h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

NOT TO A MUMMY IN A TIBETAN MONASTERY













M8*

The corollary of that though is that China is so dependent on exports that the outside world has more of a hold on them than ever before.

>>Kea wins the "managing to bring yank-bashing into it" award for this thread, winning within four posts. Well done << Zagreb

*takes a bow*

And Zagreb wins the "don't ever mention anything even remotely negative about the North Americans" Reactionary Award


>>And I just don't believe the West has the political will to really do anything.<< Effers

Me neither.


>>
If that happens we may as well cancel all olympics from now on. I can't stand this link between what China does in Tibet and the Olympics. If the West is serious we should use economic sanctions. The West isn't serious.
<< Effers

Yes, economic sanctions, but sport sanctions and others too. South Africans involved in the struggle against apartheid later said NZ was right to protest against rugby with South Africa not least because it showed that we gave a damn.

>Indeed, a case could be made that the they have more responsibility, given their privileged status.<

John, the reality is that only a very very few athletes at the top of the sport are rich and privileged.

Despite the creeping professionalism that has occurred in the Olympics. The vast vast majority are people are just like you and me, from all over the world. The Olympics gives them a reason, very often to escape their abject position in society. The film for the London Olympics in 2012, emphasised this. And we beat the French and Paris, to get the Olympics, even though no-one gave us any chance.

I live in a fairly poor area of London, and I'm well aware what a boost it has given kids round here, to get involved in sport.



Kea, I think the South African overt apartheid policy was whole different order of horribleness. And we pin pointed our objection through very specific sports like rugby and cricket. That didn't really hurt our sports people becuse they had other countries to play against, who were equally important.

* No, I completely and utterly refute this idea of using the Olympics. If the West is serious lets use proper methods, or face honestly the fact that the vast majority don't really give a damn. *



And I accept I maybe biased because I am a sports fanatic. I would be devastated if we pulled out of the Bejing Olympics. And what the consequences might be for London 2012. I want that to be the best Olympics ever.

>And Zagreb wins the "don't ever mention anything even remotely negative about the North Americans" Reactionary Award

Don't be silly. I never said there was anything fundamentally wrong with criticising America (there isn't), I was simply pointing out that this thread has nothing to do with the USA or its foreign policy and that you dragged it into the debate on the flimsiest of premises (as is common on this site). As for how that makes me "reactionary", I'll have to leave that to the interior of your head.

>The corollary of that though is that China is so dependent on exports that the outside world has more of a hold on them than ever before.

And we rely on their factories and exports. It's a USA-Saudi Arabia thing.

Well, quite, but that was the point you made first and I was giving the other side of it. Granted, so much is imported from China that it may be difficult to forego every single thing they export. But any boycott or sanctions always results in having to go without things you previously relied on or finding other sources - that's pretty much the whole idea.

I don't think it's realistic to talk about boycotts. It's hard to imagine alarm clock factories opening all over the place because of moral objections to China. I agree in principle with the position of the Dalai Lama that constructive engagement with China is the best and only way to influence change. The problem lies in ensuring that the engagement really is constructive and doesn't, for example, give greater impetus to environmental damage, abusive labour practises and so on.

Yes China should get out of Tibet- but so should British retail-
Any idea how many products are on sale in that venerable institution Marks and Spencer originating from China- boycott Chinese products and start doing someting really useful- stop trading- How hard is it to get this idea ???? Everything is linked- ten thousand pairs of shoes = 1 Tank etc...

How many products these days do not have chinese made parts in them?

asda 1345, tesco 26, morrisons all of them-they are australian or british depending on their ads sainsbury's depends on what Jamie says.

>>
Don't be silly. I never said there was anything fundamentally wrong with criticising America (there isn't), I was simply pointing out that this thread has nothing to do with the USA or its foreign policy and that you dragged it into the debate on the flimsiest of premises (as is common on this site).
<< Zagreb

You think it's not valid to compare China's relationship to Tibet with other countries that invade land not their own?

>>
Kea, I think the South African overt apartheid policy was whole different order of horribleness.
<<

Effers, I get that they are different situations but are you saying that what is happening in Tibet isn't bad enough to warrant sports sanctions? How so?

1. Because I'm a sports fanatic and want to see Brits winning golds in Bejing and I don't want the London 2012 Olympics clucked.

2. Errrr I think it's only number 1

If you'd wanted to make it stretch to two points, you could have spread your first point over two by not lumping everything together like that.

See:

1. Because I'm a sports fanatic and want to see Brits winning golds in Bejing and

2.I don't want the London 2012 Olympics clucked.

3. Errrr I think it's only those two.

Or you could have padded it out even more:

1. Because I'm a sports fanatic and

2. I want to see Brits winning golds in Bejing and

3.I don't want the London 2012 Olympics clucked.

4. Errrr I think it's only those three.

Morning Effers

The old Soviet Block occupied the Baltic States for years. In the 1990's Estonia got its Independance from Russian domination, even though by that time the Kremlin had achieved about 40% of the Estonian population in the form of native Russians. This was done without a revolution, and I bet the Kremlin never believed that Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania would EVER be free of communist domination.

Things do change!

"You think it's not valid to compare China's relationship to Tibet with other countries that invade land not their own?"

No, because the Americans invaded Iraq, knocked over a dictatorship and installed an elected government (which admittedly barely controls much of the country) and intend to leave a sovereign state behind them. The Chinese invaded, declared Tibet an integral part of China, annexed it and refuse to give it any autonomy let alone independence.

It's not the same situation, no matter how much your silly union-bar view of the world would like it to be.

And please don't bother replying to this post. I know exactly what you're going to come out with and I can't be bothered "debating" the issue with you because you won't budge. So end of.

Interesting article in today's Guraniad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/25/china.tibet

Free Xinjiang!

And there was I thinking it was Xizang.

The simplest answer would have been that China should NEVER have been allowed to host the Olympics at any point UNTIL they could demonstrate a better human rights record.

But as usual the Olympics committee was swayed in some way...