一条Comment

上数理方程的时候无聊，上网找西藏的最新动态。CNN的新闻据说有导向性，而且仿佛也没最新进展——它说他们不让进。新闻来源居然是游客、Chinese blogger和……饭否。多年不去的Economist终于再一次打开了。据说它是目前获批留在拉萨的唯一外媒，这个批准是在骚乱之前申请到的，看来做新闻的还真要有先见之明啊！

没想到在文章后面的评论里看到这一条，很不错的作文，很有GRE风格。论证充分，条理清晰，适合我这样的初学者学习。

I am from mainland China and I believe my view represent what most Chinese think on this:

First of all, most Chinese, just as most people in other part of the world, just don’t give a damn. There is a big chance that only 1 out of 10 people you ask in the streets of New York, London, Sydney could tell where Tibet is. It’s the same in Beijing and Shanghai, people know where Tibet is but really don’t care anything there. Who cares Tibet as most are occupied in make a living or making a fortune in a such insecure world.

Second, Chinese believe Tibet is part of China. The philosophy is what it was is what it is, as origin of most countries. There is no point to discuss the history of China or we can only say the people from other part of China has conquered the place called Tibet now thousand of years ago and they claim it then. You can say it is similar to how Anglo travelled great distance and conquered the North America and Australia mainland more then 200 years ago and claim it, but I think the people from other part of China is superior in two ways, first, the other part of China and Tibet are on a same mainland and closed connected, second, we look very alike and is from a same race. If you say Tibet is not part of China, why you consider Shanghai is part of China? They are in the same situation thousand of years ago.

Third, as to autonomy or independency, it’s derisory to raise this. Why would anyone support the ‘autonotomy’ of Tibet just because they think Tibetan is not Chinese and then Tibet should not be governed by CCP (and Han Chinese)? First, Chinese is not a ethnical group but a citizen group. And please don�€™t talk about Han Chinese, Han is just the ethnicity representation of Chinese but itself never a pure ethnical group, it has merged all ethnical group in the soil of China thousands of years ago including Tibet. We can only say Tibet is ethnical group of a smaller place compared to mainland China but not part of Chinese. As the the governance of CCP there, I believe anyone who accept the legitimacy of CCP in other part of China should accept its legitimacy in Tibet. If anyone is talking about CCP’s illegitimacy in China, it should be democracy but not from a ethnicity point of view. Can I say, because the people in Shanghai is a ethnical group of a smaller place (it really is), so Shanghainess should strive for “autonomy”? Anyone support that? Please anyone support the autonomy of Tibet support the autonomy of Shanghai and tell eveyone that.