "legitimate" means of imposition through organizations of the IMF, the WTO, the World Bank, even the United Nations is, arguably, dominated by Western ideals and ideologies.
Yes. Sadly I would have to agree with there. Although while it "was good" that certain countries were colonised however it doesn't mean it was a good thing at the same time. Not with the violent oppression they caused to the conquered countries and all. :/
got pretty offended at the way China was treated by the West when I studied the Chinese Revolution back in senior year
I think rather then the West, it can be arguably America. D: She always manages to butt in where she's not wanted...or causing unnecessary grief. The countless bloodshed in battle and killing of the people. :/
Hmmm, at the end of the day. I would like to believe...that America is trying to make another Israel for the Tibetans *thoughtful* Maybe that was a bad comparison...
I'm pretty ignorant with politics <.<;