 |
 |
On Sunday, I witnessed unpleasant exchanges outside the British Museum in London between one crowd with Chinese flags and another with Tibet flags. What stuck in my mind particularly was one Chinese man shouting 'Tibet is none of your business'.. so is what's happening in Tibet an internal Chinese matter? Frankly no, it's not, particularly when human rights activists like Hu Jia are being jailed inside China for attempting 'to subvert the state’s political and socialist systems' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7327763.stm). As critical geographers, we should be prepared to interrogate critically the actions, statements, arguments given by our governments (not just China) as well as by non-governmental actors (including pro-Tibet activists). And we should be prepared to speak out against state violence, human rights violations, political detentions, torture, cultural and poltical oppression - all of which have been documented in Tibet and China as a whole. If everything was fine and dandy for people in Tibet, China, Palestine, Burma, Darfur, etc. there would be no protests, riots and intifadas inside nor would there be campaigns, protests and petitions outside. And when the Chinese government is calling the Dalai Lama a terrorist (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3607668.ece) you do have to wonder.. Adam -- Adam Ramadan DPhil Research Student School of Geography, University of Oxford -- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yannan Ding" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:08 PM Subject: Re: Help me support Team Tibet! Dear all, Since the debate on Tibet has affectted my regular life, this will be the last reply until there is a new in-depth discussion. This mail is mainly in response to Mr. Wood who had circulated a lot of mails, among which 2 began with my name 'Yannan'. Given the 2 are quite similar to each other, I will only reply once. Please refer to the PDF file in the appendix for Mr. Wood's words. No modification was made except for background colors added. You can clearly see Mr. Wood's logic from the sentences marked with colors: First, without any sound reasoning Mr. Wood related my idea with the the government position; second, he was suspicious of my intelligent ability of critical thinking; third, he taunted me with a weird sense of humor, which to me is quite ridiculous; forth, he denied the possibility for me to get 'truth' (the word I have never used ever since) but claimed he would 'speak truth to power' with full pride; last, he gave a really low estimation on me while at the same time chose to be selectively blind on my efforts to bring the discussion back to a rational track. Any discussion based on the logic above is not likely to generate any meaningful result other than repeating with rehtoric skills. This is another reason why I decide to pause here. I have to admit that I just got to know the meaning of the word 'intimidation' yesterday. Since Mr. Wood had suffered from the 'intimidation' of the email which I sent on March 31, I would like to ask him to circulate the mail around this list. I guess Mr. Wood won't refuse since he used to do such thing like circulating personal mails around the public. Let's do it again, and let the community of Critical Geographers see what kind of 'intimidation' my email could have made. Is it fair? We have gone too far from the start point. No matter going back to details of the riot on March 14 in Lhasa, or being transcending to discuss the geo-politics of the formation of modern world, including the region of Tibet, would be more constructive. With respect, Yannan Ding Quoting D F J Wood <[log in to unmask]>: > Yannan - I wish at least you would recognise that what you are doing is > as much 'manipulation' as what others are doing. Or alternatively, to > recognise the possibility that you might be wrong, or that this issue is > not one of there being a correct view as opposed to a manipulated view, > but a contested set of knowledges, practices and politics. > > I acknowledge my partiality and my ethical basis is clear and open to > criticism. You however refuse to even understand that your position is > one that reflects any kind of potentially contestation at all. You talk > about 'facts' as if they were obvious things (which was the point of my > intervention, not to replace your 'facts' with mine). You talk about > others who 'manipulate', but you apparently have access to the truth. > > The Tibetan independence movement is not a sinister plot against China. > It is a group or people who believe they have a right to > self-determination. Unless and until you acknowledge that this is at the > very least a potentially valid position, you do not even have the basis > for engagement. > > All you are doing is saying 'You Are Wrong' to anyone who disagrees > with your politics - which, as I have already pointed out, seem to be > remarkably congruent with the position of the current Chinese > government, whose authority to decide on 'the facts' we are apparently > not allowed to question. > > David. > > PS: Jon Cloke - a good analysis until it was marred with a cheap > argument near the end. We happen to be debating Tibet and China. This > does not mean that the people who are doing so are unaware of or not > involved in Palestine or any other situation. In fact academics spend > rather more time generally debating and encouraging action on Palestine > than they do on Tibet, as you well know. The 'Why not here?' argument is > a really good one when it comes to genuinely ignored atrocities (like > the millions killed in the Congo in the 1990s for example), but not for > the most well-publicised ongoing occupation in the world (that of > Palestine). > > Now the Uighur situation is interesting - I've been following events in > Xinjiang (as much as I can) for a while - and the Chinese state have > been trying in recent years to do exactly what you suggest, as Russia > did with Chechnya, to link any kind of seperatism to international > Islamic terrorism in order to gain US approval (or to deflect US > opposition) - as they did with the apparent revelation of a Uighur plot > agains the Olympics recently. I am sure Yannan can give us the 'correct' > version of the Uighur situation too though... > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: A forum for critical and radical geographers >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yannan Ding >> Sent: 08 April 2008 11:01 >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Help me support Team Tibet! >> >> Dear Ms. Putnam, >> First I have to say sorry to you for mistaking your gender. >> Now we all see not only the place but also the name, term or >> features can be complex. Example: it's very easy to evoke the >> feeling of suppression or invasion when the two terms of >> 'Tibet' and 'China' >> are used seperately and parallelly. Isn't it? >> However, if the intention was to talk about the relation >> between national entities, the majority in China is Han, >> rather than 'Chinese'. Unfortunately, the latter was more >> often used in the Western language instead of the former. >> There are 56 different nations in China but not a single >> nation called Chinese. China is refering to the sovereign >> state, and in this line I used the term of central and local >> government instead of Chinese and Tibetan government. I hope >> this could have answered the first question. >> Second, please refer to the context of my argument. It was >> Mr. Wood who initiated the debate on 'imposed' facts. However, >> he didn't provide us with the evidence from which he draw the >> conclusion of 'recognised internationally'. I respect >> independent opinions but I won't respect presumed fallacies. >> We have seen enough the intention to manipulate the public >> opinion (as here on this mailing list) time after time on the >> base of problematic facts. >> >> >> >> With respect, >> Yannan Ding >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Quoting Heather Putnam <[log in to unmask]>: >> >>> Dear Dr. Ying, >>> Looking forward to reading your reply. I think it would be >>> interesting for the conversation to remain on the FORUM. >>> (It is Ms. Putnam, rather than Mr.) >>> Thanks, >>> H. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ---- >>> From: Yannan Ding <[log in to unmask]> >>> To: Heather Putnam <[log in to unmask]> >>> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2008 5:06:12 PM >>> Subject: Re: Help me support Team Tibet! >>> >>> Dear Mr. Putnam, >>> I got your mail. I will reply to you later, since I have a lesson >>> tonight at 7 pm. >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> Yannan Ding >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting Heather Putnam <[log in to unmask]>: >>> >>>> Mr. Ding, >>>> Now I am really curious--can you tell us two things: >>>> >>>> 1) What your own idea that the 'imposed attitude' is indeed held by >>>> the people is based on? I imagine that you are both right, that >>>> people on the ground there in Tibet both do agree and and >> do not with >>>> 'official' or 'centralized' attitudes. Maybe we can have a more >>>> nuanced conversation about this. We are geographers. We know that >>>> place is always complex. >>>> 2) Why is the 'split of the official and public opinion' >> 'an irony', >>>> as you say? >>>> >>>> Cheers! >>>> Heather Putnam >>>> >>>> ________________________________________________________ >>>> Heather R. Putnam >>>> PhD Student, Geography >>>> The University of Kansas >>>> www.geog.ku.edu >>>> My blog: heatherandavaga.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> Don't wait for strangers to remind you of your duty, you have a >>>> conscience and a spirit for that. >>>> All the good you do must come from your own initiative. >>>> -Popul Vuh >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ---- >>>> From: Yannan Ding <[log in to unmask]> >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2008 3:45:58 PM >>>> Subject: Re: Help me support Team Tibet! >>>> >>>> Dear Mr, Wood, >>>> Glad to hear from you, since I didn't get any reply from >> you since >>>> the last time when I questioned you how could you relate my >> email to >>>> 'the official message from the Chinese imperial hegemony'. Perhaps >>>> you need time to collect information that I might be under control >>>> from someone representing the 'imperial hegemony', I thought. One >>>> weeks has passed, could you please prove to me, and to all the >>>> members on this list, your inference? If you can't, will you admit >>>> that you were doing something unreasonable and unreliable? >>>> By the way, I am also interested in your definition of >> 'recognised >>>> nternationally as a sovereign nation'. I would appreciate very much >>>> if you can provide us with official documents to support >> your oppinon. >>>> Please don't tell me the 'imposed' attitutde is not the one held by >>>> the people, that would only be a lie, or in another case, >> proving the >>>> split of the official and public oppinion, which in itself an irony. >>>> I would also like to congratulate you on talking about >> 'whatever the >>>> imposed facts on the ground'. Believe me that I understand the >>>> feeling of moral supriority, but I was really astonished that as a >>>> British gentelman you would admit such a dillema in your identity. >>>> Does that mean what you claimed is not the real intention >> of your heart? >>>> >>>> >>>> With respect, >>>> Yannan Ding >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Quoting D F J Wood <[log in to unmask]>: >>>> >>>>> And if you want to be 'more reliable', you might also like to stop >>>>> refering to the Tibetan government as 'local' and the Chinese >>>>> government as 'central'. The Tibetan government was and is >>>>> recognised internationally as a sovereign nation under occupation, >>>>> whatever the imposed facts on the ground. >>>>> >>>>> David. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: A forum for critical and radical geographers >>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yannan Ding >>>>>> Sent: 07 April 2008 15:15 >>>>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>>>> Subject: Re: Help me support Team Tibet! >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> One fact I would like to point out: there was NO civil war >>>>>> involving the local government in Lhasa and the central >> government >>>>>> in year 1949, which was quoted in the email we got. >>>>>> So far as I have read, the battle of Changdu was broken >> on Oct. 6, >>>>>> 1950. By the year of 1949, CPC was still under civil war with KMT >>>>>> in some parts of south China. >>>>>> I do hope the author of that email and its alike could be more >>>>>> reliable. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>> Yannan Ding >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Quoting Andrew Law <[log in to unmask]>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Friend,=0D=0A=0D=0AI just signed up as a Team Tibet >>>>>> supporter at >>>>>>> www.= supportteamtibet.org. I hope you will also take this >>>>>>> important action to h= elp Tibet! Click here to join: >>>>>>> www.supportteamtibet.org/supporter/new.=0D= >>>>>>> =0A=0D=0ATibet has been occupied by China since 1949. >> Human rights >>>>>>> abuses= are widespread in Tibet, and thousands of Tibetans >>>>>> flee their >>>>>>> homeland ev= ery year as refugees.=0D=0A=0D=0ATeam Tibet is >>>>>> using the >>>>>>> Beijing 2008 Olym= pics to focus a spotlight on China, pressing >>>>>>> for meaningful change in Tibe= t. At its core, the Team >> is made up >>>>>>> of Tibetan athletes in exile who dream= of participating in >>>>>> the Olympics >>>>>>> alongside other nations. They are suppor= ted by a movement of >>>>>>> individuals everywhere who believe in a political sol= ution to >>>>>>> Tibet\'s occupation and want their voices to be heard in >>>>>> support= of >>>>>>> that goal.=0D=0A=0D=0AJoin Team Tibet today, and help us >>>>>> make history= >>>>>>> in 2008! Click here to become a supporter now: >>>>>>> http://supportteamtibet.or= >>>>>>> g/supporter/new.=0D=0A=0D=0ASincerely,=0D=0AAndrew Law >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Yannan Ding >>>>>> Doctoral student >>>>>> Institute for Social and Economic Geography KU Leuven Belgium >>>>>> >>>>>> Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Yannan Ding >>>> Doctoral student >>>> Institute for Social and Economic Geography KU Leuven Belgium >>>> >>>> Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> _____________________________________________________________________ >>>> _______________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one >>>> month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. >>>> http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Yannan Ding >>> Doctoral student >>> Institute for Social and Economic Geography KU Leuven Belgium >>> >>> Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________________________ >> _____________________ >>> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of >>> Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. >>> http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com >> >> >> >> -- >> Yannan Ding >> Doctoral student >> Institute for Social and Economic Geography KU Leuven Belgium >> >> Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm >> > > -- Yannan Ding Doctoral student Institute for Social and Economic Geography KU Leuven Belgium Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm