Should the west boycott the Olympics?

[Sulkdodds]

I'm not saying that a claim to independence is necessarily invalidated by the use of force (against civilians or nominal 'innocents') but merely that I wouldn't support the Tamil Tigers, because I don't agree with their methods (targetting civilians). You're listing all these movements as if each one is equivalent, and as if each historical situation is identical, as if the level of oppression with which the seperatist regions are maintained as part of the whole was equal in all instances, and as if the measures of resistance were also the same. They're not, and indeed, without bothering to restrict yourself to areas where majority opinion wants separation, you risk being rendering the idea of seperatist movements entirely arbitrary - random citizens in each piece of any nation could potentially wish to secede, for some bizarre reason.

There may be identifiable ulterior motives behind the promotion of this issue. But it would be somewhat churlish to let that affect your argument for or against the independence of Tibet - slightly distinct from the argument about why you're not supporting all the rest as well. You'd be like a man chastising christmas because we don't give all year round as well.

I think what justifies seperatism is a pretty difficult argument to work out. I remember there being an interesting thread about it some time back - one which I never found the chance to go through properly. I'd tentatively suggest that widespread popular sentiment in favour of seperation - widespread to the point of being a considerable majority - might be good grounds for justification.

EDIT: Sorry if this post seems kinda obfuscatory. I'm trying to be precise, thus cautious.

 

[Dan]

I think that the ulterior motivations of the ones promoting the issue is of supreme importance to the argument for or against it. If the whole movement were a sham built up by the CIA, would that not be relevant?

The Dalai Lama's administration was receiving 1.7 million a year in support from the CIA from 1958 into the 70s. This information was only declassified in recent years. CIA money was spent to train volounteers and fund guerrillas against China. I can only imagine how much support they are receiving now to make as much noise and clamor to discredit China. The CIA had a training camps within the United States where Tibetan guerrillas were equipped and in some cases led by CIA operatives on missions within China. This isn't top secret or crazy stuff, it is all declassified.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFD61538F931A35753C1A96E958260
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8442
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/books/boox071.shtml

If you want some more information on the actual reasons for the sudden media backlash against China, this is a good place to start: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8673.

 

[Sulkdodds]

This is unfortunately unsurprising, and I guess I'll have to take a look at it.

It would be nice to have an accurate way to guage popular support within the province, but in a non-functioning democracy I guess that is difficult.

 

[kirovman]

It's interesting to think that if Greater Tibet were to be granted independence (including land incorporated into surrounding Chinese provinces) and everyone but the Tibetans expelled from there, you'd have the world's least densely populated country next to one of the world's most densely populated countries.

 

[kineaesth]

'The west'?

Since when has 'the west' been able to agree on something of this scale?

 

[Dan]

It's interesting to think that if Greater Tibet were to be granted independence (including land incorporated into surrounding Chinese provinces) and everyone but the Tibetans expelled from there, you'd have the world's least densely populated country next to one of the world's most densely populated countries.

China is far from being the world's most densely populated country and Tibet would definitely not be the least densely populated (look at Greenland).

 

[The Monkey]

China is far from being the world's most densely populated country and Tibet would definitely not be the least densely populated (look at Greenland).

Greenland is not a country, it belongs to Denmark.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I wonder how far it lowers the average population density of the nation in total.

 

[[Matt]]

nope. send your athletes there and allow them to vocally protest to the worlds media.

 

[kirovman]

China is far from being the world's most densely populated country and Tibet would definitely not be the least densely populated (look at Greenland).

It would be much more densely populated overall if they lost Tibet.

Also Greenland isn't much of a country (Danish isn't it?)

Tibet is about 2.5 million sq km.
About 5 or 6 million people.
Pop density of 0.5 people per sq km.

The least densely populated country unless you consider the Faroe islands and Greenland countries.

China, reduced size would be 7 million sq km.
Pop 1.4 billion.
Pop density of 200 people per sq km. I would call that one of the worlds most populated countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

 

[Sulkdodds]

Wow, I really didn't expect you to look it all up. Kirovman never leaves a joke behind.

 

[kirovman]

I like demographics, maps and mead. It's my hobby.

 

[The Monkey]

Pop density of 200 people per sq km. I would call that one of the worlds most populated countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

According to the very link you posted it would place somewhere between 50th and 60th place. Hardly "one of the worlds most populated countries".

 

[kirovman]

Most of the countries above it are small.
Maybe not high ranking compared to all those Belgiums out there. The point of my original post was that there would be a significant disparity between the two neighbouring countries (There's a huge difference between 200 people per sq km and 0.5 people per sq km), but I guess I didn't explicitly state that and for that I apologise a thousand times.

 

[15357]

**** China. Boycott the olympics.

 

[Tyguy]

shave tibet

 

[Robert-]

The Olympics are coming to Vancouver in 2010. It's going to be ****ing packed here.

 

[The Monkey]

I'll be in Vancouver for the 2010 Olympics, mark my words.

 

[Gray Fox]

Hey I'm going there too, so can you post your picture so I can recognize you.

 

[Dan]

I think the West should boycott the 2010 Olympics as well, since Vancouver is mostly populated by Chinese.

 

[elkaebee]

No, no, no, you're all wrong. The real question is whether or not the boycot Olympics the west.

 

[Paulaner]

Olympics are expression of peace and friendship. They should not be boycotted. If you want to punish a government, do it in other ways: stop trading, for example. Stop having western companies invest in China economy. What? Impossible? Human rights vanish in front of money... ;-)

 

[Dan]

Here is something that might interest the few of you that don't by into media hype:

This is from the United States diplomatic relations with China in 1943.

Tibet is as you know regarded by the Chinese as a dependency of China, and the Government of the United States has never taken action in contravention or disregard of that Chinese view. The susceptibilities of the Chinese government are of importance to this country...

http://libtext-dev.library.wisc.edu...S1943China&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=629

 

[Andrew LB]

No, the Olympics should not be boycotted. Jimmy Carter in a long tradition of making extremely foolish choices, disregarded the spirit of the Olympic games and was unsuccessful in making a political point. Actually he made the US look foolish.

The Charter also says:

"The Olympic Charter, in long-standing Rule 51 (3), says, 'No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.'"