After reading your lengthy passage I found you are dead-hard on your perverted truth that is based on supersititious idealism that is not built on facts but on imaginary connections. First of all, you have never been to China or Tibet and seen the facts for youself but you allege to the effect that Chinese live in a oppressed state, no freedom,no democracy, no human right bla,bla despite the fact that I told you the freedom we enjoyed is nothing much different from yours and gave you a lot instances. China is not perfect on its way of development. As you know the Chinese population is more than 50 times larger than that of Canada(sorry, just rough caculation)The earthquake in Sichuan devastated more than 10 millions of home with more than 40 millions of people having lost their homes(you must be very happy for that)the number of the affected is an equivalent to twice as much as the total Canadian population.Have you asked youself what and how your government would act and react to such big devastating disaster? Since yours is a 'democratic' government, would it be able to respond and act faster than the 'communist' Chinese government? Would it be able to do a better job than the Chinese government? I think it may not. This is why the communist government so popular in the hearts of most Chinese.( of course, not everyone, there are always someone dissatisfied considering the 1.3 billion size of people, The west including you always mistakes the voic of this small number of people for the voice of the main stream in China. That's why the westerners cannot get inside out about China and end up in failure.) You know what the Chinese government is doing now? It is going to build homes for more than 40 million people who lost their homes in the Sichuan's earthquake. That will almost build 4 or 5 Canada in 3 years. Will your government able to do that when you baselessly accuse of the communist government of human-rightlessness. We love our government because we always have someone to depend on and to take care of us when we encounter difficulties. Not like you who always depend on youself. Yes, there are corruptions in the government just as your Canadian and the other westerne governments, sometimes could be said very serious, from the local up to the central. But the corruptions has been dealt all the time, even some of the top political buro level were sentenced to death and life sentence. The central government  and the party have never been soft-handed to their corrupted government officials. So when you try to hype corruptions in China, you've got to distinguish the government and the corrupted government officials. They are not the same. I find it very funny when you state how oppressed the Chinese are, no democracy..no freedom.. You always take the opinions of a very small number of dissatisfied as examples of people against their government. If they really can not put up with what you said about the government, they can leave the country freely and reside in Canada or somewhere else without any problem. I don't know what freedom you mean and what less freedom we enjoy than our western counterparts.  When you say there isn't any freedom in China, you don't feel a pain in your mouth, right? Of course, sometimes people are angry at the government for it doesn't do it job well but they also know their government will correct and tackle the problems. I just want to say the Chinese are happy just as their smiling faces tell you. The government has its own supervision organs over its work and it also encourages mass media and its people to supervise its work. It isn't a perfect government but it is learning and doing its job better and better. Chinese practice diferent democracy from that of the western's. Ours is called centralised democracy that is anybody may voice his own opinions or suggestions that will be acted upon in accordance with the majority's will. Based on the actual situation in China, this kind of democracy works and proves to be quite effective. It is undeniable that the communist government is the most democratic and most open one ever in the Chinese history. The people of China are used to the present one-party ruling that is quite stable, not like the messy politics in Taiwan, India or the US, fighting, cheating, fooling around and consuming a lot of resources may otherwise used for the poor. I don't know why the westerners take so much interest in what road we Chinese take. It seems Chinese are more resolved than ever to walk the way down. The west has long expected a change in China ever since the founding of the new republic in 1949. The daydream has lasted until now and it will continue to last it seems, and may to the end of the earth. Then you twisted Chinese Qigong for what your hearsay, remarking it can treat patients over a long distance... It has turned out to be false unfortunately when a scientist publicly challenged if there was someone who was able to perform it on Channel one CCTV, The outcome is that nobody dared to respond to the challenge, which proved that the fake things and its advacates like you dare not to be exposed under the sun. Nearly the rest of the things you mentioned is nothing true. The failure of your persuasion is that you base your theory completely on hearsay. You have never been to China and Tibet but you have given a series of stories about China. What do you base your remarks on? It is not surprising that you have been so biased because  you have been surrounded by the western media and

education. You never want to believe Dalai's theocracy (which is strongly opposed even in the west) is so relentless and cruel because you don't want the fact that is against your vicious belief rooted in your mind. Even you are reluctant to come to China and Tibet to find out truth, who will dare to trust you for what you have said. You may go to Tibet and ask if most of Tibetans will like Dalai's rule to return, I think they will spit to you. It is quite natural that there are some very few serf owners who like Dalai to come back but not the 95% of the serfs, you'd better make it clear. If you come to China and ask a Chinese randomly on the street how he view Chairman Mao Zedong. I believe most will say he is always loved and cherished by 95% of Chinese, even a lot of the persecuted during the cutural revolution would say so inspite of the mistakes he made he is still regarded as the greatest man in the Chinese history who founded the people's republic that enabled 95% of poor people to stand up and started the road to prosperity and affullence. In fact we own all our achievement to him, which may surprise you as against your hearsay. Chinese are tolerant for their leaders to make mistakes just as the old saying goes' nobody is without mistakes'. But his great merits and contribution to the Chinese people should not be overwhelmed by his

mistakes.  If you don't know him well, go to read his works that will help you with your outlook and will help you in understanding Chinese better. After all you still cannot justify for what you said. It seems you have got a lot to learn before you can realize how biased you are.

Report Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re: Yoshinogawa : I just past the following article from Guardian for your reference :Down with the Dalai LamaWhy do western commentators idolise a celebrity monk who hangs out with Sharon Stone and once guest-edited French Vogue?

All comments (296) Brendan O'Neill guardian.co.uk, Thursday May 29 2008 Article historyHas there ever been a political figure more ridiculous than the Dalai Lama? This is the "humble monk" who forswears worldly goods in favour of living a simple life dressed in maroon robes. Yet in 1992 he guest-edited French Vogue, the bible of the decadent high-fashion classes, which is packed with pictures of the half-starved daughters of the aristocracy modelling skirts and shirts that most of us could never afford.

He claims to be the current incarnation of the Tulkus line of Buddhist masters, who are "exempt from the wheel of death and rebirth". Yet he's best known for hanging out with clueless western celebs like Richard Gere and Sharon Stone (who is still most famous for showing her vagina on the big screen). Stone once introduced the Dalai Lama at a glittering fundraising ball as "Mr Please, Please, Please Let Me Back Into China!"

The Dalai Lama says he wants Tibetan autonomy and political independence. Yet he allows himself to be used as a tool by western powers keen to humiliate China. Between the late 1950s and 1974, he is alleged to have received around $15,000 a month, or $180,000 a year, from the CIA. He has also been, according to the same reporter, "remarkably nepotistic", promoting his brothers and their wives to positions of extraordinary power in his fiefdom-in-exile in Dharamsala, northern India.

He poses as the quirky, giggly, modern monk who once auctioned his Land Rover on eBay for $80,000 and has even done an advert for Apple (quite what skinny white computers have got to do with Buddhism is anybody's guess). Yet in truth he is a product of the crushing feudalism of archaic, pre-modern Tibet, where an elite of Buddhist monks treated the masses as serfs and ruthlessly punished them if they stepped out of line.

The Dalai Lama demands religious freedom. Yet he persecutes a Buddhist sect that worships a deity called Dorje Shugden. He outlawed praying to Dorje Shugden in 1996, and those who defied his writ were thrown out of their jobs, mocked in the streets and even had their homes smashed up by heavy-handed officials from his government-in-exile. When worshippers complained about their treatment, they were told by representatives of the Dalai Lama that "concepts like democracy and freedom of religion are empty when it comes to the wellbeing of the Dalai Lama".

As the Dalai Lama tours Britain, lots of people are asking: why won't Brown receive him at Downing Street? I have a different question: why should Brown, who for all his troubles is still the head of an elected political party, meet with an authoritarian, fame-chasing, Apple-loving monk?

The Dalai Lama has effectively been turned into a cartoon good guy. In America and western Europe, where backward anti-modern sentiments are widespread amongst self-loathing sections of the educated and the elite, the Dalai Lama has been embraced as a living, breathing representative of unsullied goodness. Despite the fact that he advertises Apple, guest-edits Vogue and drives a Land Rover, he is held up as evidence that living the simple eastern life is preferable to, in the words of Philip Rawson, westerners' "gradually more pointless pursuit of material satisfactions". Just as earlier generations of disillusioned aristocrats fell in love with a fictional version of Tibet (Shangri-La), so contemporary un-progressives idolise a fictional image of the Dalai Lama.

Most strikingly, the Dalai Lama is used as a battering ram by western governments in their culture war with China. The reason he is flattered by world leaders and bankrolled by the CIA is not because these institutions care very much for liberty in Tibet, but rather because they want to ratchet up international pressure on their new competitors in world politics: the Chinese. You don't have to be a defender of the authoritarian regime in Beijing (and I most certainly am not) to see that such global sabre-rattling is more likely to entrench tensions between the Tibetan people and China, and increase instability in world affairs, rather than herald anything like a new era of freedom in the east.

Far from "helping Tibet", the slavish western worshippers of the Dalai Lama are helping to stifle the development of a real, lively movement for liberty and democracy in the Tibetan regions. One author on the Tibetan independence movement argues that "the Dalai Lama's role as ultimate spiritual authority is holding back the political process of democratisation", since "the assumption that he occupies the correct moral ground from a spiritual perspective means that any challenge to his political authority may be interpreted as anti-religious".

At least one reason why the Dalai Lama can pose as "the ultimate spiritual authority" and all-round supreme leader of Tibetans and their future is because influential elements in the west have empowered him to play that role. In doing so, they have been complicit in the infantilisation of the Tibetan people. Tibetans now suffer the double horror of being ruled by undemocratic Chinese officials on one hand, and demeaned by the Dalai Lama and his western supporters on the other.

About this articleClose This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Thursday May 29 2008. It was last updated at 00:27 on June 05 2008.Printable version Send to a friend Share Clip Contact us  larger | smaller ShareClose Digg reddit Google Bookmarks Yahoo! My Web del.icio.us StumbleUpon Newsvine livejournal Facebook BlinkList EmailClose Recipient's email address   Your name   Add a note (optional)

Re: Yoshinogawa: The following essay from the Guardian carried an article by a westerner may help you a bit.  Down with the Dalai LamaWhy do western commentators idolise a celebrity monk who hangs out with Sharon Stone and once guest-edited French Vogue?

All comments (296) Brendan O'Neill guardian.co.uk, Thursday May 29 2008 Article historyHas there ever been a political figure more ridiculous than the Dalai Lama? This is the "humble monk" who forswears worldly goods in favour of living a simple life dressed in maroon robes. Yet in 1992 he guest-edited French Vogue, the bible of the decadent high-fashion classes, which is packed with pictures of the half-starved daughters of the aristocracy modelling skirts and shirts that most of us could never afford.

He claims to be the current incarnation of the Tulkus line of Buddhist masters, who are "exempt from the wheel of death and rebirth". Yet he's best known for hanging out with clueless western celebs like Richard Gere and Sharon Stone (who is still most famous for showing her vagina on the big screen). Stone once introduced the Dalai Lama at a glittering fundraising ball as "Mr Please, Please, Please Let Me Back Into China!"

The Dalai Lama says he wants Tibetan autonomy and political independence. Yet he allows himself to be used as a tool by western powers keen to humiliate China. Between the late 1950s and 1974, he is alleged to have received around $15,000 a month, or $180,000 a year, from the CIA. He has also been, according to the same reporter, "remarkably nepotistic", promoting his brothers and their wives to positions of extraordinary power in his fiefdom-in-exile in Dharamsala, northern India.

He poses as the quirky, giggly, modern monk who once auctioned his Land Rover on eBay for $80,000 and has even done an advert for Apple (quite what skinny white computers have got to do with Buddhism is anybody's guess). Yet in truth he is a product of the crushing feudalism of archaic, pre-modern Tibet, where an elite of Buddhist monks treated the masses as serfs and ruthlessly punished them if they stepped out of line.

The Dalai Lama demands religious freedom. Yet he persecutes a Buddhist sect that worships a deity called Dorje Shugden. He outlawed praying to Dorje Shugden in 1996, and those who defied his writ were thrown out of their jobs, mocked in the streets and even had their homes smashed up by heavy-handed officials from his government-in-exile. When worshippers complained about their treatment, they were told by representatives of the Dalai Lama that "concepts like democracy and freedom of religion are empty when it comes to the wellbeing of the Dalai Lama".

As the Dalai Lama tours Britain, lots of people are asking: why won't Brown receive him at Downing Street? I have a different question: why should Brown, who for all his troubles is still the head of an elected political party, meet with an authoritarian, fame-chasing, Apple-loving monk?

The Dalai Lama has effectively been turned into a cartoon good guy. In America and western Europe, where backward anti-modern sentiments are widespread amongst self-loathing sections of the educated and the elite, the Dalai Lama has been embraced as a living, breathing representative of unsullied goodness. Despite the fact that he advertises Apple, guest-edits Vogue and drives a Land Rover, he is held up as evidence that living the simple eastern life is preferable to, in the words of Philip Rawson, westerners' "gradually more pointless pursuit of material satisfactions". Just as earlier generations of disillusioned aristocrats fell in love with a fictional version of Tibet (Shangri-La), so contemporary un-progressives idolise a fictional image of the Dalai Lama.

Most strikingly, the Dalai Lama is used as a battering ram by western governments in their culture war with China. The reason he is flattered by world leaders and bankrolled by the CIA is not because these institutions care very much for liberty in Tibet, but rather because they want to ratchet up international pressure on their new competitors in world politics: the Chinese. You don't have to be a defender of the authoritarian regime in Beijing (and I most certainly am not) to see that such global sabre-rattling is more likely to entrench tensions between the Tibetan people and China, and increase instability in world affairs, rather than herald anything like a new era of freedom in the east.

Far from "helping Tibet", the slavish western worshippers of the Dalai Lama are helping to stifle the development of a real, lively movement for liberty and democracy in the Tibetan regions. One author on the Tibetan independence movement argues that "the Dalai Lama's role as ultimate spiritual authority is holding back the political process of democratisation", since "the assumption that he occupies the correct moral ground from a spiritual perspective means that any challenge to his political authority may be interpreted as anti-religious".

At least one reason why the Dalai Lama can pose as "the ultimate spiritual authority" and all-round supreme leader of Tibetans and their future is because influential elements in the west have empowered him to play that role. In doing so, they have been complicit in the infantilisation of the Tibetan people. Tibetans now suffer the double horror of being ruled by undemocratic Chinese officials on one hand, and demeaned by the Dalai Lama and his western supporters on the other.