American Beggar Caught Driving Nice Car, Chinese Reactions

Man confronts panhandler after catching her driving a nice car

From NetEase:

Man Sees Beggar Driving Nice Car and Explodes: I Just Gave You Money Last Week

China News October 8th report — According to foreign media reports, everyone knows panhandlers [often] do not lack for money, but to see a beggar one has given charity to living a life of high consumption, a donor will certainly be furious. Recently, that happened to an American man. When he saw the elderly panhandler he often gave money to driving a car better than his own, he lost control of his emotions and gave the beggar an earful.

This incident happened in Oklahoma city, the capital of Oklahoma state. Daniel Ayala discovered the 78-year-old female panhandler he has previously given money to driving a red 2013 Fiat car. Daniel exploded in fury, and yelled at the panhandler through the car window: “You are asking for money in the middle of street and you drive a 2013 car. I work hard everyday, that’s why people like you take advantage of me.”

Ayala also recounted: “Every time I give you two or three dollars and I also gave you four dollars last Thursday, however you are driving a car that is better than mine!” After reprimanding her, he left alone looking dismayed.

There was a middle-aged woman named Brandi Newman who recorded this video and posted it on Facebook. Within a short few days, the video has been viewed nearly 3 million times.

After Ayala went viral online, a TV station interviewed him, in which he still said emotionally: “I gave that lady over $15 in five days. $15 could make me enough to come to work for gas. For her to just take my money like that.

READ  Sino-Japanese War TV Dramas Becoming Increasingly Ridiculous

Man confronts panhandler after catching her driving a nice car

Video on Youku:

Comments from NetEase:

戴礼帽的和尚 [网易北京市丰台区网友]

I think begging is divided into two kinds:
One kind is to busk through singing or doing acrobatics, in exchange for other people’s money. This actually isn’t begging but busking.
The other kind is to advertise themselves as poor, unfortunate to gain others’ sympathy for begging.
For the latter kind, if this gimmick is eventually proved to be phony, it ought to be punished as fraud.

做你的中国梦去吧 [网易北京市网友]:

Phony beggars do not lack for money while real beggars can’t get any money.

诗奴L [网易广东省深圳市宝安区网友]:

It’s a bit like an unscrupulous ruler forcing people to contribute to loving the “country”.

源心 [网易陕西省西安市网友]:

When you encounter a beggar asking for money, definitely don’t give him any money. When you encounter a beggar who wants food, you can give them something to eat.

x13686626760 [网易广东省深圳市手机网友]:

We’re already used to this.

我是周愚民 [网易广东省河源市网友]:

The government really needs to deal with these kinds of “beggars” who beg as an occupation. This kind of people have no moral bottom line, exploiting people’s sympathies, and make people who really need help unable to get help.

网易上海市网友 ip:222.68.*.*

How can this kind of thing happen in the United States where they have such good system? Aren’t all people there supposed to be very honest and kind? Don’t they all have enough to eat and enough to wear? How can there still be beggars? Moreover, a beggar who scams her own compatriots and then lives a natural and unrestrained life. Looks like the people of America have innate problems, and there exists a huge problem in its system/society.

网易湖南省长沙市网友 ip:175.0.*.*

Actually, begging has long been a kind of profession/occupation, with low investment and costs but high returns. That old lady driving a car really is nothing. There have been reports in the past about professional beggars in Shenzhen buying homes and cars, and supporting their children through school.

136174171 [网易北京市网友]:

A citizen who couldn’t tolerate being scammed. Comparatively speaking, their system [American system] is one of progress, whereas in China, this would be commonplace.

catinthetree [网易北京市网友]:

Many beggars take taxis to and from work, while I’m still squeezing onto the subway.

Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • 山炮 ShanPao

    This is from a TV show.

    • firebert5

      Do you know which one? I’m curious.

  • Ken Morgan

    What was that quote, it isn’t that the old have become bad but the bad have become old.

    Anyway I saw this a few days ago. The worst part of it is that she doesn’t think she has done anything wrong, nor has her family. There were interviews of her! “I’m not a bad person” she said. “I go to church every Sunday” she said.

    Her family also said “She’s doing nothing wrong she had a pan handling permit!”

    The level of sociopathy in this family is extraordinary! similar to people who hit others in their cars, deny it then go on TV dressed down and try to make out THEY are the victims… Alas this is because of a growing separation of society, when everybody knew everybody such things would be impossible or stamped out quickly.

  • Karze

    Its better than stealing other people land. China stole Tibetan land.

    • Alex Dương

      No. The Nationalists viewed the Republic of China as the successor state of the Qing Empire. Tibet was a part of the Qing Empire, therefore to them, Tibet was a part of the ROC. They were never forced to accept anything otherwise, and neither was the PRC.

      • donscarletti

        I don’t really want to digress into this stupid, irreverent topic and I don’t have any particularly strong convictions here, since I am not opposed to imperialism per se, but:

        Firstly, it was a vassal state to Qing, not a province. Conquest and annexation are two different concepts. Korea, Vietnam and even Japan have all been considered Chinese vassal states at various times in recent history.

        Secondly, you cannot say that Vietnam and Algeria were a part of the French Empire, so they must belong to the French Republic. You still have to look at how the predecessor states got something.

        • Alex Dương

          Tibet was not a vassal state of the Qing Empire; it was a part of the Qing Empire, full stop. And from the perspective of the French, they certainly tried to argue that Algeria was a part of the (fourth) Republic. The difference is that the French recognized Algerian independence; the Chinese never recognized Tibetan independence.

          • Guest

            I heard differently. In fact, if you search “vassal state” in Google, a Wikipedia page comes right up mentioning Tibet’s former status comes up as first result, which contains a citation to a scholarly work on this topic.

            As I am in China and value my own freedom, I’m not really able to argue with you. But if you want to contradict my point, you should provide either some citation or at least some argument to do so. Your “full stop” is downright lazy and disrespectful to anyone who takes the time to discus anything with you.

          • Jannick Slavik

            Certainly no one disputes Tibet was a part of the Qing Empire, not the US, Brits, or Indians…

            Vassals of the Qing are often said to include what is present day Korea, or Vietnam. Even Kashmir is said to have been a vassal, at times.

            Here is a map of the Qing Empire:

            https://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/1xarqing.htm

          • Jannick Slavik

            FWIW, the website lists Tibet as a “province” of the Qing since 1751, along with all the other provinces.

            http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Qing/qing-map.html

          • Guest

            Redacted because of political sensitivity.

          • Jannick Slavik

            these links cite WW2/Cold War era maps.

            I was under the impression you were trying to refute Alex’s point that Tibet was a Province under the Qing

          • Alex Dương

            @donscarletti:disqus, @jannickslavik:disqus has already pointed out that you are linking to maps of the ROC, not the Qing Empire. Nonetheless, here’s a Rand McNally map from 1914. Tibet is clearly within the borders of the ROC.

            And while your second map comes from a reliable source, I hope you recognize that it is slightly inconsistent with the other two maps you linked to, insofar as it explicitly includes Xinjiang as a part of the ROC. I also hope that you do not believe that Xinjiang was also a vassal state of the Qing Empire.

          • Alex Dương

            Did you read the summary of the scholarly work you mentioned? It basically says that when you analyze the situation, both Beijing and the Tibetan Government in Exile play loose with the facts (in short, both lie). According to the author, Elliot Sperling, quote, “China’s contention that Tibet has been an “integral” part of China since the thirteenth century took shape only in the twentieth century.”

            At the same time, quote, “Similarly, the Tibetan concept of a “priest-patron” religious
            relationship governing Sino-Tibetan relations to the exclusion of concrete political subordination is itself a rather recent construction.”

            I haven’t read the entire paper, but it seems to me that yes, Sperling ultimately concludes that Tibet was a vassal state of the Qing. Where I would disagree is that if you look at maps of Qing China (for example this one or this one), you will see Tibet marked within the boundaries of the Qing, whereas you will not see that done for Vietnam and Korea. You argue that Tibet was like Vietnam and Korea, but I doubt there is a map of the Qing Empire showing those two within its boundaries.

          • YahooHenry

            Positive? How? If this story is correct then she is a deceiver and a fraudster. But that never stopped too many people getting what they wanted.

          • Alex Dương

            Is there a reason you’re replying to comments in such a way that would impede the flow of the discussion? And, please, you are the one who is trying to put a positive spin on the story: you said, quote, “that woman is fulfilling her dream, she is acting. In the land of make believe she is content and successful…dream come true.”

          • YahooHenry

            I am a raw recruit to posting on this site and am learning quickly about distraction, deflection and ‘bogging things down’ on a detail to use as leverage to serve as impediment. This ‘beggar’ who isn’t really a beggar is a story thrown on by someone at Chinasmack to stir things up.

          • Alex Dương

            I am a raw recruit to posting on this site and am learning quickly about
            distraction, deflection and ‘bogging things down’ on a detail to use as
            leverage to serve as impediment.

            I see. Well, troll elsewhere then.

          • Dev

            Did you not go to college? You do know that “Wikipedia” is not a recognized source of information right??

          • Alex Dương

            There’s nothing wrong with Wikipedia as a STARTING POINT. The key is to double check on the citations when given and to be skeptical / double check elsewhere if no citations are given. In this case, a citation was given, and it indeed supports the statement.

          • Kai

            Just to add to what Alex said, I went to college and Wikipedia IS a “recognized source of information”. It isn’t however considered a PRIMARY SOURCE when your assignment requires primary sources, similar to how Wikipedia encourages contributors to cite primary sources in entries. College teaches you to do your own research and not rely only on reference material like encyclopedias, so you are forced to find multiple sources of information, corroboration, and reconcile conflicts between sources.

          • Poodle Tooth

            “Full stop” is a pretty good (not completely reliable, but pretty good) that someone has no idea what they’re talking about.

          • Alex Dương

            I’d be happy to have a discussion on this, if you like. Entirely up to you.

      • Ryan

        China was ruled by the Mongols during the Yuan dynasty.
        If I show you “a map” to prove that, would you accept that all of China should be handed over the government of Mongolia?

        • Alex Dương

          First, I’d like to point out that I did not justify China’s claim to Tibet based on the Yuan Empire. That is what Beijing does, but it is a flawed argument because the Ming Empire did not have sovereignty over Tibet.

          I justify the claim based on Tibet being a part of the Qing Empire, which ended in 1912, not in 1368. The successor state of the Qing, the Republic of China, never renounced its claim to Tibet, nor was it ever forced to renounce the claim.

          • Ryan

            So the “old maps” rule only works when CHINA wants it to. Got it.
            Tibetans claim they were independent (ie, no longer controlled by China against their will) from 1912 until Communist China’s imperialist invasion in 1950. I know CHINA teaches differently (why wouldn’t they? they DIRECTLY CONTROL all forms of media and there’s no freedom of speech).
            I still don’t understand the rationalization of “some kingdom that lost power almost 50 years ago conquered them on and off in the past, So it’s our right to conquer these people against their will now”.

            It’s a nonsensical argument.

            Is it really that hard for you to admit that conquering these people against their will was WRONG???? (and yes, we realize that America (even though I’m not american) also did a lot of bad things. Many many many bad things. No need to bring it up. We know that. We’re talking specifically about the CCP’s imperialist invasion of Tibet.”

          • Kai

            When the subject of discussion and debate is how people rationalize conquered territory, it is extremely relevant how the United States or any other country rationalized their conquered land AS A WAY TO understand how similarly or different China’s rationalizations are.

            Alex and Jannick have pointed to flaws in your argumentation but the one I want to press is your problematic juxtaposition of attitudes by neglecting historical context.

            Bringing up Western historical conquest is a popular retort to Western criticisms about Tibet precisely because on some very obvious level, the latter sounds like a bank robber living large in the mansion he built from his past bank robberies criticizing others for their bank robberies. There’s no moral high ground in this dynamic.

          • Ryan

            Ok Kai, so based on “historical context”, they have claimed that the PRC see themselves as the ‘successor’ to the Qing dynasty, and as such, rationalize the invasion of Tibet.

            Would you support, Kai, Russia (successor to the Soviet Union) invading Estonia, Belarus, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Uzbekistan, and many many more?
            Would you support that? Because if so, you’d be starting to sound like a war monger.

            Not just conquering these countries and ruling their people against their will… but also taking away their freedom of speech. Imprisoning people that speak out against it. And then having a government controlled media change the entire history of what happened and brainwash people in support of it.
            Defending such actions would be despicable and… dare I say it… borderline EVIL.

          • Kai

            You’ve misunderstood what I’m saying about “historical context”. Did you read my other replies to you? They should’ve communicated what I’m referring to with that term.

            Chinese rationalizations of their conquest of Tibetan land is comparable to past American ratonalizations of their conquest of Native American land. As time has gone by, Americans have gradually come to acknowledge the “wrong” of that conquest and now express remorse. What happened during this time? What caused this shift in attitudes among Americans? Will we see the Chinese have a similar shift in the future?

            That’s what I’m referring to when I say your juxtaposition is problematic because it neglects historical context. Do you understand what I’m saying now?

            The rest of your comment is irrelevant to what I said so I’m not going to bother replying to it. I said nothing about state succession being a rationalization for reconquest, and pointing out the problems in your arguments is not tantamount to being a war monger, despicable, or borderline evil. Please dial back the appeal to emotion ad hominems and focus on the actual points.

          • Ryan

            I think Chinese rationalizations of their conquest of Tibet are directly affected by government censorship.
            When the government alters the history of what happens and directly censors all conflicting information about it, it’s no wonder they think the way they do.
            Imagine the American government in recent times just changed the entire history of what happened to the Natives. Imagine they took direct control of ALL forms of media and censored all information about the Natvies. Imagine they imprisoned or possibly even executed those that spoke out against it. I would FEAR for the state of the Native people in such a situation (and of course the state of the country as a whole). Just like how I really do fear for the current people of Tibet.

          • Alex Dương

            It’s very intellectually dishonest of you to keep repeating this red herring that if the Chinese just accepted “the truth,” you’d be fine with it.

            You mistakenly believed that I am a PRC national. I am not. At the same time, I have repeatedly emphasized that Chinese claims to Tibet stem from historical Chinese imperialism, specifically the Qing Empire. Yet, you ignore that I have repeatedly mentioned this.

          • Ryan

            Tibet rebelled against the Qing dynasty as well and declared their independence from them.
            So did revolutionaries in China.
            The Qing were considered an outside force to both of them.
            So we have two different groups that eventually rebelled against a foreign invader.
            Why would one of those conquered groups claim rulership over the other once they expelled the outsider? Under that strange rationale, you could almost say that Tibet has just as much of a right to rule the PRC as the other way around.

            To you it’s black and white. The PRC are the successors of the Qing “because they say so”.
            To me and people born outside of a censored government, it’s not so black and white.
            To me, I see the Kuomintang eventually winning wars against numerous other factions that were conquered by the Qing. Then the PRC won a civil war against that group. Tibet plays no part in any of that. The prc invaded them because they wanted their resources.

          • Alex Dương

            Tibet rebelled against the Qing dynasty as well and declared their independence from them.
            So did revolutionaries in China.
            The Qing were considered an outside force to both of them.
            So we have two different groups that eventually rebelled against a foreign invader.
            Why would one of those conquered groups claim rulership over the other once they expelled the outsider?

            What makes you think that the revolutionaries sought to expel the Manchus from the nascent Republic of China?

            To me and people born outside of a censored government, it’s not so black and white.

            I was born in the US. Please, at least have a modicum of intellectual honesty here.

            Tibet plays no part in any of that.

            Wrong. The KMT hardly ignored Tibet during their time on mainland China. The KMT patronized the 9th Panchen Lama, selected the 10th Panchen Lama, and even tried to persuade the 10th to come with them to Taiwan. Why would they have done these things if they did not care about Tibet as a part of the ROC?

          • Ryan

            I’m not saying that the kmt didn’t care about Tibet.
            I’m saying that TIBET didn’t care about joining with China. They successfully expelled the Qing during their rebellions. They declared their independence.

            If another group in China eventually wins battles against warlords and invades Tibet, Tibet will fight against them to try and defend their sovereignty. That’s what they did. But they lost. Now they are controlled by an outsider they want nothing to do with. They have no freedom of speech. The history of what happened is censored by the state run media.
            Not a good time to be Tibetan.

            The ROC rebelled against the Qing and declared themselves independent of them. Why weren’t the Tibetans allowed to do the same thing?

            And I simply don’t believe that you were born in the US. Sorry. People lie on the internet all the time. You’re pretty much spouting the PRC party platform when it comes to Tibet. I don’t believe you were born in the US.

          • Alex Dương

            I’m saying that TIBET didn’t care about joining with China.

            Not necessarily.

            They successfully expelled the Qing during their rebellions. They declared their independence.

            The Qing had already collapsed by the time the 13th Dalai Lama returned to Tibet. And declaration is one thing. Recognition is another.

            The ROC rebelled against the Qing and declared themselves independent
            of them. Why weren’t the Tibetans allowed to do the same thing?

            The 13th Dalai Lama certainly tried to do that in 1912.

            You’re pretty much spouting the PRC party platform when it comes to Tibet.

            No, I am not. I find your near-complete lack of intellectual honesty to be quite annoying. I have repeatedly emphasized that Chinese claims to Tibet originate from the Qing Empire in 1725. “The PRC party platform” is that Chinese claims originate from the Yuan Empire of the 13th Century. I have repeatedly argued against that, as the Ming Empire did not have sovereignty over Tibet.

            You know, for people like you, there is actually a downside to living in a free country, and that’s relatively unrestricted access to information. See, when you live in a free country, you can fact check what the Tibetan Government in Exile says, and you can see for yourself that a lot of what they say is complete bullshit. The reality is far, far, far more interesting than what either the TGiE or Beijing claims it is. Both of them greatly oversimplify the history.

          • Kai

            And I simply don’t believe that you were born in the US. Sorry. People lie on the internet all the time. You’re pretty much spouting the PRC party platform when it comes to Tibet. I don’t believe you were born in the US.

            This is incredibly misguided of you. This is like, “I can’t believe you’re a heterosexual because you’re defending homosexuality; you must be a faggot.” Or “I can’t believe you’re white, people lie on the internet all the time. You must be black for defending black people.”

            The ROC rebelled against the Qing and declared themselves independent of them. Why weren’t the Tibetans allowed to do the same thing?

            The ROC revolted against the Qing and prevailed. They didn’t declare themselves independent of the Qing, they overthrew the Qing government and took its place. The Tibetans have yet to prevail in a revolt over the PRC. They’re allowed to if they can succeed, just like every instance in history. You are allowed to do what you can get away with. That’s the unfortunate reality of life and, well, geopolitics.

          • Kai

            Sure, the government narrative on why a land was conquered influences what people under that government are liable to believe. Wasn’t that true of Americans and the conquest of Native American land?

            So again, what happened in America for attitudes to change? Can that happen in China’s future?

            I’d really like for you to reflect on (and answer) that question because I believe it will help you understand the problems in your arguments.

            Next, correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to believe that if the Chinese government did not censor information or promote their rationalizations for Tibet, the people of China would be for Tibetan independence instead of believing Tibet is a part of China. I don’t think that would be the case and I’m not sure why you’re so confident it would be.

            You’re coming across as arguing that PRC propaganda is the reason why Chinese people stand by their claims to Tibet, but that’s just not true, because Chinese claims to Tibet predate the PRC and PRC propaganda.

          • Ryan

            Only one dynasty out of 80 “ruled” (loosely defined) Tibet. And that dynasty was considered “foreign” even to the Chinese. So it’s arguable to claim that Chinas claims to Tibet pre-date the PRC. After the foreign Qing collapsed, Tibet became independent again.
            I still don’t fully understand your argument. Both “China” and Tibet are ruled by a foreign invader under the Qing. When BOTH groups rebel against that foreign invader, why does one of those conquered groups have the right to rule over the other of those conquered groups? It’s maddening.

            I’m not saying that the majority of Chinese would want Tibet independence if the facts weren’t censored. It’s hard to say. Nobody knows.
            But they sure would be a hell of a lot more open minded about it if they knew the real story. If they could ask questions about it without “disappearing”.
            Chinese people knowing more TRUTH about what’s happened/happening in Tibet could only serve to help the Tibetans.
            If China did nothing wrong, why do they hide the truth from their people?
            Just curious, are you arguing that the censorship and denying of freedom of speech are good things?

          • Kai

            China’s clams to Tibet pre-dating the PRC are not “arguable” whatsoever. The Qing Dynasty was foreign in origin but is unequivocally considered part of “Chinese” history and a “Chinese” government/state. The Qing Manchus saw themselves as “China”. The QIng Manchus basically conquered China and in turn were assimilated and integrated into Chinese civiliation, most importantly by their own self-identification.

            If you don’t fully understand my argument, can you please go respond to each and every one of my responses to you in this thread so far and explain what you don’t understand about each so I can try clarifying for you?

            As a Disqus user, you should be able to easily view each of my responses to you (click the red notification bubble at the top right of the Disqus comments section) in chronological order so you understand everything I’m saying in proper order and context.

            Both “China” and Tibet are ruled by a foreign invader under the Qing. When BOTH groups rebel against that foreign invader, why does one of those conquered groups have the right to rule over the other of those conquered groups? It’s maddening.

            No, it isn’t. The Qing WERE foreign invaders who over time BECAME “China”. Hence, the ROC succeeded the Qing Dynasty and why the PRC believes it is effectively the successor to the ROC (and that’s why it gets UN representation).

            Also, no one is arguing that the PRC has the “right” to rule over territory and people previous regimes have conquered. The only thing anyone is doing is explaining the rationalization behind the PRC’s claims to Tibet. You have several times now straw-manned what people are arguing. Please don’t do that.

            ‘m not saying that the majority of Chinese would want Tibet independence if the facts weren’t censored. It’s hard to say. Nobody knows.But they sure would be a hell of a lot more open minded about it if they knew the real story. If they could ask questions about it without “disappearing”.

            You’re muddying the issue. What is the “real story”? You seem to think there is one when there isn’t. All there is are competing narratives all making their own arguments and citing their evidence. Worst of all, at the end of the day, countries/states/regimes control land and people if they CAN, historical claims and self-determination be damned. It’s true for the Chinese as it is true for Americans.

            Chinese people knowing more TRUTH about what’s happened/happening in Tibet could only serve to help the Tibetans.
            If China did nothing wrong, why do they hide the truth from their people?

            For the same reason all governments do. They want to control the narrative and feel justified in doing so.

            As for knowing more about what’s happened/happening in Tibet, you can to grapple with the very real possibility that the majority of Chinese will still consider the Tibetan separatists to be agitators that should be put down. You give “truth” too much weight. The most important thing is “self-interest”.

            Just curious, are you arguing that the censorship and denying of freedom of speech are good things?

            Just curious, can you quote anything I’ve said to suggest I’m arguing this? If not, please kindly don’t straw man me.

            Now, let me get back to my point that you’ve so far managed to consistently ignore and dodge:

            What happened in America for attitudes to change about their historical conquest of Native American land and people? Can that happen in China’s future regarding their historical conquest of Tibetan land and people?

            This is the 4th time I’ve made this point and/or asked you this question.

          • Alex Dương

            So the “old maps” rule only works when CHINA wants it to. Got it.

            No. What you don’t understand is that your “rebuttal” is as bad as Beijing’s official claim because they are both flawed for the exact same reason: the Ming. The Yuan’s descendants have no claim to China because Ming beat their ancestors and kicked them out of China in 1368. And China cannot claim Tibet from the Yuan Empire because the Ming Empire never had sovereignty over Tibet.

            That is why I emphasized, despite your straw men, that the correct claim originates from the Qing Empire, which collapsed in 1912, not 1368, and which was succeeded by the Republic of China, which never renounced its claim to Tibet, nor was it ever forced to.

            Ultimately, it seems that you do not respect Chinese claims to Tibet, even though you appear to grudgingly acknowledge that its claims are no worse than US claims to vast swaths of its territory. This is simply hypocritical. And it was a huge red herring for you to suggest that if the Chinese accepted “the truth,” you would in turn accept their claims to Tibet. I have told you repeatedly that I accept that Chinese claims to Tibet come from the Qing Empire and thus historical imperialism; you have ignored this repeatedly.

          • Ryan

            The PRC’s claims to Tibet (in 1949… almost 40 years after the Qing) are no more relevant than saying Russia currently has the right (once they finish with the Ukraine) to conquer and borderline enslave Kazakhstan, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, and many many more.

            You’ve rationalized a despicable action.

            In the end, it’s not really your fault. You were raised under a government that DIRECTLY controls all media and has banned freedom of speech.
            In your country, the people that spoke the truth about Tibet “disappeared”, so it’s no wonder that you have such a warped view of the situation.

          • Alex Dương

            The PRC’s claims to Tibet (in 1949… almost 40 years after the Qing) are no more relevant than saying Russia currently has the right (once they finish with the Ukraine) to conquer and borderline enslave Kazakhstan, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, and many many more.

            There’s just one big difference here that you didn’t mention: The Soviet Union itself acknowledged the independence of the constituent republics. When did the ROC or the PRC ever acknowledge the independence of Tibet? The answer is never.

            In the end, it’s not really your fault. You were raised under a government that DIRECTLY controls all media and has banned freedom of
            speech.

            In your country, the people that spoke the truth about Tibet “disappeared”, so it’s no wonder that you have such a warped view of the situation.

            Actually, “my country” is the United States. “The truth” about Tibet, as much as you hate to admit it, is that Chinese claims to Tibet are perfectly valid. Tibet became a part of the Qing Empire in 1725, and the ROC succeeded the Qing Empire as per succession of states in 1912. The ROC never renounced its claim to Tibet, nor was it ever forced to renounce it and acknowledge Tibetan independence.

          • Rick in China

            You always cite irredentism, but always stick to Qing is the winner whenever you want to use it in your favour.

            Tibet announced independence – undisputed for decades. Hong Kong was separate from any permeation of China for well over a century, yet you still hold that since it belonged to the Qing at one point in time, the current rulers of the land of China hold ‘valid claim’. Your last comment, “The ROC never renounced its claim to Tibet, nor was it ever forced to renounce it and acknowledge Tibetan independence.” is as meaningless as “that couple is still actually a couple, because he refuses to admit she left him.”

          • Alex Dương

            You misunderstand. “Qing is the ‘winner'” because Qing is the last dynasty of Imperial China. The Republic of China succeeded the Qing as per succession of states.

            Tibet’s independence was very much disputed by the Chinese for decades. The Chinese NEVER signed the Simla Accord, which itself actually stated that Tibet was not independent but rather under Chinese suzerainty. The UK insisted on this position for 94 years until 2008; it NEVER recognized Tibetan independence.

            Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were ceded in perpetuity to the UK. If the UK wanted to hold on to them, legally, it was entitled to. The problem that you oh-so-conveniently ignore is that you know perfectly well that the New Territories were not ceded but were rather leased for 99 years. Well, that means legally, the British did not have a claim to the NT after 1997. And unfortunately for them, they developed the NT alongside HK and Kowloon all as one unit. So really, it was not possible to just return the NT to *cough* China in 1997. They had to return all three, because they sure as hell weren’t getting that lease renewed.

            As to your last comment, hey, if you’re not legally divorced, you can’t claim alimony, now can you?

          • Ryan

            “succession of states”
            You state things as facts, but they’re really much more questionable.
            The Qing dynasty takes control over many foreign lands. Many years later, those people rebel against said dynasty. Said Dynasty collapses. Many groups conquered by the former dynasty break off into many different states and factions for many many years.
            I think it’s a DRAMATIC oversimplification to just claim “succession of states”

            I would say that all those countries that were invaded and controlled by the Qing would become INDEPENDENT once the Qing collapsed. They would only lose their independence if they were again invaded and conquered by an outside force. In the case of Tibet, the PRC was that outside force.

            Look at just how often in history kingdoms/empires fall apart and their former lands break off into many smaller entities. “succession of states” is just a dramatic oversimplification used to try and rationalize an atrocity that occurred.

          • Alex Dương

            Many groups conquered by the former dynasty break off into many different states and factions for many many years.
            I think it’s a DRAMATIC oversimplification to just claim “succession of states”

            Except it isn’t. The ROC inherited treaty obligations from the Qing Empire. Just because the Qing Empire collapsed didn’t mean the ROC had to stop paying the boxer indemnities, for example.

            I would say that all those countries that were invaded and controlled by
            the Qing would become INDEPENDENT once the Qing collapsed.

            You can say whatever you want. Did the ROC recognize their independence? In the case of Tibet, it never did. It was never forced to, either.

            I keep emphasizing the last point because while Mongolia was a part of the Qing Empire, I’m sure you know that Mongolia is not and has not been a part of China for many, many decades. Now, why is that? Why is Mongolia independent while Tibet is not?

            Answer: The Mongolians asked the Russians for help in forcing the Chinese to recognize their independence. The Tibetans could have but did not ask the British to do the same. Ergo, Mongolia is a sovereign nation today whereas Tibet is Chinese.

          • Ryan

            Tibet rebelled against the Qing and kicked them out and declared their independence. When the Qing finally collapsed, they weren’t even in Tibet at all. So that’s what the ROC would inherit. From the Tibet standpoint, they were never “directly” ruled by the Qing anyways.

            To claim that the winner of a civil war 40 years later has the right to invade these people and subjugate them against their will seems like specious reasoning to me. Using such a stretch, one could rationalize just about any war.

          • Alex Dương

            Tibet rebelled against the Qing and kicked them out and declared their
            independence. When the Qing finally collapsed, they weren’t even in
            Tibet at all.

            Incorrect.

            From the Tibet standpoint, they were never “directly” ruled by the Qing anyways.

            Also incorrect.

            To claim that the winner of a civil war 40 years later has the right to
            invade these people and subjugate them against their will seems like
            specious reasoning to me.

            That is not the claim. That is a straw man. The claim is that Tibet was a part of the Qing Empire, and the ROC succeeded the Qing Empire as per succession of states.

            And if you really want to push this straw man, maybe you should renounce your Canadian citizenship?

          • Ryan

            No, YOU are incorrect.
            The Dalai Lama returned to Tibet in 1911, and Tibetans directly fought against the Qing soldiers and slaughtered Han Chinese. The Qing fled and Tibet declared their independence.
            THAT’S what happened. Books censored by the PRC may have skipped that part.

            And again, here’s a quote from the Dalai Lama in 1913: Tibet and the Qing “had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other.”

          • Alex Dương

            No, YOU are incorrect.
            The Dalai Lama returned to Tibet in 1911, and
            Tibetans directly fought against the Qing soldiers and slaughtered Han
            Chinese. The Qing fled and Tibet declared their independence.
            THAT’S what happened. Books censored by the PRC may have skipped that part.

            Even pro-Tibetan independence organizations do not agree with you: “…
            the 13th Dalai Lama’s brief exile to India (1910-1913)…” You obviously know much, much, much less about the topic than you think you do.

            And again, here’s a quote from the Dalai Lama in 1913: Tibet and the Qing “had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other.”

            Sure, that’s what he said. Third-party research, however, does not support the claim of an apolitical “patron priest” relationship.

          • Dr Sun

            So the Dali lama is what 130+ years old, but only looks 60+ ? must be something to do with the breast he feed from.

            btw why are historically lamas and religious/political leaders in Tibet only men ?

          • Alex Dương

            The current Dalai Lama is the 14th :) And I don’t know the exact answer to your question; I can only guess. But the 14th Dalai Lama has said that the 15th could be a woman.

          • Ryan

            The Dalai Lama in 1913 said that Tibet and the Qing “had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other.”
            But i’m sure the Chinese governments censored response is more “truthful”. (lol)
            Even if it were true that the Qing directly ruled over Tibet, that would be ONE out of like 80 or something dynasties.

            After the Qing, the PRC wins a civil war almost 40 freaking years later. How on earth is it fair to say that Government is the “successor” to an old Kingdom? Because they say so? The previously conquered nations that had been independent in the 40 years in between have no say in the matter?
            The Tibetans were ALSO rebelling against the Qinq, and kicked them out of Tibet and declared their independence. You could go as far as to say that when the Qing had finally fully collapsed, Tibet was an independent nation. But I guess their revolution doesn’t count. Only the “Chinese” one does.

            It’s also CLEAR at that time that Tibet was no longer interested in the “patron/priest” relationship any longer, and had been independent since 1912.
            But China INVADES and CONQUERS them anyways. Then forbids freedom of speech. Then censors the media and alters the entire history of what actually happened. Now that poor conquered people are essentially secondary citizens.
            And yet you defend it. I don’t know what sort of strange agenda you have, but opinions like yours are flat out SCARY!!!!

    • AbC

      Tibet is seeking independence and break away from Chinese rule. Technically, China can’t steal land that is still internationally recognised as part of China. Whether or not Tibetans deserve to be an independent nation is another matter.

      • Barnabus

        Nope, Tibet is not seeking independence. What they want is the freedom to choose their own Dali Llama. Since the current DL is in exile, the Communist government has a heavy hand in choosing the current DL. The exiled DL has never sought independence for Tibet, just the right to choose the reincarnated DL.

        • Sum Ting Wong

          ‘The exiled DL has never sought independence for Tibet’

          Sorry, that’s the biggest BS I’ve heard in a long time. I’m sure the Free Tibet campaign disagrees with you.

        • Alex Dương

          If I go to the official web site of the Tibetan Government in Exile, I can see that they are obviously still pushing for independence rather than the so-called “Middle Way.”

          • guest

            ^ Can I ask where, the link you give talks about issues not a push for independence. It would be right to say that if people there protesting for rights in Tibet, pass independence or not depending on what side of the fence you sit, is an issue. This is specially in the case of Tibetan exiles in India and Tibetan activist movements.

            Supporting pro-independence does not really mean that your pushing for it.

          • Alex Dương

            Supporting pro-independence does not really mean that your pushing for it.

            I could see this if you want to argue that “support” could be passive while “push” is active, but even then, it’s a bit disingenuous to make this distinction. As to why I think the CTA is still obviously pushing for independence, here’s what they have to say:

            “Invaded by China in 1949, the independent country of Tibet was forced to face the direct loss of life that comes from military invasion and, soon after, the loss of universal freedoms that stemmed from Communist ideology and its programmes such as the Cultural Revolution (1966-76).”

            “With a written history of more than 2,000 years, Tibet existed as an independent sovereign state prior to Chinese rule.”

            “The term TIBET here means the whole of Tibet known as Cholka-Sum (U-Tsang, Kham and Amdo). It includes the present-day Chinese administrative areas of the so-called Tibet Autonomous Region, Qinghai Province, two Tibetan Autonomous Prefectures and one Tibetan Autonomous County in Sichuan Province, one Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture and one Tibetan Autonomous County in Gansu Province and one Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in Yunnan Province” (emphasis added).

          • guest

            So basically what your saying is that due to “propaganda”, you believe that their lying about the middle way.

          • Alex Dương

            With the caveat that the propaganda you are referring to comes from the Tibetans, yes. The 14th Dalai Lama says one thing; the official web site of the Tibetan Government in Exile says another thing.

        • Ken Morgan

          Pah DL is a CIA agent seriously he is they admitted it in 1998.

    • Paul Schoe

      Karze, where does this remark suddenly come from. On one hand an individual female beggar in the US, and you extrapolate that to the China-Tibet relationship ???

      Maybe I am just to old to see the connection.

    • Wood

      Yeah, ask the Native American if they have a green card.

    • Sum Ting Wong

      Yeh, US doesn’t steal, it robs. Ask Iraq.

    • donscarletti

      And the Native Americans were happy to give over their land?

      Great nations all are equally guilty of the same thing. It is not either glorious or shameful, but it is a little impolite to point one’s finger here.

      • guest

        I purpose we could also reverse engineer the argument of how Chinese made the lives of Tibetans better today and apply it to the same as “Americans” to the lives of native Indians today.

    • Jannick Slavik

      Notice when China was BFFs with America (running Opium and fighting the Communists), the State Department readily acknowledged Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, as had been recognized repeatedly ever since the British failed invasion of Tibet in 1904.

      After the Communists came to power, notice how history was re-written, and China apparently never had suzerainty?

      • Jannick Slavik

        Even more interesting, to me, respecting the Western mind-set, is how many comments that originate from a Chinese perspective are met with responses prefaced with the “invasion of Tibet” –

        In retrospect, it’s interesting, considering America and Canada “closed their frontiers” scarcely 60 years prior to the “invasion” – i.e. a euphemism for the destruction of the Native peoples populating those areas.

      • Alex Dương

        What people like Karze are absolutely loath to admit is that the Tibetans themselves VOLUNTARILY accepted a status of Chinese suzerainty in 1914 at Simla. The Chinese did not force them to accept that; they had no power to do so, and besides, the Chinese argued for sovereignty.

        • Jannick Slavik

          Remember, though, that the policy of suzerainty built within in a concept of limited autonomy – “outwardly part of China but internally autonomous.”

          I would argue that what forced the issue of more direct association was the post-WW2 environment (the Communists coming to power) and the subsequent attempts by the CIA to turn Tibet into a proxy state.

          • Alex Dương

            Remember, though, that the policy of suzerainty built within in a concept of limited autonomy – “outwardly part of China but internally
            autonomous.”

            Yes, absolutely. That’s why I said people like Karze want to pretend that Simla never happened. They had a chance there to get a then world power, the UK, to force the Chinese to recognize their independence. But they chose, voluntarily, to be “outwardly part of China but internally autonomous.”

            But I will be fair. Many countries could have recognized Tibetan independence after 1949, 1951, or 1959. None did. The UK insisted until 2008 that Tibet was under Chinese suzerainty.

          • Jannick Slavik

            Certainly though, after the Communists came to power, I’m not sure the US or Britain used the same sort of language regarding it’s readily acknowledging China’s suzerainty. Indeed, the US even went so far as to train a Tibetan army in the USA to invade Tibet and reclaim it from the Communists.

          • Jannick Slavik

            Heck, in 1942, the US State Department even went so far as to recognize Sovereign rights over Tibet:

            “It should be recalled that China claims Sovereignty over Tibet and that this claim has never been questioned by this government”

            Of course, at that time, the KMT was split against the Tibet Nationalists, so Washington wasn’t going to endanger it’s positive relations by sucking up to Tibet.

            The Communists winning the fight changed everything, and led to a complete revision of history/policy in the region.

          • Alex Dương

            As you pointed out, the CIA trained Tibetan exiles in an attempt to destabilize Chinese rule over Tibet. (That is another thing people like Karze don’t ever want to talk about.) But even then, outwardly / officially / “on paper,” the US never recognized Tibetan independence. I suspect that was because the ROC on Taiwan during CKS’s life continued to claim all of mainland China, including Tibet.

        • NicolasBourbaki

          The Dalai Lama volunteered that Tibet be part of Chinese suzerainty during the 18th century. The Qing emperor gets to have the religious blessings of the Lamaist system while Tibet gets the protection of the largest army in the world from Mongols and the Tibetan regent kings who were anti-lamaists. That was thought to be a good trade and the emperor and the Dalai Lama were actually friends from childhood.

          • Jahar

            Manchurian, not Chinese, right?

          • NicolasBourbaki

            Ethnic Mancharian rulers, but incorporated into Chinese territory.

          • Alex Dương

            While Elliot Sperling argues that Tibet was a vassal state of the Qing Empire, he argues that vassalage in Tibet’s case was fully consistent with substantial, if not nearly complete, “political domination” by the Qing. That’s contrary to what the Tibetan Government in Exile would like to argue, namely that the Tibetans had a “patron and priest” relationship with the Qing that excluded politics altogether.

          • Joe

            http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/murder-in-tibets-high-places-62805827/?no-ist=

            “Qianlong introduced was the so-called Golden Urn, from which lots were to be drawn to select a candidate. The Urn’s real purpose was to allow China to control the selection process, but in the case of the ninth and tenth Dalai Lamas, the wily Tibetans found ways of circumventing the lottery, to the considerable displeasure of Beijing. One possibility is that the Chinese arranged the deaths of these two incarnations in order to have the opportunity to impose a Dalai Lama they approved of.”

            Sino-Tibetan relations have since antiquity been complex, with China trying to exert complete influence and Tibetans trying to subvert it. Emperor Qianlong’s attempt to control the selection of the Dalia Lamas, mirrors what Beijing is doing to this day.

          • Alex Dương

            Thanks for linking to that article. I think it’s hard to make a credible case for a non-political “patron and priest” relationship.

    • Guest

      americans stole native american land

      • Ryan

        Yeah, and Americans ACKNOWLEDGE this. They don’t make up petty lies and try and convince themselves that they had a inherent right to the land.
        I’m not saying that excuses what happened hundreds of years ago in America… but Chinese people don’t even ACKNOWLEDGE the Qing’s imperialist invasions of Tibet. And why would they? They come from a country that censors and directly controls all media. Many Chinese people only know what their government WANTS them to know.
        I’m not saying America is perfect, but due to freedom of speech/press, Americans are MUCH more openminded about such issues than a group of brainwashed people DIRECTLY controlled by their government.

        • Alex Dương

          Chinese people don’t even ACKNOWLEDGE the Qing’s imperialist invasions of Tibet.

          If they did, would you accept it?

          • Ryan

            The majority of Americans are fully aware that their land was conquered from Natives in the past. Most acknowledge that it was wrong (of course there are exceptions… not ALL Americans). Most understand the need for reparations of some kind (tax exemptions, free education, etc).

            But when Chinese people (brought up under a government with no freedom of speech who directly controls all forms of media) talk about Tibet, the majority believe that Tibet is just part of China anyways. They’ve pretty much been indoctrinated into believing that. Many don’t even know the full extent about the protests/rebellions there.

            Even in this thread, Chinese people are trying to rationalize all tibetan invasions in the past, all while using tags for the west such as “Imperialist America” for their invasions in the past.

            The first step is at least ACKNOWLEDGING and accepting what REALLY happened in the past. In regards to Natives, Americans are well past that step. Most Chinese are nowhere near that first step in regards to Tibet.

          • Alex Dương

            Hence, my question: if they did, would you accept it? To clarify, “it” refers to Chinese claims to Tibet.

          • Ryan

            I’m saying that “We conquered them against their will in the past” isn’t a good excuse to rationalize an invasion just a generation or two ago.
            To make matters even worse, many Chinese people (brought up under a government that controls all forms of media and has no freedom of speech) don’t even acknowledge the relevancy of the debate.
            Chinese seem to have a rule. If they EVER conquered it in the past, it’s their inherent right ot rule it FOREVER!!!
            But if anybody conquered all or parts of China in the past… that doesn’t count.

          • Alex Dương

            I’m saying that “We conquered them against their will in the past” isn’t
            a good excuse to rationalize an invasion just a generation or two ago.

            So, then, you wouldn’t accept Chinese claims to Tibet even if the Chinese acknowledged that the claim arises from Qing imperialism?

          • Jannick Slavik

            Logically, Ryan appears to be arguing that if Chinese people acknowledged the “invasion” that would somehow make it justified.

            But alas, built within his argument is that China could never fulfill this condition to ‘make it justified” because it doesn’t have media that would be considered compatible.

          • Alex Dương

            Logically, Ryan appears to be arguing that if Chinese people acknowledged the “invasion” that would somehow make it justified.

            That’s what I thought as well, but then with his clarification, it seems that even if the Chinese were to acknowledge that the claim comes from past imperialism – “We conquered them against their will in the past” – he still would not accept the validity of Chinese claims to Tibet.

          • Merohedral

            I think we should look at how the Tibetans feel about China. Are they happy to be part of China? Do they feel Chinese? The Tibetans should be the only ones to tell us whether this invasion is justified and whether the Chinese claim over Tibet is justified. If only they could vote and settle this issue once and for all…

          • Jannick Slavik

            Likewise, all conquered peoples.

            That’s the interesting thing about voting. It’s not who votes that matters, it’s who counts the votes.

            Moreover, national self-interest ALWAYS comes into play. That’s why John Kerry condemned those Thai Protesters marching against the corrupt US-backed Shinawatra regime, but almost simultaneously supported the HK protestors, marching against the corrupt China-backed regime.

          • Ryan

            They’re going to deflect your question away from Tibet and talk about bad things Western Countries do. Oh, wait. I just looked down and that’s PRECISELY what Slavik did. What a HUGE surprise.
            I’ve NEVER talked to an American about Native people, and have them just deflect the issue to criticizing other countries. It just won’t happen.
            But it’s PRECISELY what happens when you talk to Chinese people about Tibet.
            Gee… I wonder if it has something to do with living in a country with no freedom of speech where the government DIRECTLY controls all forms of legal media?

          • Merohedral

            But is he Chinese? I can understand that a Chinese would react this way, because as anyone else in the world, they are the product of their education and culture. But how a non-Chinese can be so adamantly pro-Beijing/CCP/Chinese nationalism is beyond me.

          • Alex Dương

            Now, while I believe that Chinese claims to Tibet are valid, if you want to talk about self-determination, I am fine with that. Self-determination is about moving forward. It’s entirely different from lying about the past, which is what the Tibetan Government in Exile does.

            Having said this, I am fine with this so long as we acknowledge that in the West, not everyone is so eager about self-determination when it more directly applies to them. Westminster only allowed a referendum on Scottish Independence because it thought it would easily win. Spain has absolutely no interest in allowing a referendum on Catalonian Independence because it believes it will lose. And the US has been trying desperately for the past few months to keep Iraq unified.

          • Merohedral

            Catalonia does not have the representation they would need in the Spanish government to demand a referendum, like Corsica in France or the Basque Country in France and Spain, but unlike Scotland or Quebec.

            Quebec was allowed to hold referendums not because Canada thought they were going to lose, as the polls were very close. It was because the government in Quebec had enough power and support from their base to organize a referendum. I suspect something similar happened in Scotland.

            Self determination is a basic human desire. That is why since prehistory people have always banded together to defend their own interests. Asking the Tibetans what they want would be the correct thing to do. No you, not me, nor any other non-Tibetans should decide in their place what is “fine” for them.

          • Alex Dương

            Catalonia does not have the representation they would need in the Spanish government to demand a referendum, like Corsica in France or the
            Basque Country in France and Spain, but unlike Scotland or Quebec.

            So are you saying that Catalonians don’t have the right of self-determination?

          • Merohedral

            No… I am saying they haven’t been able to ask the Spanish government to hold a referendum, because of their lack of representation in Spanish politics.

          • Alex Dương

            Thanks for the clarification. That may be the case, but if that is your explanation as to why there is no referendum in Catalan, then don’t you think it’s rather obvious why Tibet has no referendum?

          • Merohedral

            I am aware of why Tibet cannot hold a referendum. But do you think that because the Tibetans don’t have any say in their government it makes it right for them to… not have any say?

            I am not against Catalonian independence neither, if that is the will of the people, but it’s a separate issue. What bothers me is that you seem to subscribe to a view that because the Tibetans have no power, their masters should have all the rights to claim their territory.

            Because some hundred years ago some cartographer drew a map of China encompassing Tibet doesn’t justify anything. It’s all about the will of the people. And from my perspective, from my encounters with Tibetans and other minorities, it seems like the will of the Tibetans is to be independent. I may be wrong, but my experience suggests otherwise. Interestingly, this thread was started by a Tibetan.

          • Alex Dương

            But do you think that because the Tibetans don’t have any say in their
            government it makes it right for them to… not have any say?

            Of course not.

            What bothers me is that you seem to subscribe to a view that because the
            Tibetans have no power, their masters should have all the rights to
            claim their territory.

            No. But if you are going to handwave the nonexistence of a referendum on Catalonian independence because Catalans don’t have the necessary representation in Spanish politics, then I have to mention how obvious and unexpected it is that the Tibetans don’t have a referendum in China.

            It’s all about the will of the people.

            As I said, I’m fine with that. Self-determination is about moving forward. What I dislike is any claim that China doesn’t have a legitimate claim to Tibet because of imperialism. The arguments that underline it are at best hypocritical or at worst flat-out wrong.

          • Merohedral

            I guess at this point we can only agree to disagree. I view self-determination and the legitimacy of a territorial claim as inseparable, but you view them as two separate things.

          • Jannick Slavik

            I would argue the example isn’t really that comparable anyways, given that China had existing land claims in Tibet, while the US didn’t have existing land claims in America.

            The world sure would have looked different if the British or Americans had successfully set-up a proxy in Tibet, right on Russia and China’s doorstep. Certainly, the Cold War would have played out differently.

          • Ryan

            Why not? Under your psychotically insane argument, Americans could at least say that they were the “direct successor state of the British rulers of Eastern North America”. And because the British slaughtered and ruled over the Natives, Americans have the right to as well, post 1776. I mean, that’s YOUR argument about Tibet.
            I’ve never heard Americans make such an outlandish argument (probably because there’s freedom of speech there and their government doesn’t directly control all forms of media).
            Americans mostly acknowledge what happened in the past was WRONG, and use the REAL history as a rational to give reparations to current Natives.
            Chinese (edeucated under a government with no freedom of speech who directly controls ALL forms of media) won’t even acknowledge that what they’ve done to the Tibetans is wrong.
            that’s the problem.
            That’s my point.

          • Jannick Slavik

            Yawn. Goodnite. Didn’t read past the first sentence.

            Your emotional responses are tedious and ironic, considering how you portend the celebration of free speec but act emotional when confronted by counter-arguments to your point.

          • Ryan

            I still don’t understand…
            If China has nothing to hide about Tibet, why do they censor everything about it? Why can someone “disappear” for talking about it?
            in America you can read and write whatever you want about the Natives. Maybe that’s why they are MUCH more open minded about the issues surrounding it.

            Who would have thought? If your government has no freedom of speech and DIRECTLY controls all forms of legal media, it’s citizens are less open minded about their governments actions.
            And it’s shown very clearly in this discussion.

          • Ryan

            What I’m saying is that Chinese people won’t even acknowledge the imperialist invasion of Tibet as a negative. They rationalize it as something that was justified and within their rights.
            So the comparison that Chinese people always make to First Nations is invalid, because North Americans generally acknowledge the truth about what happened.
            Imagine an American today argued “This land has always been inherently ours and we were RIGHT to take this land away from the Natives and to slaughter them”. Sounds ridiculous, right?
            Well, that’ how Chinese people (educated under a government that controls all forms of media and has no freedom of speech) sound when they talk about Tibet.

          • Jannick Slavik

            “”What I’m saying is that Chinese people won’t even acknowledge the imperialist invasion of Tibet as a negative. They rationalize it as something that was justified and within their rights””

            I would agree that some Chinese perceive it as a return to the status quo pre-Japanese invasion. It’s also wrapped up in Cold War realities. So? Ignoring your broad generalizations about how 1.3B people “feel, ” how does that detract or support the re-taking of Tibet anyway?

            “”So the comparison that Chinese people always make to First Nations is invalid, because North Americans generally acknowledge the truth about what happened.Imagine an American today argued “This land has always been inherently ours and we were RIGHT to take this land away from the Natives and to slaughter them”. Sounds ridiculous, right?””

            Well, ignoring the fact your argument doesn’t really speak to the justifications, or lack thereof of re-taking Tibet, it doesn’t auger well that you haven’t provided any evidence to suggest how 1.3B people feel towards TIbet or how 300M American feel towards the Natives. I suspect for the Tibetans and the Natives, they couldn’t really care less how these conquering people “feel” – so…why do you? Even if you do somehow provide this evidence, I’m still not sure how relevant it is to accessing the relative merits of the actions. Can you explain?

            I do agree, however, that the examples are somewhat dissimilar and not totally valid. America was reacting to a perceived land claims race by the British, while China was reacting to the realities of the Cold War.

          • Jannick Slavik

            for clarity, i would suggest that the Communist invasion of Tibet established more of a direct sovereginty over that region, as opposed to the long prevailing suzerainty.

            Trying to add to your point, i would be interested to understand how that escalation in control was justified

          • Kai

            It’s not invalid because for a very long time, Americans did not acknwoledge their conquest of Native Americans. It’s also not invalid because so long as Americans continue to occupy Native American land regardless of whatever remorse they express, they are de facto still rationalizing their conquest and rights to the land.

            You have to grapple with the conclusions of your argument. What happens to Tibet if one day the Chinese acknowledge their conquest of Tibet as a negative? When a Chinese person then criticizes another country’s people for their conquest of others, would it be invalid for those people to compare themselves to the Chinese conquest of Tibet?

            You’re also convoluting if not misrepresenting the Chinese position in the issue. Chinese people do not argue that the land has “always” been “inherently” theirs. They argue that the PRC invasion of Tibet was to reclaim territory that was once part of China. They got something, lost it, and are getting it back. That’s very different from them saying they’ve always had something, lost it, and are getting it back because it was always theirs. You’ve straw-manned their position into a false, weaker position.

            Chinese people aren’t idiots. They know all present “Chinese” territory was acquired through conquest, just like everywhere else. They know they and the Tibetans are ethnically different with different lands of origin. They, however and like others, believe that Tibet became a part of China and there’s nothing inherently strange about China wanting to keep Tibet a part of China.

            Americans (and all other conquerors) have similar if not mostly the same rationalizations. They don’t believe the Americas was “always” and “inherently” theirs, but history has unfolded in a way where they have come to consider the Americas theirs, and thus they now believe AND rationalize that it is.

            Tibet, like the Americas, has “natives” who dislike outside conquerors and prefer independence. The Chinese, like the Euro-Americans, are going through a period of putting them down and integrating them into a new order. If they successfully do so as the Euro-Americans have and no longer feel anyone is capable of depriving them of Tibet just as Americans no longer feel anyone is capable of depriving them of the Americas, maybe then they’ll confidently acknowledge that the original conquest was wrong. After all, it’s just words then.

          • Ken Morgan

            Yeah but the Mercans are good guys so its totally OK! / sarc

          • Jannick Slavik

            Likewise, would Americans acknowledge that Tibet was front and central in the Great Game? After the Communists came to power, the US actively sought establish Tibet as a proxy state. The CIA trained a Tibetan Army. The CIA actively attempted to undermine China’s relationship to Tibet.

            Likewise, would Brits acknowledge that they too invaded Tibet, scarcely 50 years earlier, machine gunning en masse unarmed Monks? If they had enough resources, the Brits would have at the time colonized Tibet, there is no doubt.

            The reality is Americans don’t want to talk about the Native Genocide any more than Chinese want to talk about Tibet. Yet, it’s always the Americans bringing it up, hence turning it into a political football.

          • Ryan

            Yes, the west did many many bad things. As free societies with freedom of speech where their governments don’t DIRECTLY control all forms of legal media, most westerners are aware of the bad things that happened.

            But when asked about the treatment of Natives in North America, I’ve NEVER heard an American say “nevermind what we did, what about the fact that CHINA invaded Tibet”. Instead of side tracking the issue, we actually DISCUSS it.
            Yet when Tibet is discussed with Chinese people, no matter WHERE the person debating came from, the conversation ALWAYS turns into citing bad things Western countries have done.
            Why is that?
            I think it’s because Chinese know deep down inside (ie, can see behind the brainwashing) that their country was wrong. And instead of facing that, they rationalize it as “well, other countries did bad things too”.

          • Jannick Slavik

            “Yes, the west did many many bad things. As free societies with freedom of speech where their governments don’t DIRECTLY control all forms of legal media, most westerners are aware of the bad things that happened.

            But when asked about the treatment of Natives in North America, I’ve NEVER heard an American say “nevermind what we did, what about the fact that CHINA invaded Tibet”. Instead of side tracking the issue, we actually DISCUSS it.
            Yet when Tibet is discussed with Chinese people, no matter WHERE the person debating came from, the conversation ALWAYS turns into citing bad things Western countries have done.”

            Maybe i’m not understanding your argument. But how does the relative merits of the media structure play into whether the action is justified or not?

            I mean, no one discusses whether the US-backed dismembering of Panama from Columbia was justified, or say the Spanish-American War. These actions occurred not long after the “Closing of the Frontier” – Why? It’s wrapped in flag of “American Exceptionalism” From what I see, Americans are often wholly ignorant of their historical acts, and if they are perceived as bad acts, they can appeal to American Exceptionalism to justify them.

            It just seems as though the US gets to wave the flag of “American Exceptionalism” to justify acts of national self-interest. Sometimes this is even justified. Well, when it comes to Tibet, it appears Chinese people are waving the flag of Chinese Exceptionalism.

            Something tells me you might have to get used to it.

          • Ryan

            America is a very polarized country. Many admittedly blindly defend their country. But almost just as big of a percentage are VERY critical of everything their government does and did.
            A HUGE number of Americans are very vocal about First Nations rights and are critical of it’s history. Go talk about First Nations on any typical American message board. You will get very mixed responses.

            But the vast vast VAST majority of Chinese don’t do this when it comes to Tibet. To be honest, I’m not sure if I’ve EVER met a mainland Chinese person who vocally criticized China’s imperialistic invasions of Tibet. And i had lived there for over 4 years.
            Again, it might… JUST MIGHT… have something to do with no freedom of speech, and a government that DIRECTLY controls all of it’s media.

            The truth is that Communist China invaded independent Tibet in 1949 primarily for resources, and used a whole bunch of nonsensical explanations to rationalize it. People born under that censored government with no free speech are pretty much indoctrinated into believing those outlandish arguments.
            But nobody else falls for it.

          • Kai

            You seem intent on criticizing two things: 1) PRC conquest of Tibet, and 2) PRC lack of free speech.

            The problem is how you’re conflating the two. As Alex and Jannick have pointed out, you are inadvertently suggesting that the US cannot be criticized for its historical conquests because it currently has free speech and a majority who acknowledge that their historical conquests were wrong (without actually reversing those wrongs).

            That begs the question: So the day China has freedom of speech and a majority who acknwoledge that their historical conquest of Tibet was wrong, China can no longer be criticized?

            You’ve also brought up how Americans acknowledge their past wrongdoing with reparations and preferential treatment. Couldn’t the Chinese argue the same? That they’ve provided a disproprotionate amount of investment for Tibet and provided preferential treatment to Tibetans? So that’s a wash.

            You’re trying to make an argument of deflection but that’s problematic. You see the Chinese as pointing to Native Americans (or other conquered peoples/land) in order to avoid discussing their own problem with Tibet. They see themselves pointing to Native Americans as an appeal for you to introspect, because if you can understand the rationalizations you use for your own historical conquests, you should be able to better understand their rationalizations. It’s an appeal to empathy.

            The accusation of deflection is tricky because it is very subjective and often misused to artificially limit a debate to one side’s advantage. Accusations of deflection don’t work when the person being criticized is appealing to the criticizer’s own history. They only work when they point to a third party also guilty of a behavior. Let me give you an example:

            Deflection:
            Clean person criticizes dirty person. Dirty person points out someone else is also dirty.

            Not deflection:
            Dirty person criticizes dirty person. Dirty person points out that criticizer is also a dirty person.

            When you accuse deflection in the latter scenario, it becomes “I’m criticizing you and only you right now, so leave me out of it and sit there and take it.”

            That doesn’t work as far as civil debate goes. You have to address the rebuttal. You have to reconcile how you can accept your own historical conquests with why you are critical of others’ historical conquests. Only then might you find some moral high ground upon which to prevail over the person you are criticizing.

            Finally, if you think Chinese point out the Euro-American conquest of Native Americans because they know deep down that their own conquest of Tibet was wrong, then both Americans and Chinese are wrong, but the latter just hasn’t gotten to the point where it has made peace with having been wrong? So the day they do, the day they have free speech, the day that they acknowledge it was wrong but do nothing to reverse it except provide some preferential treatment, then they’ll just be like the Americans?

            You have to grapple with the conclusion that your argument leads to.

          • Insomnicide

            Tibet is a part of China nowadays the same way California is now a part of America. Why would Chinese people think it’s not part of China just because it contains a large group of ethnic minorities or it’s ancient history states otherwise?

            And no, it doesn’t take any indoctrination to look on a map and see a region incorporated within the Chinese borders called Tibet. It’s more likely that Americans are indoctrinated to believe Alaska is apart of America than Chinese are indoctrinated to believe Tibet is apart of China. And they do know about the protests and rebellions going on in Tibet, of course not in detail but they have a rough idea what’s going on.

            Most Chinese are nowhere near the first step of accepting what happened in the past because it’s not a straight up conquest and genocide. Tibet was incorporated into China’s administrative regions during the Yuan dynasty, although that doesn’t mean China controlled it, it does mean that Tibet was no longer an alien landscape. Tibet became intertwined with China from the Yuan and Ming dynasties. The Qing dynasty outright incorporated the region of Tibet into China’s provinces. Which means for some time well before the so called ‘invasion of Tibet’, Tibet was already within China’s national borders.

            During the Republican period, political control was loosened towards Tibet. However the central government of the ROC, the Guomindang, Chinese society in general never pushed Tibet out of China’s door. Rather the opposite, during the Republican period the western world, especially the USA acknowledged and actively supported Tibet being a part of China. However after the communist took over, the Cold War came and the USA had to change it’s policies. Due to their radical hatred of communism and the Soviet bloc, they encouraged separatism in Tibet to create instability in the communist regime. So that is why the annexation of Tibet is called the invasion of Tibet. Most people think it refers Chinese people invading Tibet, but the term more likely refers to communism invading Tibet.

            So to the common Chinese people this isn’t an imperialist invasion at all. Chinese people at the time, and maybe even now do not see communism as a force of evil. Therefore they do not feel that Tibet was ‘invaded’ by communism or communists. But rather to the common Chinese people it is the reincorporation of Tibet into central government control.

            Yes, fighting did occur, yes people did die. But who died? Soldiers. Not civilians. There wasn’t a deliberate attempt to wipe out the Tibetan ethnicity as many Sinophobic commenters claim. Rather the population of Tibet during the 1950s was at 3 million. That number would grow to 6 million now under the so called evil communist Chinese people’s rule. And that number is still growing as the one child policy only applies to Han Chinese and not ethnic minorities.

            While the conquest of the region now known as the USA by the Spanish, the English and the Americans caused 50 million or possibly more native Americans to die. The native people of the Americas were at one point 1/8th of the world population and they are now reduced to only 5 million people claiming to be of native American descent in the US. To add insult to the injury, many white Americans today would consider themselves to be true Americans. Many of them oppose immigration of foreigners, even from Mexico on the basis that they aren’t ‘Americans’ or white like they are. While no Han Chinese, or any other Chinese ethnicity would claim to be more Tibetan than the Tibetans. Isn’t that ironic?

          • Ryan

            Imperialist China’s invasion of Tibet happened only just over 60 years ago. A mere 4 years after China finally kicked invading Japan out of their country. How did China like being invaded by a foreigner? All those movies and drama’s I’ve seen where China is such a “victim” in all of that. And a mere 4 years later they do it to somebody else. Estimates of as many as a million Tibetan deaths from China’s imperialistic conquest. YOU say it was only “soldiers” (LOL), but if you’re speaking like that, it is VERY likely that you grew up in China, a country with no freedom of speech that DIRECTLY controls all legal media.

            I’m well aware that America “did bad things” in the past. But as a non American, that is the topic for another debate. I have NO IDEA why Chinese people always try to divert the conversation there. Again, when I talk to Americans about their bad history, I’ve NEVER heard them say “well, what about China in Tibet?”
            Yet the America comparison happens pretty much every time there is a debate about Tibet with Chinese people. Gee, I wonder why that is?

            I also find it amusing that the “beginnings” of Chinese rule of Tibet started when the Mongols conquered both China and Tibet. If you want to go back to that period of time to defend the imperialistic invasion of Tibet, then under the same argument China should be ruled by the current Mongolian Government.
            And I fail to see how the Qing’s imperialist invasions of Tibet rationalize the CCP’s imperialist invasion of Tibet. Tibet CLEARLY wants to be independent. I mean, the CCP invaded almost 50 years after the fall of the Qing. The world can change a lot in 50 years. The map of the entire world changed REMARKABLY in those 50 years. Yet the CCP thinks they have the “inherent right” to re-invade those foreign people against their will 50 years later.
            that would be like a current German leader saying he’s the “legal successor” of the 3rd reich, and used it to rationalize invading the rest of Europe.

          • NicolasBourbaki

            First you say that China invaded and incorporated Tibet in China during the Qing and now you say it was the 1950s. You do realize that the Qing weren’t in power during the 50s right?

          • Kai

            Americans are indeed past this step, so the question is, were Americans ever historically closer to the Chinese in their attitudes towards “conquered” land? If so, what had to happen for their attitudes to change to what they are now? Has China gone through the same? If they do, can we expect their attitudes to evolve to what American attitudes are like now?

        • Jannick Slavik

          What an odd set of statements.

          First of all, you apparently haven’t read much from the late 19th century – pick up a biography on Teddy Roosevelt. Americans did believe in an inherent right to the land. So your first set of statements are off, or at least, not thought out.

          Your 2nd paragraph is curious. Would acknowledging the “invasion” make it just? You seem to imply that. Also, you seem to imply that because the Chinese are “controlled” as you put it, that somehow that legitimizes American actions against the Natives, that as you put, were “acknowledged” – Are you implying that knowledge of something makes it moral?

          Also, your final paragraph suggests you aren’t well informed. American media practices censorship by omission. It’s corporately owned, by a half-dozen individuals. The CIA has plants across the spectrum and manipulates stories, routinely. That doesn’t imply Chinese media is better, nor does it imply that the American invasion was moral.

          • Jannick Slavik

            evidence of America media manipulation is quite clear – noted for example by CNN polls in 2003 where 70% of those polled thought Saddam Hussein participated in the 9/11 Terror Attacks.

            A classic example of media manipulation to justify the invasion of Iraq. An example that would make the staunchest Politburo member proud.

          • Ryan

            The majority of Americans at least acknowledge that what happened in the past to First Nations was wrong.
            The first step is admitting that you have a problem :)
            Do you acknowledge that what happened to Tibet in the 1950’s was wrong? Was China in the wrong?

            That’s the problem. Most Chinese (brought up in a government that DIRECTLY controls the media and has no freedom of speech) don’t even acknowledge that there any wrong doing occurred.
            Once it’s acknowledged that your country was in the wrong, that’s when the next steps of correcting the problem can occur.

            And I am not saying that America is perfect. In fact, I am very critical of America (and i’m not American). But when it comes to freedom and the media, it is VASTLY superior to the Chinese Oligarchy. It’s a complete joke that this discussion is even happening. You won’t “disappear” in american for speaking out against Obama. The government doesn’t “ban” websites that they disagree with. There are THOUSANDS of LEGAL news media not controlled by the government in any way.
            Your argument is a joke.

          • Jannick Slavik

            “”The majority of Americans at least acknowledge that what happened in the past to First Nations was wrong.””

            No they don’t. In fact, I would argue a majority of Americans think it was justified. It’s wrapped up in the protective guise of “American Exceptionalism” – If they think it was wrong, by default, they are arguing against the existence of their own country.

            “”The first step is admitting that you have a problem :)””

            Ok, and the second step is giving back the land then? I don’t see it happening

            “”Do you acknowledge that what happened to Tibet in the 1950’s was wrong? Was China in the wrong?””

            China was pragmatically reacting to the expansion of the Cold War into Tibet, as noted by CIA activity in that region once the Communists won. The policy of “”outwardly part of China but internally autonomous.” shifted to “internally part of China.” It is what it is. Would that policy have changed if Tibet’s place as a Chinese satellite was never contested by the realities of the Cold War? I don’t know.

            “”That’s the problem. Most Chinese (brought up in a government that DIRECTLY controls the media and has no freedom of speech) don’t even acknowledge that there any wrong doing occurred.””

            No, that actually isn’t the problem as it relates to the discussion, as this neither supports or detracts from your argument. It’s entirely superfluous.

            “”And I am not saying that America is perfect. In fact, I am very critical of America (and i’m not American). But when it comes to freedom and the media, it is VASTLY superior to the Chinese Oligarchy. It’s a complete joke that this discussion is even happening. You won’t “disappear” in american for speaking out against Obama. The government doesn’t “ban” websites that they disagree with. There are THOUSANDS of LEGAL news media not controlled by the government in any way.””

            Totally superfluous to the relative merits to comparing American land-claims to Chinese land-claims.

            In short, based on my extensive reading of the 19th century, one could argue America’s claims on Native lands were ruthlessly justified by the realities of the time – competing against competing British claims in the West, in much the same way China reacted to re-taking Tibet during the Cold War.

            “Closing the Frontier” was an euphemism widely used at the time that basically meant “stealing the remaining land from the Native peoples”

          • Ryan

            So you sure make a hell of a lot of rationalizations for when CHINA does something wrong. It’s clear that, in your mind, China can do no wrong. Must have something to do with growing up under a censored government with no freedom of speech.

            It’s funny, because I’m critical of both of these countries (america and china).
            But when I discuss First Nations people with Americans, I’ve NEVER heard them deflect the issue by comparing it to China’s imperialistic invasion of Tibet.
            Yet whenever I talk about Tibet with Chinese people, it’s IMMEDIATELY deflected to a comparison with First Nations people, even if they know I’m not American.
            Why do you think that is?
            I think it might have something to do with being raised in a country without free speech where the government DIRECTLY controls all forms of legal media.

          • Kai

            You’ve just made sabotaged your credibility by presuming Jannick is some mainland Chinese guy who grew up “under a censored government with no freedom of speech” and straw-manning him as someone who thinks China can do no wrong.

            Instead of actually reading and trying to address his points, you’ve gone ad hominem calling him biased and brainwashed.

            Americans don’t bring up China and Tibet because you are not making the same criticisms and asking the same questions. When you do, when you press them on their justifications for continuing to control land that wasn’t theirs, Americans rationalize their conquest of the Americas on OTHER (often) historical conquests. Yes, they feel bad for how unfair and brutal it was for the natives in modern retrospect, but they’ve rationalized it as history that “can’t be changed” nonetheless.

            Chinese do the same thing.

            The reason why the United States and Native American example is the most popularly used is because it is the most popular historical example of one people’s acquisition of land at the expense of the natives. Chinese people expect others to be as familiar with it as they are, and they are right, because you are familiar with it, regardless of whether you are American or not.

            You also have to realize they are not bringing up Native Americans as an end to itself. They bring up the Native Americans as an EXAMPLE of historical conquest and how such conquests are rationalized to this day. If you want, they can point out other historical conquests as well, but they don’t have to, because you inherently understand conquest, but for some reason feel like arguing the Chinese are different from others.

          • Jahar

            You’re Canadian I’m assuming.

          • Jahar

            I just want to ask, how many Americans have either of you actually spoken about this with?

          • Jannick Slavik

            “Your argument is a joke.”

            At least I have one.

        • NicolasBourbaki

          Why don’t you pick up a book about Tibetan history instead of talking bullshit about it? The Qing did not imperialistically take Tibetan land like America with Native land. Tibet came under Qing rule by mutual agreement between the Dalai Lama and the Qing emperor due to the mutual benefit that each nation conferred to each other.

          http://www.amazon.com/The-Snow-Lion-Dragon-China/dp/0520219511/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1413015535&sr=8-2&keywords=melvyn+goldstein

          There are now more Tibetans than there was in the Qing but almost all the Native Americans have been exterminated.

  • AbC

    “How can this kind of thing happen in the United States where they have such good system? Aren’t all people there supposed to be very honest and kind? Don’t they all have enough to eat and enough to wear? How can there still be beggars?”

    No wonder so many Chinese dream of getting a green card… False impressions of the ‘Beautiful Country’.

    The US welfare system is far from equitable when compared to the Nordic/Scandanavian nations. But compared with China(zero welfare), I suppose it’s probably heaven.

    All people in America supposed to be very honest and kind? Now that’s almost laughable… Scammers in the US is probably on par with China.

    • Zincoshine

      china actually has more welfare than america. America is one of the only countries in the world with no maternity leave, only a few provinces like new York and California have maternity leave and it’s only 5 weeks. This is just one example. In any case, the nordic nations have a level of welfare that is so good it is impossible for many Chinese to believe it is real.

      • Jay K.

        really Zinco? as a native New Yorker who has lived in NY, Oklahoma, Washington state, Beijing/Shenzhen your statements are misleading.

        Maternity leave is given in all those states based on my experiences with colleagues/classmates/friends.

        The Chinese welfare system “may” have more to offer but actually what it gives out in return is minuscule in terms of the quantity/quality. Having been offered those social welfare “bonuses” in China when working there was hilarious at best. 1) Chaoyang Hospital was always packed, and any medical welfare in terms of coverage of medical bills was horrible 2) having to pay into the “social security system” (something like it) of China was horrendous, when I resigned from my company and decided to take that money out, lawfully it can be done, there was so much red tape that it never happened (my wife and I weren’t planning to live in China, why not take that money?)

        I will say this though, European countries, Scandinavian specific, do have great social welfare systems; that is something my former colleagues and peers can relate to and have showed off to my face.

        • Poodle Tooth
        • Chip

          There is no PAID maternity leave laws in anywhere in America.

          • Dick Leigh

            Yep, I found this out too and as a Canadian it’s absolutely shocking. In Canada there’s maternity AND paternity leave.

          • Poodle Tooth

            Whenever a Republican talks about “freedom” they ONLY mean the freedom to screw over workers. That is the only freedom they have ever cared about.

            Don’t let us export our “freedom” to your country.

      • vincent_t

        It is hardly a welfare when you need to queue for hours to see a doc in hospital, and they give u IV drips even all you have is sore throat.

      • FYIADragoon

        Last time I checked we had maternity leave and a far more enormous welfare system than many countries. The problem is the efficiency of the system, not the lack of dollars poured into it. It needs to be heavily re-worked.

        • Chip

          There is no paid maternity leave legislation anywhere in America.

          • Dick Leigh

            At the national level, the individual states sometimes give cash benefits.

    • Insomnicide

      I think they might be referring to the economic system rather than the welfare system, in reality the welfare system of both China and America don’t differ that much. The economic system is America however is more protective of workers in general and protective of equal opportunity.

  • Cripes almighty! I clicked on the video link and was subjected to a “D” Chinese movietisement…CLOSE PAGE…more and more of these websites are bombarding us with longer and longer ads.

  • I found the video on youtube and the best advice came from a 12 year old kid…”Think twice about who you give money to”
    Also, at the end of the video, the TV station was told by the woman’s family that she HAD A PERMIT to Panhandle… That is the USA today; need a permit for everything now

    • AbC

      If only they had a ‘public toilet cut in line’ permit. Imagine the envious eyes of all those Chinese women when you flash that in front them.

      • You’re onto a money making idea….
        Print off some official passes and sell them for 10? RMB each.
        Offer the option for a clean cesuo and double the price

        • Dev

          I want in on that action!

  • Hey China,
    Unfortunately, You do Not have a monopoly on Shitty Old People.
    http://youtu.be/09R_iUrh3EE?t=1m11s

    • Joe

      Those vouchers they show are damn cool! Never heard of that before.

      • I Like your photo Joe…
        it looks like a promo shot for TV show “Lovely Ladies and Joe”

        I remember the first time I took notice of the homeless problem. I was in Houston in the early 90’s and at the bottom of an exit ramp there was a guy there with a cardboard sign. I had not seen that before then. I started to see that popping up around the US and Today, those folks are EVERYWHERE!

        The vouchers are a clever idea. I am currently in Manchester, Hew Hampshire and they installed a parking meter folks can use to donate to the local shelter; after they had several issues with homeless folks asking for money on the sidewalk, some getting physical when rebuffed. This is going to get more problematic as more and more people are in need of money.

  • Amused

    Maybe they should start a new organization to help all our bums get to know one another… Some sort of “Bums Without Borders” with a sacred mission to spread freaky sour smelling non-hygene, cheap ways to get drunk, new shill techniques and in general facilitate international bum fraternization in all four corners of the globe.

  • DURRAMURICA

    I bet the US has just as many crazy stories as China does. Someone make a USAsmack — I bet it would make a lot of $$$ lol

    • aasdf34sdf

      There already is one. It’s called reddit, dude. ;P

  • FYIADragoon

    This is why you don’t give money to beggars. They are in every big city. In every country. Any one with a brain knows you just ignore them and keep on walking. I’d have no problem giving them some food, but there’s a reason they only want money.

  • SongYii

    i have been on dates with girls who give money to beggars. i never call them or answer their messages after that.

  • 000

    What the actual fuck. This is why I don’t give beggars money. Because either they’re real beggars and use it to buy alcohol and other things they don’t need or they’re fake and just take your money. This is why I prefer to give them food or drinks or other useful things. Because if they appreciate it, you know they do have it hard. If they give you a negative reaction and saying they don’t need it, you know they’re fake.

  • James C

    It’s good that social media now can help spread the news so that people can learn about incidents like this and stop falling for scams like this. It’s good to just be aware. Even though people get tricked, I think once we hand out the money we shouldn’t worry about it anymore. It is gone. Just know that you did a good deed and tried to help people who are less fortunate than you.

  • aasdf34sdf

    There are a lot of these scammers in the US. In our city (population 500k or so) some beggars make 100-300k a year working the most busy intersections. I never give them a dime. I’d rather give money/time to an organization like the homeless shelter or service center for the homeless.

  • YahooHenry

    Why does this site keep banging on about the U.S.A. There are 5.5 billion other people. btw It’s not up to the government for each person not to give money. Stuff the government…it’s down to each person and social etiquette…like how to park a car or spitting in open public areas, or men going to the toilet in full view of other people..

    • Alex Dương

      It just so happened that an article set in the US trended amongst Chinese netizens. Most people in the world aren’t American, yes, but it remains that the US is the largest economy in the world and most influential, for good and bad.

      • YahooHenry

        So when the USA loses that position posts will cease. No. It just seems that many of the posts seem to be used as a means of deflecting attention from any inferiority complex some Chinese citizens have. It’s easy to pick out an incident or a number and totally misuse it. That beggar was living the American dream…begging is just a job.

        • Alex Dương

          It seems to me like you’re just looking for an excuse to take swipes at Americans and Chinese people.

  • 日暮かごめ

    All I can say is be careful who the hell you give cash to cause you might just meet them again and see them driving an expensive car.

    I don’t know who to trust anymore after all I give my lunch money to those that look homeless and I mean the old people not the young ones they don’t look that homeless when I look at them. I give the elderly money cause they look frail as hell and might drop if they don’t eat or drink something.

    My sister gives people money on the road cause when her car broke down 5 years ago a young homeless man helped get the car from the middle of the street to the gas station nearby which took 6 mins to push in there to call AAA. I don’t blame her for doing it cause of that

  • YahooHenry

    Sniping implies that I am judging. Let me clarify. Chinasmack seems to be a platform where the posters are comparing and judging facets of culture largely in a bid to excuse their own behaviour. These inferiority and superiority complexes and laughably intriguing, as, it appears is your conclusion which typically jumps to a off-target conclusion via a rather ill-disciplined logic.

    • Alex Dương

      Chinasmack seems to be a platform where the posters are comparing and
      judging facets of culture largely in a bid to excuse their own
      behaviour.

      One of the goals of chinaSMACK is that by translating what’s trending in China, people outside of China can see that at the end of the day, we aren’t so different. So insofar as people are “comparing and judging facets of culture” to “excuse” their own behavior, I suppose that means the goal has been achieved.

      But I would say that in my experience, quite a few commenters are rather unwilling to acknowledge this and prefer to overexaggerate differences. Attempts to “compare and judge” are often met with complaints of “deflection.”

      as, it appears is your conclusion which typically jumps to a off-target conclusion via a rather ill-disciplined logic.

      Oh boy, a fan of circumlocution. Well, to each his own. Here’s how I reached my conclusion. You said, quote,

      So when the USA loses that position posts will cease. No. It just
      seems that many of the posts seem to be used as a means of deflecting
      attention from any inferiority complex some Chinese citizens have. It’s
      easy to pick out an incident or a number and totally misuse it. That
      beggar was living the American dream…begging is just a job.

      So here you are claiming that “some Chinese citizens” have an inferiority complex, and that the “beggar” in question was “living the American dream.” Um, first, some people in any country will have an inferiority complex. Why would China be any different? And second, come on, if you’re going to claim that begging is living the American dream, you’re obviously taking a pot shot at the U.S. At least own up to it and don’t act like it was *cough* “ill-disciplined logic.”

      • YahooHenry

        Nearly…but no cigar. You are approaching everything with a lurry ( not lorry) load of assumptions.

        • Alex Dương

          Begging is not living the American Dream.

          • YahooHenry

            That woman is fulfilling her dream, she is acting. In the land of make believe she is content and successful…dream come true.

          • Alex Dương

            Oh, so you’re trying to spin begging as acting and likening her to a Hollywood actress? Please.

      • YahooHenry

        Spin means lying. No, I do not mean to lie. I think there is a good chance she is doing just that.

        • Alex Dương

          You’re trying to refer to what she is doing as favorably as possible: “That woman is fulfilling her dream, she is acting. In the land of make believe she is content and successful…dream come true.” That is definitely spin.

          I repeat what I said: begging is not living the American Dream.

  • Vernon Alarcon Jr.

    dis sum boosheeut all up in deyr! negroes neva give anybody anythang of value – especially cash.

  • Croid

    it funny to see a neqroe bein scammed by an old YT. I’m callin boosheut on dat won. I aint never seen no neqroe give anythang to anywon. dey allais da won runnin da scams an takin all da handouts an sheeut …… nomesane

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»