Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I was really impressed by the top answer until I read this statement.

"I mean, the Chinese government has also forced Tibetans to build a massive amount of greenhouses on the Tibetan plateau. Those Tibetans have no time to go to temples for worshipping any more, instead, they have to work in the greenhouses taking care of tomatoes. This is why Dalai Lama is not so happy to hear this."

What??




You should post the following paragraph as well:

"As a result, the average vegetable price in Tibet has reduced by 90% over the past decade and they don’t have to import vegetables from nearby provinces anymore. Most of the Tibetans can finally afford to eat watermelons. Who doesn’t like eating watermelons?

You know that most Tibetans historically only eat yak meat, milk, cheese, and bread? They couldn’t grow anything in such a harsh climate. Only monks could have the luxury to eat vegetables. Now it is the solid proof that the Chinese government didn’t just destroy temples in Tibetan culture but helped them eat vegetables and fruits."


The logic is a bit dubious. The Chinese had a pretty crappy diet when they invaded Tibet. Whether the China invaded or not, the food quality would have risen, just like most of the rest of the planet.


It's definitely an impressive response, but it also looks like the sort of state sponsored responses typical of Chinese propaganda. That's not to say it's inaccurate, just biased.


The comment basically says that China has forced the Tibetans into slavery. Is that typical of Chinese propaganda?

> the Chinese government has also forced Tibetans to build a massive amount of greenhouses...they have to work in the greenhouses taking care of tomatoes.


If you are interested in seeing what Tibet is like today (literally) this vlogger is currently travelling through it (some of the farthest corners) in a camper: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPCo6WJCb0aXShfcDDUffg/vid...

This episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2BtvivdbOw may be relevant to how "forced" is used in the original comment. The video shows villagers collecting trash off the sides of a remote highway to keep the land clean. On the face of it the video looks like a volunteer/community service outing but villagers are actually paid. It is not the most pleasant work, but they look happy to be doing it (and probably do not mind keeping their environment clean). The Quora answerer could have used "forced" to describe the same scene out of a sense of sarcasm (since everything is presumably "forced" there) and he would likely be tickled that this brings slavery into the discussion.


What do you mean when you say "since everything is presumably 'forced' there"?

If it is forced labor, even if paid, the distinction between forced labor and slavery is trivial compared to the distinction between forced labor and freedom.


And there are other chilling mentions of the government forcing citizens to do things, reeducation camps, and surveillance throughout the article (all listed as good things).


Did Chinese government ever mention liberty as a value?

Their story is peace, satiety, social harmony, collective achievement and glory — as long as subjects conform.


I think to many Chinese people, being forced to do something that is perceived as for their own good is seen as a good thing. It's kind of in the Asian culture that the end justifies the means, as opposed to Western culture where you are free to do as you choose but you bear the consequences.

Not saying it's wrong, just a different perspective.


> being forced to do something that is perceived as for their own good is seen as a good thing

I sometimes wonder if Los Angeles commuters would actually be better off and happier if the government (somehow) had the legal right to force us all to use buses and rail instead of individual cars.


The government(s) were the ones who built the roads and mandated minimum parking lots.


Absolutely, you're right. I'm just wondering what would happen if the government reversed course.


Well China's national anthem makes a point about her people not being slaves... so much for that fantasy. That said, it's still a great accomplishment being able to provide cheap produce (that we take for granted) to the middle class in Tibet, a region that's not known for it.


Yes. It seems like it's not the kind of thing a government should be saying because you're from the west. Forcing someone to do something that betters their lives is not seen as bad or propagandized as bad in China.

The basic point in the post is "Look, those Tibetans no longer waste their time worshiping gods and are instead working hard to better their lives thanks to the Chinese Government."


Tibet used to be a feudal serfdom with the Lamas lording over everyone else. Most Dalai Lamas were murdered by their rivals for control over the country. So yeah, of course the Lamas are upset that they're no longer in power.


I'm entirely certain this is tongue-in-cheek humour playing on western stereotypes about China.


Anyone with even a basic knowledge of farming knows how specious this statement is.


There is also: "Some of these Uyghurs, Kazakhs are sent to the reeducation camps and they are forced to learn Mandarin Chinese and the latest drip irrigation techniques to save water and reduce costs."


As well as "Local fishermen and farmers are actually forced to learn the latest solar technology and sustainable techniques provided by professionals from the local Chinese government." I'm not sure if the author is using the term forced the same way a normal english speaker would use it.


"forced", i suspect is being used in this context to mean "not given an alternative occupation".

China has strict rules on what you can do and where you live. Think of it as a passport - a social passport, similar to a social security number. To enrol your child in school, they need this social passport. To get subsidies or to work in gov't, you need this social passport.

By threatening to take it away, the central gov't can "force" people to do what they want. It's not slavery, since there's no physical coersion (as far as i m told). But not doing it means losing out a lot of stuff - and this may even affect other people related to you (for example, your relatives). This puts social pressure from your peers and relatives to make you conform - as they may not be as willing to make sacrifices for any idealism, even if you are.


Sounds like sarcasm to me...


When I read this, I think back at the chaos in Hong Kong right now. I wonder what's going to happen in the weekend?




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: