Spring Break
The reason for the pro-China protest
By: Cong Jin and 70 others
Issue date: 4/16/08 Section: Letters
Last update: 4/16/08 at 4:22 PM EST
Last update: 4/16/08 at 4:22 PM EST
We are 72 members of the Chinese community who participated in the voluntary protest against the "Pro-Tibet" vigil April 9. The purpose of sending this letter is not to argue, nor to educate, but rather to let the Duke community understand perceptions of Chinese community on this issue in order to encourage more and effective communications.
We are writing in response to your news report "Pro-Tibet, pro-China" on April 10. The article failed to mention the reason behind the voluntary gathering of 400 Chinese people in front of the Chapel to protest a vigil participated in by about 15 people. Also, we want to clarify some facts during the protest.
On the morning of April 8, the Duke Human Rights Coalition drummed up an event on Facebook. The event was described as "Forget the Olympic Torch Relay for China's genocide Olympics, join in on the relay of the Tibetan Flag on Duke's campus and a short Candle Vigil at the Duke Chapel," and was to be held on the same day when the Beijing Olympic Torch was relayed in San Francisco. Their claim of a "genocide Olympics" was groundless and spiteful. Moreover, they wrote in the blurb "For over 50 years, China has occupied a formerly autonomous country, Tibet." However, in Chinese history, Tibet was incorporated into China during the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368). It is a fact that no nation in the world has ever formally recognized Tibet as an independent country. Therefore, the vigil severely denigrated the Beijing Olympics and the vigil's description distorted the historical truth that Tibet belongs to China. More than 400 Chinese people voluntarily gathered to speak up and to counter attempts to mislead the public. Our chanting of "liars, liars" was not against any individual words the "Pro-Tibet" protestors said, but against the collective action they performed-their propaganda of "Genocide Olympics" and "a formerly autonomous country, Tibet." Our protest was not to intimidate them but to express our disagreement with their intentions to mix politics with the Olympics and to boycott the Beijing Olympics with political excuses based on distorted historical facts.
We are writing in response to your news report "Pro-Tibet, pro-China" on April 10. The article failed to mention the reason behind the voluntary gathering of 400 Chinese people in front of the Chapel to protest a vigil participated in by about 15 people. Also, we want to clarify some facts during the protest.
On the morning of April 8, the Duke Human Rights Coalition drummed up an event on Facebook. The event was described as "Forget the Olympic Torch Relay for China's genocide Olympics, join in on the relay of the Tibetan Flag on Duke's campus and a short Candle Vigil at the Duke Chapel," and was to be held on the same day when the Beijing Olympic Torch was relayed in San Francisco. Their claim of a "genocide Olympics" was groundless and spiteful. Moreover, they wrote in the blurb "For over 50 years, China has occupied a formerly autonomous country, Tibet." However, in Chinese history, Tibet was incorporated into China during the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368). It is a fact that no nation in the world has ever formally recognized Tibet as an independent country. Therefore, the vigil severely denigrated the Beijing Olympics and the vigil's description distorted the historical truth that Tibet belongs to China. More than 400 Chinese people voluntarily gathered to speak up and to counter attempts to mislead the public. Our chanting of "liars, liars" was not against any individual words the "Pro-Tibet" protestors said, but against the collective action they performed-their propaganda of "Genocide Olympics" and "a formerly autonomous country, Tibet." Our protest was not to intimidate them but to express our disagreement with their intentions to mix politics with the Olympics and to boycott the Beijing Olympics with political excuses based on distorted historical facts.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 40
kiki soso
posted 4/16/08 @ 10:12 AM EST
The problem with this post is that there is ambiguity around the "Tibet is part of China" statement. You have to admit that it's, at the least, a contentious issue. (Continued…)
Cong Jin
posted 4/16/08 @ 10:24 AM EST
First, correct an error of number counting here, including myself there are total 71 Chinese people signed for this letter. Second, it is promised yesterday by the editor that all names of the 71 Chinese people who contributed to this letter should be acknowledged on the online version of the Chronicle. (Continued…)
Please post the list
posted 4/16/08 @ 10:45 AM EST
Please do post the list of people who think it's OK to shout down and silence people with whom you disagree. We want to know who to avoid.
jb
posted 4/16/08 @ 11:07 AM EST
Taiwan is the 'real' China! Red China is the 'fake' one!
Rui
posted 4/16/08 @ 11:19 AM EST
I'd say the NY Times article is problematic, that is probably why it doesn't appear on an academic journal. :) For example, it neglects the fact that Tibet belongs to ROC during 1912-1949. (Continued…)
Thomas Sutpen
posted 4/16/08 @ 12:10 PM EST
Indeed; this is a contentious issue, and one that most people fail to understand fully. It is not as simple as "Free Tibet - Tibet had no relations/loyalties with China prior to Mao's revolution," but it is also not as simple as "Tibet has always been a part of China. (Continued…)
Duke08
posted 4/16/08 @ 1:05 PM EST
The letter says:
"Our chanting of 'liars, liars' was not against any individual words the 'Pro-Tibet' protestors said, but against the collective action they performed-their propaganda of 'Genocide Olympics' and 'a formerly autonomous country, Tibet. (Continued…)
We need the truth
posted 4/16/08 @ 1:18 PM EST
Chinese people did not shut down their voice, we have the right to tell the truth to public. And it is natural that the voice of truth will always cover the voice of lie. (Continued…)
To Duke08
posted 4/16/08 @ 1:33 PM EST
Obviously, you can not represent the people hold neutral views on this issue.
Rudy
posted 4/16/08 @ 3:17 PM EST
"Our protest was not to intimidate them"
I call BS on this one. I wasn't there but I read comments from those who were and I watched the youtube video on it. (Continued…)
Post a Comment