人就是这样，多数情况在周围环境的影响下限制了个人的思考空间。如高考进入务实的学校，毕业进入务实高薪但叔叔阿姨为主的安逸机构，几年后结婚生仔，就真可能忘记了自己当年的梦想。因此作为很难改变社会大势并有大志的个体，选择一个有理想和想象力的环境，要比选择一个务实的环境更重要。毕竟，务实代表着追寻近期利益（如高收入）， 在近期利益不断实现的同时，可能因缺乏长期战略而迷失方向，未能与时俱进。 就如企业CEO一样，过于注重短期收入或盈利，而忽视企业长期规划或业务模式，从而无法适应经济环境的变化，可能使企业丧失了核心竞争力，无法避免被淘汰的结果。

今天上午参加北京汽车展。车花样繁多，不过很多参观者跟我类似，为汽车公司的不争气感到惋惜 – 他们的新车远比不上车模吸引人。所以很多爱好摄影的文艺青年，见到车模就拍，全然不记得车模是那个公司的。车模也配合，看到象我这样扛着大相机的，纷纷朝我摆pose，仿佛明天就要上电视一样。

发现车模中最吸引人的是身材瘦长，打扮得比较妖艳的波浪长发女孩，服装以亮色为主，不见得是美女。淑女，奥菲斯女， 女老板，夜总会女，站街女，车间女，田地女显然在此不受欢迎，即使西施站在劳斯莱斯旁也不见得多耀眼。如果说奥菲斯女可以靠智慧与敬业取胜，夜总会女可以靠昏暗的灯光掩盖缺点，站街女可以靠衣服的耗布量及浓妆取胜，则车模需要身材，样子，妖气，服装和pose结合得很好才能吸引眼球。

相对而言，男模很少，让我某女同事很失望。不过我还是抓拍了几个仅有的男模。唯一有独立男模的车来自雪铁龙，该男模看到我拍照不仅异常激动。

我喜欢的车，多半在中国还没销售。

最后一张图来自中国一家独立汽车设计公司的模型，旨在倡导SUV跑车理念，车名叫武锋。

法国是个比较特殊的国家。欧洲大革命的先驱，擅长文学艺术奢侈品色情饮食，但科技落后于德美英，对外国人不友好，还比较自傲。一旦发生战争，如二战，法国往往口号喊得响但动真格时就疲软。因此巴黎街头混混多，地铁秩序差，新年烧车是家常便饭，在西方发达国家中也是与其他国家文化上最格格不入的国家了。这次巴黎骚乱，固然有法国政治倾向的问题，也有其军警能力的问题 – 记得巴黎的军警干瘦白嫩清秀穿紧身衣，都貌似uniform的模特或公关，与英德威武严肃的警察完全不同。

本次西藏骚乱中，西方很多国家都在背地捣鬼，但中国民众一直抓着法国不放。我相信有三个原因，

l            法国的确做得过分，政府公开表态，军警不能控制局势；

l            法国缺乏战略，尽管英美背地里可能作了更多坏事，但他们知道怎么与中国打交道，当面一套（如参加开幕式或闭幕式）背后一套（经济军事上支持达赖）；

l            法国好捏，类似广电总局捏汤唯，因其科技实力媒体实力有限和温柔的个性的关系，导致抵制成本低。90年代中国曾因为法国卖军火给台湾而关掉广州领事馆，使法国很快‘屈膝投降’。即法国是典型的雷声大，但吃软怕硬的主。

不管本次中国民众抵制家乐福是否有理，很显然是有成效的。法国政界与企业，乃至媒体纷纷对中国示爱，就像装嗲过头的二奶发现大款要飞而突然悔改一样。所以，家乐福可能成了中国民众抗议法国的牺牲品。

不过，今天看到两则新闻让我再次非常气愤

l            巴黎授予达赖及胡佳荣誉市民称号；

l            家乐福五一三天降价促销，包括服装厨具类满500送250。

以上两点再一次证明了法国人的超现实浪漫主义，也说明其斗智斗勇的能力实在让人不敢恭维。花大力气跟这样一来的国家斗,俨然缺乏成就感,有欺软怕硬的嫌疑!

我认为巴黎人民有自己的权利决定荣誉市民的授予。但时间选择的无比愚蠢。如果法国真心同中国修复关系，则完全不应在此挑拨中国政府与人民的早已紧绷的神经。如果法国想同中国对立，则其目标可以超额完成。但我实在看不出选择这个时机使法国得到的好处能否超出为此付出的代价。

至于家乐福降价，似乎正符合了部分中国人关于家乐福想看中国人的笑话的呼声。送250也让人抓到了把柄 – 250代表傻子，代表了家乐福对中国民众的不屑。我相信这些不一定是家乐福的本意，但自己的小辫子这么容易暴露出来，被人抓住就不足为奇了。如果我是家乐福，我就不去做大规模的宣传，低调些，博得部分人的同情心，大家的愤怒可能就逐渐消去了。我更不会用250这么敏感的字眼。不过从务实的角度看，如果确有需求，5.1去家乐福购买袜子炒锅还比较实惠，自己占了便宜，又加重了家乐福的亏损，何乐不为呢。但前提是你必须只购买价格低于成本的商品，才能确保没被家乐福赚到钱。

MSN上放眼望去，一片红，尽管我觉得’红心+China’有点走秀的嫌疑，因为太表面了。周一远在新加坡的高中老同学告诉我加红心，被我贬为‘愤青’。不过接下来无数人让我加红心，实在受不了了，索性就被迫加了。接下来又有人提议我把CHINA变成China, 这我就不答应了。先不说China与CHINA并无本质区别，再说CHINA代表台独就太离谱了。据我的了解，台独巴不得自己跟China没有任何关系呢，才有一些国企把中华xx改成台湾xx的先例。所以把CHINA说成台独只能表现了自己对形式的过分追求和对台独的肤浅理解。

相对而言，漫书同学就更惨了，被大学同学逼迫必须表态：是支持ZD还是反对ZD. 都三十几的人了，怎么还跟红卫兵似的！

最近沸沸扬扬的抵制家乐福事件，我一直作为旁观者密切关注。抵制也好，不抵制也好，都有道理，也都有副作用，都是个人选择，不觉得哪个一定对或不对。但昨天开始陆续收到关于法国政府2000万美元资助家乐福的消息，我不禁火冒三丈。首先，这个决定貌似不符合西方发达国家政府的行为标准，国内政府用得更多些，尤其是关于最好踩死人，法国电视等着报道等内容似乎太幼稚了。我质问一个朋友，他的回答是To lie is to mislead someone else, but if the objective is justified, it is not to mislead, therefore a story without proof can hardly be called a lie. 这个逻辑我非常熟悉，网上一直有人宣称‘爱国无罪’。这也是个典型的‘绝对正确‘或‘绝对错误’的观点。如果爱国就绝对正确，那么招引八国联军侵略的义和团就是要被大家赞扬的了，文革时的红卫兵也是中国最杰出的一代了，因为他们骨子里一定都爱国。西方也一样，ZD分子一定认为自己在从事一项崇高的事业，CNN也认为自己在试图解放中国的13亿人民，他们撒几个小慌是不是大家也该原谅了？

其他我报怀疑态度的新闻还包括，如家乐福該公關人員稱，LVMH的一個大老闆確有資助過達賴，但家樂福只有極少股份遭LVMH持有，家樂福並非LVMH的子公司。LV上海總部公關人員稱，中國網民的行動，不會影響LV的銷售情況：畢竟LV產品定位是高端人士，在網絡上發帖聲稱抵制的只是普通的消費大眾！当然，我并不否认上述描述可能客观存在，但相信99.99999%的人只是转发，而没有核实。最近西方部门民众对中国西藏问题抱怀疑态度的人，应该也类似，盲目相信媒体而没有自己思考。

我对抵制的观点很明确：

l            抵制不抵制是个人行为，文明和谐社会的标志是允许不同的声音，不要随便给不同意见者扣帽子。最近有个类似的例子，就是DUKE的中国学生王千源发表了与其他中国学生不同的观点。DUKE发起了支持中国与支持ZD的示威，她试图在现场让双方沟通，并因为‘讲英文‘，而被狂贬为卖国贼。我DUKE的一个朋友说：“她自认为是政治天才，迟早去哈佛肯尼迪学院，所以利用这次机会，把自己打造成中间调解人形象，为自己积累政治资本，吸引老美的眼球。不过所作所为被中国学生认为是叛国行为，所以现在名声很臭。她实际上也没支持藏独，行为比较恶心而已。”其实我还是很同情她的，作为一个个体，她有权利决定自己想什么说什么，包括支持或不支持ZD. 至于调节中间人，也不是坏事。据说DUKE的示威活动效果不好，因为每次支持ZD的人一说话，中国学生就喊liar阻止其说话。作为普通的西方大学生，有支持ZD思想也正常，因为他们从小受的教育就如此。所以有机会多沟通绝对是好事。DUKE的中国留学生犯了跟国内人一样的错误，将自己的意见强加给别人，而不是寻找合适的方式解决问题。

l            诚实是做人的基本准则。不管出于什么目的，撒谎都是不能接受的。通过撒谎才能实现的目标，往往让人怀疑其不可告人的真实的目的。几年前曾发生的章子怡与日本人的色情假照片就非常让人厌恶。且不说即使是真发生了也不是什么大不了的事，仅从这一伪造照片事件就看得出该作者是何等龌龊，让人很难认同这样人的观点。

l            不要盲从，应该有自己的观点和思考能力，不能片面相信一面之词。家乐福与LV及达赖到底啥关系呢？通过互联网不难看出，目前家乐福最大股东Halley Family（13%股权）决定降低其投票权，从而使第二大股东Blue Capital + Colony Capital(9%股权)在董事会增加影响力。Blue Capital 是LVMH的老板Bernard Arnault的私人股权公司。我尝试搜寻LVMH与达赖的关系，没找到，只找到LVMH否认资助达赖的声明。为了5%的股东而抵制一家公司是否对其95%的股东公平？为什么不直接抵制LV？

l            阐述自己的观点，应该有理有据，逻辑分明，而不是一味罗列堆积华丽词藻或满腔愤怒。我曾经将在youtube上流传很广的加拿大华人制作的短片给外国朋友看过。那个比较‘亲华’的人看后直摇头。他认为片中除了愤怒，就是指责，让人看后非常反感，无法接受。相信如果他真的希望与国外沟通，应该采取让人能接受的方式，而不是类似泼妇骂街。

l            内容及方法重于形式。国家的富强不是靠是否认为‘爱国’，而是靠每个人在工作和生活的真实努力。否则喊口号，抵制家乐福，但仍然随地吐痰，不排队，不努力学习，工作吊儿郎当，不注意环保，不关心和尊重他人等，是不会自动实现国富民强的。

在奥运前火炬传递过程中发生的意外，其实有很多需要我们反思的地方。如在指责CNN/BBC时，国内媒体是否在逐渐开放？我们是否静下心研究为何西方在西藏问题上如此反常，我们需要采取如何的对策：包括对内与对外两方面。如果到现在我们都没搞清法国为何本次如此支持ZD，那才是我们最大的悲哀呢。

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080328.wtibetcampaign0328/BNStory/International/home/?pageRequested=all

LONDON — This was supposed to be China's week. The launch of the longest Olympic torch relay in history was heralded in the Chinese press as a spectacle that would bring the nation glory, until Monday, when editors of Beijing's newspapers struggled to edit blood-covered Tibetan protesters out of photos of the torch-lighting ceremony in Olympia, Greece.

China's week has become Tibet's moment. Tibetans and their supporters are being driven by the belief that this Olympic year and its vast media attention are a last opportunity to challenge Beijing's rule. It now looks like activists have succeeded in making China's 57-year occupation of the territory the dominant issue of the 2008 Olympic Games.

Behind this dramatic capture of the world's attention are three young women from British Columbia, who have spent much of the seven years since China won the Games organizing thousands of international volunteers and hundreds of Tibet-related organizations into a six-month campaign of stealth activism intended to humiliate China before an international audience.

Standing just to the edge of the TV cameras in Greece on Monday was Kate Woznow, a 28-year-old Vancouverite who organized the day's attention-grabbing interventions — blood-covered Tibetans lay down in front of the torch carrier during the lighting ceremony — from the offices of Students for a Free Tibet in New York, where she runs the Olympic-related campaign:

Canadian Lhadon Tethong pauses in fron of a Buddist templ in Beijing, China, in this undated handout photo. Students for a Free Tibet says Tethong, the group's Tibetan-Canadian executive director, was arrested in Beijing today along with a colleague, Paul Golding.

Nearly two weeks after violent riots in Tibet, the first group of foreign journalists were allowed into the capital

"We realized seven years ago, when China got the Olympics, what an incredible opportunity this would be to shine a spotlight on the terrible treatment of Tibet," she said as she arrived in London to organize a day of demonstrations to coincide with the torch's arrival in Beijing on Monday.

The Tibet cause has been popular on campuses for years, and has attracted celebrities such as actor Richard Gere, but it has long had the somewhat passive image typified by bumper stickers and drum circles. The runup to the Olympics has changed that, as have the events in Tibet this month, which have reportedly seen more than 100 Tibetans killed by Chinese authorities in nationwide uprisings that seem to have been spurred by the Olympics protests.

"Young people really got it; they've been signing up and telling us that they have a real determination to push the bar, to make this the year when there's some change for Tibet. They know that every media organization in the world is going to be focused on the Olympics, so for years we've realized that what we have to do is to be creative and find ways to insert the Tibet issue into that frame."

As Ms. Woznow was bailing the Tibetan students out of Greek jail (the two who appeared most prominently on TV were Swiss citizens), another B.C. woman, 28-year-old Freya Putt, was in her office in Washington, preparing documents that would be sent to 150 Tibet support groups around the world giving them detailed notes on how to behave when organizing similar disruptions as the torch makes its six-month trip around the world.

Last May, the Dalai Lama's Tibetan government-in-exile put together a meeting in Brussels of all the major Tibet organizations — there are hundreds, and they're organized under a Washington-based umbrella group, the International Tibet Support Network. There, the exiled Tibetans decided that the Olympics should be the single focus of their activities for the next 15 months, and they hired a full-time organizer for the Olympic-disruption campaign.

They picked Ms. Putt, a University of Victoria graduate who had spent years in the student movement. When Tibet activists disrupted then-prime-minister Jean Chrétien's 2001 visit to China, Ms. Putt was there, directing it and communicating with the media as students unfurled a protest banner behind the Chinese and Canadian leaders. One of the demonstrators was Ms. Woznow, who was arrested and detained by Chinese authorities.

From Washington, Ms. Putt has steered a disorderly circle of thousands of volunteers on six continents into a carefully designed campaign that will combine Greenpeace-style attention-getting techniques with the Buddhist country's traditionally non-violent values, all directed at the thousands of media outlets that are converging on Beijing.

She also leads the efforts to communicate with the International Olympic Committee, whose president, the Belgian Jacques Rogge, has refused to consider requests to prevent China from sending the torch relay over Mount Everest and through Tibet, which Tibetans consider a gesture of subjection. The committee may be forced to bend after European leaders suggested this week that they will stay away from the opening ceremonies unless China changes its approach to Tibet.

And she works closely with groups that are using the Olympics to bring attention to China's other controversies, including its support for the government of Sudan during the Darfur crisis and its mistreatment of the media.

"I make sure we're co-ordinating all these groups around the world, making sure we're speaking with a common message and focusing our efforts so they'll have the greatest impact," Ms. Putt said. "I make sure that we have a common target, that all of these groups' energies are going in the same direction, which is to put pressure on the Chinese leaders in Beijing to make Tibet the critical issue that really needs to be resolved immediately."

While Ms. Woznow had become involved in the politics of Tibet after a yearlong tour of China in 1999, Ms. Putt got involved through her family: Her mother had been a volunteer in India with the aid agency CUSO in the 1960s, working with Tibetan refugees who were flooding across the border. So when Ms. Putt encountered Tibet activists at the University of Victoria, she was quickly drawn into their circle.

She soon met another young B.C. woman, Lhadon Tethong, a family acquaintance. Her mother had also worked with CUSO near Tibet, and had married a Tibetan activist who had been in the Dalai Lama's inner circle; the two had moved to Canada, where Ms. Tethong was born.

Today Ms. Tethong, 34, is the charismatic executive director of Washington-based Students for a Free Tibet, with 650 chapters around the world, and is perhaps the leading figure in the international Olympic-protest campaign.

The three women work closely together, drawing on their long experience in Canada. "We've all kind of grown up together," Ms. Woznow says. "It's been a kind of maturing of the movement as we've gotten older, and I think now is its most exciting time."

But Ms. Tethong, unlike her non-Tibetan friends, has never visited Tibet. Given her family's history, that would be too dangerous. But she did sneak into China last year and help organize the unfurling of a large banner on the Great Wall and a protest on Mount Everest, all the while posting video clips on the Web. She was taken into custody by Chinese police and questioned.

In an interview yesterday from Dharamsala, India, where she has been working with Tibetans all month, Ms. Tethong explained that the Olympics have come to be seen as a decisive historical moment and that the bloody events of recent weeks have not dimmed a hope that this year's international attention will force China to change its stand toward Tibet.

"We want to lessen the damage that can be done to Tibetans by shining as bright a light as possible on them, especially during the Games and this torch relay," she said. "The Chinese government wants something from this; they want world acceptance. That's why they're taking the risk of inviting the world in for these Games. They want to be part of the club and to be liked. And our job as young activists is to deny them this, to tell them that their approach to Tibet is going to cost them something, it'll cost them face. And loss of face is the most serious thing we can deliver."

The three women have been campaigning around the Olympics since 2000, when Beijing was bidding to be host of the 2008 Games. At the time, they were simply trying to prevent China from getting the Games. When that campaign failed, there was a mood of dismay, and the issue was dropped for a couple years.

Then, about 2005 or 2006, there was an epiphany, a realization that China's Games could be the ultimate opportunity to make a change, if angry, mistreated and dying Tibetans became their emblematic image.

The campaign falls into a long tradition of political campaigning around Olympic Games. It probably began in 1936, when Adolf Hitler hosted the Berlin Olympics as a showcase for the new fascist Germany, and there was a major international discussion of a boycott. It was Hitler who introduced the torch relay, intended to show off his regime's power and purity, and gave the opening ceremonies much of their nation-promoting pomp.

Because the opening events of the Olympics became tools of national promotion after 1936, they soon became targets of activism, including the civil-rights protests by athletes at the 1968 Mexico City Games, the boycott by several democratic countries of the 1980 Moscow Olympics and the reciprocal Communist boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Games.

"Even when we were opposing Beijing's bid," Ms. Putt said from Washington, "people knew that if China was awarded the Olympics, it would mean that all the attention of the media and a huge number of people around the world would be on China in a way that it isn't normally. And for Tibetans, they've been struggling to get their voices heard for 50 or 60 years. It's not a fresh issue, it's not a violent conflict, and because of that it's hard to get a sense of attention and urgency on the issue. So we knew right away that it was an opportunity not to be missed."

As the torch makes its slow journey around the world, passing through Beijing this weekend before crossing Asia, the Middle East, Europe and the Americas before returning to China for its controversial trip through Tibet in May, the three Canadian women are working their BlackBerrys and laptops late into the night, ensuring that something dramatic will happen at each stop.

Their biggest plans, however, are for August, when Beijing will be on every TV station and the front page of every publication. "We are determined to have non-violent direct action in the heart of Beijing, inside the Games, every day," Ms. Tethong says.

"We know that Tibet won't be free in September, but we want the next generation of Chinese leaders to know that this occupation is very costly for them, that its cost to their reputation outweighs any benefits. That's what we want to accomplish this summer."

A friend in Singapore asked me to write the brief history of Tibet as she wants to discuss the Tibet issue with her western friends. I am not a Tibetan expert, nor a historian, socialist or philosopher, but I am quite interested in collecting information from different parties, doing research by myself by referring books, reading individual’s comments in both Chinese in China’s BBS and English in western BBS, as well as combining my personal experience in different parts of Tibet.

Currently stories about Tibet can be extremely different. One main source of information is from PRC, the other main source is from the exile Tibetan government in Dharamsala in India. The mainstream western media tend to believe in the exile government, while from March 2008 many Chinese, including overseas Chinese, criticized western mainstream media for being biased against China and Chinese. As a Chinese living in PRC (though not Han Chinese), I don’t think I can give a real neutral opinion as every one is biased. However, I would like to give my version of Tibetan history based on my own research. I hope you could get some general and structured ideas about what happened to Tibet and have your own judgment or do more research on your own interest afterwards.

Before I get into the main content, I would like to emphasize several key words:

l            Tibetan Region: includes Tibet Autonomous Region (TAG), other Tibetan area in China including Northwest Yunnan Province, West Sichuan Province, Qinghai Province (where Dalai was born) and South Gansu Province, exile Tibetan government in Dharamsala in India.

l            Tibetan People: the exile Dalai and his followers, the exile Tibetan Youth Congress, current Tibetan management in TAG, monks in TAG, average Tibetan in China

l            Related party: Tibet, China including Yuan Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, Kuomintang and PRC ,UK, India, US

Part 1: History

Tibet was united to be a very strong country 1000 years ago in the same time of China’s Tang Dynasty. The two countries had wars, and also close relationship, e.g. Tang’s Princess Wen Cheng married Tibetan King Songtsan Gampo.

l            During China’s Yuan Dynasty, ruled by Mongolian, Tibet was incorporated as one of the 13 provinces of China.  Since then Yuan Dynasty sent garrison troops to Tibet and set up post stations to open up transportation and communications between Dadu (Beijing) and Tibet.

l            Tibet became largely a tributary of Ming Dynasty. But there are disagreements among historians about Tibet's exact relationship with the Ming Dynasty. Different historians have different proof to show whether Ming ruled Tibet or not. (please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_Dynasty#Relations_with_Tibet)

l            In Qing Dynasty, Tibet became part of China again. The relationship with central government can be very strong when the Tibet local government need military support against dispute internally or with neighbor regions. In the end of Qing Dynasty, UK wanted to have business relationship with Tibet and this proposal was rejected by the central government as well as Tibet local government. UK then invaded Tibet twice in 1888 and 1904 (together with India).

l            When Qing collapsed in 1911, Tibet declared independence from Qing Dynasty similar to other provinces in China. Tibet was then largely self managed, though the appointment of Dalai and Pancham need to be authorized by Kuomintang (Republic of China), the prior and next ruling party in Taiwan. In Taiwan, Tibet is still par of China Map. But Tibet didn’t declare independence and no country admitted Tibet as an independent country at that time. In 1923, a dispute occurred between the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and the Ninth Panchen Lama. The Panchen Lama fled to Qinghai and died there in 1937. The Chinese government approved the identification of the reincarnations of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama and the Tenth Panchen Lama in 1940 and 1949 respectively. In 1949, before the collapse of Kuomingtang in mainland China, all Han Chinese in TAG was forced to leave TAG.

l            In 1951, PLA moved into Tibet with an aim to ‘liberate Tibetan slaves’. After a decisive war in Changdu in east Tibet, PRC and Tibetan government signed a ‘peaceful treaty’ providing for TAG’s self-governance under the Dalai Lama’s rule but gave China military control and exclusive right to conduct foreign relations. This is similar to the  ‘one country two system’ in Hong Kong. However, the other Tibetan area in the four Chinese provinces of course continue to be ruled by PRC within PRC’s communist system and started the land reform.

l            In 1959, Dalai exiled to India after failed rebellion starting from the four Chinese provinces. The rebellion was supported by US CIA. The reason why there was rebellion in the four Chinese provinces is that monks and noblemen would no longer enjoy any preferential status after land reform. The great bulk of the common people of Lhasa and of the adjoining countryside failed to join in the fighting both when it first began and as it progressed. Eventually the resistance crumbled. PRC started land reform in TAG until 1965. According to ‘Sky Burial: the Fate of Tibet’, 1959-1965 is probably the best time in TAG’s history when poor people were given land and other assets. However, those Tibetan involved in the rebellion were also punished severely.

l            1966-1976, Cultural Revolution in China and many monasteries were destroyed and monks were forced to go back home. This period is really very dark, though the other part of China suffered similarly, if not worse. However, according to ‘Sky Burial: the Fate of Tibet’, most destroyers are in fact Tibetan people, esp. Red Guard (students) and poor people. This is further evidenced that monasteries in big cities with more Han Chinese are preserved better than remote area without Han Chinese.

l            From 1980 after Deng Xiaoping came to power, more freedom is given to Tibetan people, e.g. monasteries started to be rebuilt, more Tibetan management team were added to the government. However, more freedom also resulted in more dissatisfaction by Tibetan people.

l            From 1989, with more riots, esp. after the fall of Soviet Union, PRC government took a more strict approach to people demanding independence, including monks.

Part 2: different voices about the past, current and future of Tibet

l            Dalai and mainstream western media:

u       Tibet was always an independent country before communist occupation in 1951 and Tibetans are not Chinese. I disagree with this argument since Tibet has been part of China since Yuan Dynasty 700 years ago, though I never think occupation for 700 years mean Tibet cannot become an independent country now.

u       Tibet before 1951 is free from foreign invasion and is similar to a Shangri-la world. I disagree again. Tibet was invaded twice by UK. The old theocracy slavery Tibet could be very brutal. Until 1959, when the Dalai Lama last presided over Tibet, most of the land was still organized into manorial estates worked by serfs. These estates were owned by two social groups: the secular landlords and the theocratic lamas. The majority of the rural population was serfs without schooling or medical care, and were under a lifetime bond to work the lord's the monastery’s land. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation--including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation--were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs.

u       Tibet should become a pure Tibetan country away from Chinese influence. I think currently there is no such pure country in the world, unless the country closes its doors entirely. Tibet used to be such a close society and reluctant to communicate with other countries 100 years ago. This is the main reason why UK invaded Tibet twice. It’s a bit ironic that many British people support this idea again.

u       There is no religion freedom in Tibet. It’s true in 1966-1976, but not true after 1980. Tibetan Buddhism is practiced widely. Religious pilgrimages and other standard forms of worship were allowed. But monks and nuns may need to sign a loyalty pledge that they would not use their religious position to foment secession or dissent. Some Tibetans might have been subjected to arrest, imprisonment, and forced labor for carrying out separatist activities and engaging in “political subversion. However, such monks are both religious people and separatist, therefore suppress monks may not mean suppress religion belief.

u       PRC tried to genocide Tibet culture. The purpose of occupying Tibet by China is mainly for political and national security purpose. In fact, more and more secular schools were set up in Tibet since 1959, thereby breaking the educational monopoly of the monasteries. Instruction in primary school is pretty universally in Tibetan. Chinese is bilingual from secondary school onward. All middle schools in the TAR also teach Tibetan. The birth control policy, i.e. 1 child 1 family, does not apply to Tibet as well. The percentage of Tibetan people in TAG account for more than 92% of total population.

u       PRC tried to get more resources from Tibet after investment. There are really not too much valuable natural resources in Tibet, needless to mention the excessive cost of exploiting and transport such resources from Tibet to other part of China. The huge investment is mainly for better control of Tibet and make local Tibetan people more loyal to China.

u       PRC tried to export more Chinese to Tibet. Partially true. University students and government officers are encouraged to work in Tibet to ‘support local economic and social development’. However, the number is not that significant compared with the Tibetan population, needless to mention that those Chinese normally only work for 1-3 years in Tibet. Most Chinese really have difficulty in surviving in Tibet Plateau. There are some temporary businessmen in Tibet, mainly Han and Hui Chinese from neighboring provinces. But they moved to Tibet, mainly Lhasa, for economic benefit by opening restaurant or shops. They are not supported by PRC government and do not have permanent permit in Tibet (called Hukou in China)

u       Ethnical discrimination: Tibetan people are discriminated. I disagree. According to China’s minority policy, Tibetan people enjoy more rights than Han Chinese, e.g. more government subsidy, free education, more children allowed. Though protestors are cracked down sometimes, demonstration in Han area will be more brutally suppressed. However, lack of competitiveness (.e.g. unable to speak Mandarin) when competing with Han/Hui Chinese does not necessarily mean discrimination.

u       Soldiers fire at protestors whenever there is protest. It is said in ‘Sky burial’ that soldiers need special approval from central government before shooting and central government normally emphasize not to shoot to avoid ‘ethnical dispute’. The four days peaceful protest before March 14^th turned to riots is evidence that soldiers didn’t really know how to handle such protests. However, compared with Han soldiers, Tibetan soldiers tend to shoot before any formal approval since they don’t need to worry any ‘ethnical dispute’.

u       Dalai is not proposing a separation of Tibet from China, but more autonomy. I believe in this point. But I think PRC and Dalai should have more mutual trust before CCP believe in this proposal since Dalai rejected this proposal in 1959 resulting in rebellion. The Tibet Youth Congress leaders may also disagree with Dalai’s proposals.

u       1.2 million Tibetan was killed after rebellion in 1959. The total population in Tibet is less than 2 million at that time. It’s not possible to kill so many Tibetan. According to articles in the [i]Columbia Journal of Asian Law[/i] and by an Australian Chinese demographer in [i]Asian Ethnicity[/i][i] in 2000[/i], there is no evidence of significant population losses over the whole period from the 1950s to the present. There are some losses during the Great Leap Forward esp. in Sichuan and Qinghai, but even there not as serious in the Han areas of China.

China and many Chinese people: China invest huge amount of money to Tibet for better control and better satisfaction from local people. Religion freedom is also granted after 1980. However, the expected harmony does not appear and separation momentum is more and more apparent. It’s therefore very difficult for China to balance the freedom and investment to Tibet and dissatisfaction from Tibet people. The following comments about Tibet can be easily found in both China’s official news and Chinese BBS in Sina/Sohu:

u       Average Tibetan slaves lived a miserable life before 1951: partially true, but we should also notice that Tibetan slaves may get used to their status due to religious belief.

u       Tibet has always been part of China. I disagree as explained at the beginning.

u       No part of China can be independent. This is related to Chinese history that unification means prosperity and separation means collapse. Voting by local people to decide own future is not acceptable in Chinese history. Again this does not represent my own opinion.

u       Dalai group is behind the separating activities. I disagree since Dalai is regarded as more moderate, and the Tibetan Youth Congress is more violent.

u       Dalai wants to rule Tibet again using slavery system. I think Dalai changed a lot after exile to India. His back to Tibet does not necessarily mean he will rule Tibet in the same way before 1959.

u       The west imperialist world can’t accept China’s rising as new power and want to break China into pieces. I partially disagree. Even if the west does not like China to be a super power, the reason should be the political system (esp. after cold war) and China’s ‘bad record’, though their opinion may be biased. Cultural difference that impairs mutual understanding should be another reason.

u       Tibetan people enjoy all the religious freedom. However, the freedom becomes limited when religion is connected with politics. But this connection is interpreted wrongly by both China and the exile government. The exile government use monitories for separation activities and PRC then suppress lamas and monks when they are found to be connected with Dalai.

      u       Tibetan culture and religion are backward. This is pure discrimination.

      u       Dalai is a evil: probably used to be, but we need to understand him and his religious belief before we make any conclusion.

Though there are almost totally different voices from both sides, Dalai appears to be much better in his PR campaign. There are several reasons:

l                Dalai changed a lot after exile to India. His government is funded by the west and his Buddhism theory is totally understood by the west. He also knows how to communicate with western people.

l                China have strict media control and its media is not trusted even thought they may tell the truth. China has no experience in or unwilling to communicating with western media. China did lot of bad things in 1966-1976, but western people know more about this dark side than Tibetan’s dark side before 1951 and tend to forget the progress made since 1980.

Part 3: My personal experience in Tibet:

I had been to northwest Yunnan, east Sichuan, and last year I spent 10 days from Chengdu in Sichuan Province to Lhasa. I saw lots of prayer flags, Marnyi Stone or pagoda on the way, around house or on the top of mountains. There are also many monks and Tibetan people in monasteries. Many Tibetan, including monks in Lhasa, can hardly speak and understand Chinese. Tibetan houses, normally 2 to 3 floors with colorful paintings inside and outside, are more beautiful than most Han Chinese houses. I disagree with the comment that Tibetan people do not have any religious freedom. However, in Lhasa I did see Tibetan tourist guides showed their dissent towards Chinese government.

Part 4: the future of Tibet:

l            Dalai requested Tibet independence, but recently had changed to ‘more autonomy’. However, his autonomy includes not only TAG, but also the Tibetan area in the four Chinese provinces. Chinese government may also be suspicious whether Dalai will really stop claiming Tibet independence due to the rebellion in 1959.

l            Tibet Youth Congress requests a more violent approach to free Tibet. As a result, Dalai can’t propose a too ‘soft’ approach which makes any negotiation between Dalai and China more difficult.

l            China will not allow Tibet to be independent and Tibet will not be able to be independent if China continues to develop with the current pace. TAG has strategic importance to China’s national security, and the independence of Tibet may cause similar action in Xinjiang and, to a less extent, Inner Mongolia. The three regions account for half of China’s area and China can’t afford losing half land considering its vast population size. One other important factor is PRC does not think Dalai is entitled to negotiate with PRC since PRC is much more powerful than him. This attitude is not related to communist system as I believe Kuomintang or Qing Dynasty will take a similar approach to any separation force, which is quite obvious in Chinese history.

l            Is Dalai welcomed back by all Tibetan people? Probably not, at least the current Tibetan management team enjoys more freedom without Dalai. Dalai’s return with his exile government will definitely affect the current management’s benefit. Therefore, it’s not a surprise for the current government to request more freedom and funding, in a subtle way, by tolerate Tibetan protestors and connecting with Dalai in some degree. The older average Tibetan may still remember the spiritual leader who ruled Tibet before and fled to India in 1959. I am also not sure whether Dalai exile government, who had been away from TAG for nearly 40 years really represent the current Tibetan people.

In conclusion, life for the majority of Tibetans has been improving under Chinese governance since the 1980s, esp. from destroying slavery system and heavy subsidy. They also suffer a lot in 1966-1976, and after 1989 (mainly monks). I don’t think I am able to make a judgment on whether Tibet should be independent or not, but I do hope politician play less political game and Tibetan people enjoy their freedom, and live a wealthy and happy life. The important thing is to look forward to the future and find the most non self destructive, non hostile, no violent way ahead.

There are a lot of anti-China protestors in the west and anti-China remarks by western politician during torch relay resulting from recent riot in Tibet. It’s a bit ridiculous that Han and Hui Chinese in Lhasa are victims while Beijing Olympic are boycotted. It’s also quite interesting to see that Chinese people, in both PRC and overseas (including US citizens), think they are more hurt by the biased media than Chinese government. They found many mistakes by western media, e.g. used pictures taken in Nepal as evidence to show China’s brutal crack down against Tibetan peaceful protest. As a result, the initial plan to humiliate CCP by western media, becomes an ethnical campaign by Chinese globally against western bias.

Before I go to my main content, I would like to emphasize several key words: China, PRC, CCP, and Chinese.

            PRC: People’s Republic of China, established in 1949 after China’s civil war

            CCP: Chinese Communist Party, the ruling party in China

            China: a country with 1.3  billion people, 3500+ years history, including mainland China, HK, Macau and Taiwan (Republic of China, though there is dispute currently)

            Chinese: including both citizens of different ethnic people living in China, as well as overseas Chinese

China is a very different country from most developed western countries:

            China has the longest continuous history in the world, with more than 50 ethnical people, and has been separate and united from time to time. Chinese history and culture is almost totally different from the west.

            In the past 170 years, China was invaded by many countries, esp. UK, France, Russia and Japan. Most Chinese still remember foreign countries use their influence or military force to separate China, e.g. Russia separated Mongolia from China, UK invaded Tibet for better control of India against Russia, Japan used Manchuria as an excuse to invade China and the US prevented PLA from uniting Taiwan.

            China is a communist country.

            China is a developing country.

Chinese people are also very different from most other people in the world:

            Most are atheist, Confucius, and value collective interests more than individual interest, therefore people may think national interest is more important than individual human rights

            Chinese are proud of their history and culture, while are also sensitive to western influence after the Opium war in 1840. Chinese suffer a lot in the past 100 years, from Eight-Power Allied Forces in 1900, the collapse of Qing Dynasty, civil wars, Japanese invasion, great leap to culture revolution. Most would regard the recent 30 years as the best period in Chinese history.

            The relationship between Chinese are very subtle, as people tend to be more indirect compared with western people.

There are quite a few anti-China reports in western media, probably with an aim to denounce the political system. But western media should learn to be sensitive to tell the difference between Chinese culture, Chinese people, China’s current developing stage and communist system. For example, overseas Chinese became very angry when a CNN reporter recently quoted Chinese as ‘thugs’ when talking about the torch relay. There is another incident in London several years ago when a Singaporean found some politician holding a China related board to show his political idea. The Singaporean felt very uncomfortable as he thought this political idea, though not related to China, misused China as negative image and hurt Chinese as a whole.

Recently I read lots of discussion in both Chinese and western websites. It appears that there are lots of misunderstandings. Some western media and people think it’s a shame for China to host the Olympic Game due to it’s bad human rights record and Tibetan issue, while Chinese people regard the challenge as an initiative to denounce ‘motherland’, separate China and contain China’s development. As a result, Chinese went to London, Paris and San Francisco to support torch relay from nearby cities. Many of them felt very upset when they found only protestors are focused in mainstream western media.

I would think the reasons why western media/government/people criticize China include:

            Hope China can improve after criticism

            Dislike China as a rising power as China is a communist country, Chinese are yellow or China is too poor at present.

            It’s easier to criticize someone for certain psychological achievement or show one’s social responsibility than to give constructive recommendations

My opinion to the above three points are:

            I can fully understand the first point, though not all Chinese can accept it. However, Chinese don’t like too direct confrontational comments which make them feel uneasy. I also don’t think China will make any change based on any threatening from any country. The embargo on Iraq and Cuba by US does not have meaningful result as well.

            I dislike the 2^nd point which is about discrimination. Though I am not a communism fan, I don’t think every thing done by a communist government is a mistake, i.e. different political system is not an excuse to abuse others. I also believe the emergence of a new power from a different race and cultural background does bring challenges to many developed countries. Recently a friend told me that when he talked to his friend in BBC, his friend said BBC did not like China and would not focus on any positive side in China. This answer is extremely arrogant and biased and he even didn’t want to hide. Probably this explained why some media use fake pictures to denounce China.

            I think many average people belongs to the 3rd category. I have a US friend who criticized China and show sympathy to Chinese people’s lack of human rights. However, when we took a train with a lot of passengers from rural area, he thought they were very stupid based on their cloths and behavior. I was shocked to find some one saying all the others are stupid. Therefore, I can only conclude that his sympathy is very real and what he likes most is a way to show his superiority, rather than care people who need help.

The bias in western media to China has been long time. Even their reporters in China may still have limited knowledge about China since they have pre impression about China and normally don’t talk to Chinese people. They also don’t trust a Chinese people to give a true and fair opinion. The biased media will inevitably change people’s perception, esp. those who fail to do their own research. I have a German colleague who visited Beijing in 2004. He was surprised to find we live in a modern society and can’t help calling his wife when he saw old people dancing near Houhai bar area. He told me that their family decided not visit China for ever since China was an evil country. However, he changed his idea 1 day later and promised to take his wife to Beijing for holiday. This is an example how China’s image had been presented by the west.

The following examples I recently found many funny points in BBS (mainly in US/UK) may explain the above:

           One commented ‘I can’t help but discount off hand when anyone from the PRC who is in the PRC says that Western media got it wrong’. The reason behind this comment is China has strict media control and people are brain washed. It is partially true that people are brain washed, but it’s not correct to ignore the 1.3 billion people as if they are living dead. Probably the guy thinks he is the god and can teach others as if they are pupils. I would say every one in the world is biased, every one is brain washed as well, and the difference is the extent.

            One guy challenged those Chinese that they dare not write similar words in China. It’s a bit ridiculous if the guy can visit Sohu, Sina or Tianya to see how Chinese people are discussing about politics openly.

            Chinese who wrote any thing good to CCP would be regarded as paid CCP agents. I would like to be agents if they told me how to be compensated!

            Chinese are executed with little offence or different political opinions. Again this might happen, but not applicable to most people in the country.

            China is an organ trading country. As a Chinese living here for more than 30 years, I do not see any such case, though they might happen, but at least I don’t think organ trading should be a label for China’s every day life.

            Tibet was invaded by China in 1950. They simply ignore the fact that Tibet had been part of China’ Yuan Dynasty since 700 years ago. My point here is not to say Tibet cannot be independent, but we can’t lie.

The most interesting slogan I have ever heard is in the torch relay in San Francisco: to liberate 1.3 billion Chinese people. When I told some of my friends about this slogan, they can’t help laughing how naïve it is. It should be the Chinese people to say whether we have human rights or whether we need more freedom, rather than an American or British who hardly know any Chinese friends. I would say Chinese people are deprived of human rights when they are not allowed to say whether they need human rights or not in western media. A similar ridiculous example is the American decides whether to withdraw from Iraq, rather by Iraqi people.

With 30 years with rapid economic growth and stable political system, most Chinese people live quite happily at the moment, with steady disposal income and increasing freedom, though there are a lot to improve as well (e.g. medical system, pollution). It’s easy for westerners to say democracy is good, but Chinese people need to bear all the cost if there is any social unrest from the democracy. I don’t think most Chinese people want to take the risk and miss a potential opportunity to improve living standards. At least I won’t. As far as I can decide where to work, what to buy, where to eat, where to club, where to go for holiday, I really don’t care whether there is election or not, because we simply can’t achieve the above 30 years ago. I would be more than happy if China could be like Singapore: developed, efficient, freed, but no democracy.

Conclusion:

As I mentioned previously, Chinese are very proud of their country and still remember the history since 1840. Any direct humiliated criticism, esp. if related to separation of the country, will not be accepted. Such criticism may even stimulate nationalism and make people more united to support the government. The western media and people should also be more open minded to China and Chinese people, show your respect, and give criticism in a way that is easier to accept. The boycott of Beijing Olympic, is not only a way to challenge CCP, but also China and Chinese globally, since not only CCP can benefit from Olympic, Chinese people may benefit more from the game. It’s too brutal to deny 1.3 billion Chinese people to host this global event to show their enthusiasm, wisdom, history, culture and achievement in the past 30 years.

I would recommend western media to have a balanced view to China, to present both the positive side and negative sides, rather than simply focused on human rights that most Chinese people think a bit exaggerated. Chinese people’s voice should also be heard. Two good examples are Financial Times and Discovery. There is Financial Times in Chinese version with a lot of China focused articles. Though there is a lot of criticism, the editors seem to be at very strategic level and can give readers deep insight, rather than typical ‘gossip’ type negative reports by CNN/BBC. Readers’ comments regarding FT articles are also published every day, therefore FT also know Chinese readers’ opinion and make readers to learn from each other. In Discovery, there are many China related topics. Examples include Qinghai Tibetan railway and Three Gorge Dam. Discovery has its program very technology focused, rather than political focused, and give readers the opportunities to make their own judgment.

Western, as well as Chinese people, should also have their own opinion, do more research to reach their own conclusion, rather than just rely on 1 or 2 information source. However, when there is bias in both China and the west, probably the only way is to know each side for a balanced opinion.

手机功能早已从最早的电话和短信功能，发展到娱乐，获取信息，听音乐，看电视，甚至电子支付等功能。如果说电影《手机》体现了现代生活中手机对人们在感情生活方面的挑战，则未来手机对社会的挑战应更大，如

l            如IPHONE结合手机，MP3/4和移动硬盘功能；

l            爱国者已推出MP4,赠送光盘可每天到指定的网站免费下载电影(UiTV.com)，还即将推出可收看电视的微型手机；

l            尚未上市的拥有最新手机操作系统的G PHONE；

l            未来手机还将利用RFID功能充当支付工具(在日本已实行)，或在刷卡消费时通过短信回复的方式批准支付（即PKI业务）。

无怪乎很多传统手机厂商如不能与时俱进，可能逐步退出历史舞台。手机对人生活各方面影响都很大，一日可不带钱包，但如忘带手机或手机没电后有如忘穿衣服或被拨光的感觉。不过手机也带来很多烦恼，如持续不断的骚扰电话与短信。如果有人发现我在接手机时表现得无比粗鲁，则多半是因为对方是房屋中介。当人每天接到10个中介的骚扰电话时，想不粗鲁都做不到。

因为手机结合了越来越多的功能，所以一旦手机丢失，损坏或中毒，就后果很严重。不仅很多重要信息会丢失，甚至可能流传到社会，暴露隐私。我手机中过毒，到诺基亚服务中心杀毒，交了100元，还丢失了所有的数据。手机也曾掉入杯中，并傻乎乎取出后开机，导致手机主板被烧坏。最近丢了手机，必须开始重新整理通讯录，也丢失了一些值得长期保存的往来短信。

最近开始用了一款叫网秦的手机应用软件，非常棒。有些功能的确有立竿见影的效果，如：

l            防骚扰电话：来陌生电话后提示我是否为骚扰电话。如果是，则加入黑名单。下次该电话打来时，系统直接屏蔽，但提示我曾有骚扰电话。

l            防骚扰短信：系统自动过滤骚扰短信，但并不删除，而是放在一个类似junk box的地方。

l            用户分组：可自由将联系人分组，并针对每组制定属性，如是否接听，在开会或休息期间是否接听等。

l            远程数据取回和销毁：可远程提取或销毁手机上的信息，在手机丢失时非常有用。

l            杀毒：可杀死多数手机病毒。

如果大家有兴趣，可去其网站 www.netqin.com，免费试用。

By Joan ChenWednesday, April 9, 2008; Page A19  Washington Post

I was born in Shanghai in 1961 and grew up during the Cultural Revolution. During my childhood, I saw my family lose our house. My grandfather, who studied medicine in England, committed suicide after he was wrongly accused of being a counterrevolutionary and a foreign spy.

Those were the worst of times.

Since the Cultural Revolution ended in the late 1970s, however, I have witnessed unimaginable progress in China. Changes that few ever thought possible have occurred in a single generation. A communist government that had no ties to the West has evolved into a more open government eager to join the international community.

A state-controlled economy has morphed into a market economy, greatly raising people's standard of living. It's clear that the majority of the Chinese people enjoy much fuller, more abundant lives today than 30 years ago. Though much remains to be done, the Chinese government has made rapid progress in opening up and trying to be part of the international community.

Last month I went to China and spent four weeks visiting Shanghai, Beijing, Hong Kong and Chengdu. The people I met and spoke with are proud and excited about the Beijing Games. They believe that the Olympics are a wonderful opportunity to showcase modern China to the rest of the world. Like many Americans, most Chinese people are disturbed by the recent events in Tibet. But after watching the scenes of violence and arson by the rioters, the Chinese believe that the government is doing the right thing in cracking down to restore order.

The Olympic torch is in California and is to be carried through San Francisco today. In a resolution criticizing China, Chris Daly, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, said that demonstrating against the torch relay would "provide the people of San Francisco with a lifetime opportunity to help 1.3 billion Chinese people gain more freedom and rights." To his credit, Mayor Gavin Newsom did not sign Daly's resolution.

This statement could not be further from reality. For one thing, the Chinese are a proud people. They want freedom and greater rights, but they know they must fight for them from within. They know that no one can grant them freedom and rights from afar. The stigma of Western imperialism and the Opium Wars also remains a strong reminder of the past, and Chinese people do not want their domestic policies to be dictated by outside powers. They also do not want the United States to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Games. The U.S. boycott of the 1980 Games in Moscow and the Soviet boycott of the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles accomplished nothing. A U.S. boycott of the opening ceremonies in Beijing would be counterproductive for relations between the two countries.

For decades, anti-China human rights groups in Washington have spent millions of dollars denouncing China. To many Chinese, it seems that this lobby is the only voice that's acceptable or newsworthy in the U.S. media and to the U.S. government. But times are changing. We need to be open-minded and farsighted. We need to make more friends than enemies. Remember what a little ping-pong game did for Sino-U.S. relations in the 1970s? Let's celebrate the Olympics for what the Games are meant to be -- a bridge for friendship, not a playground for politics. The writer is an actress and director. She became a U.S. citizen in 1989.

定州隶属河北保定，介于保定与石家庄之间。历史上一直是州府，只是到了近代才变成县级市。很多读文科的人应该还记得金缕玉衣出自中山靖王刘胜墓，该墓位于同属保定的满城。古中山国的确存在，算春秋战国时期诸侯国之一，定都定州。刘胜则是西汉诸侯国中山国的第一任诸侯王，是汉景帝的儿子，即汉武帝的哥哥。

北京到定州火车很多，快车2小时10分钟到达。其实去定州也算意外，因为原本打算去也同样位于保定与石家庄之间的正定，结果因准备工作不充分，歪打正着来了另一个历史文化名城。

定州最著名的是开元寺塔，建于宋真宗时期，距今1000多年历史，高83.7米，是中国最高的砖塔，之前是为抵御契丹而建。塔内多处壁画与石刻，塔顶原有高达8米的铜质宝瓶。

其他古迹还包括明代的南城门，始建于唐代的文庙，北方唯一保存完好的贡院（科举考试的考场）和已开放地宫的中山汉王墓。其中的文庙比较有趣，是我第一次看到国内把孔子当成帝王供奉，而起弟子列在旁边成为先贤。

出于职业的敏感，我一直很关注每天的博客访问量及访客来源。除我MSN上的朋友及其他通过朋友推荐的访客外，还有一部分访客来自其他朋友的博客，往往他们看到我的留言后拜访。所以看到朋友有博客，我便会过去有一搭没一搭的加句COMMENT，从而把臭味相同的人引来。今天点击量上升的一个原因是我到一个点击量很高的美女小愤青网站留了言。这对互联网公司很重要，即关注每天的访问量，留言量，和访问来源，大概也算是多数互联网公司每天需要MONITOR的KPI了。

博客访客的另一来源是搜索引擎，尤其是BAIDU和GOOGLE。很多人因为搜投行SALES & TRADING，伦敦生活，财务工作等原因看到本博。所以适当寻找别人的关注点也是吸引博客眼球的一个方法。如911后写BIN LADEN，几年前写IRAQ，现在写TIBET和奥运会。最有趣的搜索结果有两个：

l            胡春雁：不明白为什么经常有人搜她，并进而点击我的博客。曾问胡是否是她自己搜的，她大怒：难不成她没事搜自己，还顺便点击我的博客？不过我倒真有BAIDU自己的习惯，看自己是否上了某处的黑名单。

l            文成公主不幸福：其实写文成公主是在介绍亚东风云那篇文章中提到的，也提到文革时全国人民都不幸福，不巧竟然被人搜到了。

上回提到BBC记者与他的中国朋友（暂且称为A吧）关于西藏问题进行了激烈的讨论。A质疑为什么BBC一直对中国进行负面报道，BBC记者的回答让人大跌眼镜：中国政府对BBC不友好，所以BBC就报复，专挑对中国不利的消息报道。如A记得上届奥运会期间在英国BBC一直刻意回避中国运动员夺冠后的颁奖典礼，被质问后说是为了尊重英国人的收视习惯。

A气愤之余，给BBC发了一份措辞严厉的传真，内容大致是中国不欢迎BBC的片面报道，中国也可以抵制伦敦奥运会。我并没有看到A的传真原件，但不管措辞如何，相信只是其个人意见的表达。然而，让人意想不到的事情发生了。

首先，A的海外总部收到BBC的一份电子邮件：

Dear Sir

I am writing to inform you that the BBC in London has received a very unpleasant fax message. Our investigations cause us to suspect that the fax originated from your Chinese representatives office in Beijing.

The fax message; which used unpleasant & obscene language (and relates to our coverage of the Beijing Olympics), appears to have been sent from Fax Nr: *************** on *** March at ***pm (approximately) Beijing time.

I would be grateful if you could investigate and, if it is the case, I must ask you to ensure that there is no repeat of this type of communication.

We reserve the right to contact the authorities in Beijing to ask them to conduct a formal investigation if further unacceptable messages are received from persons connected to****.

Thank you for your cooperation.

鉴于此事与该公司并无任何关系，海外总部并未理会该邮件。于是BBC发了第二封电子邮件:

Sir/Madam

I would be grateful if you could confirm your receipt of my email dated *** March 2008 and the result of your investigations.  If we do not receive a reply of confirmation we will have no alternative other than to report this matter to the Chinese authorities for further investigation.

Thank You.

海外总部感到有些困惑，便将该邮件传给A。 A回复给BBC如下邮件 :

Dear Sir or Madam:

This is *** from ***Beijing office write to you. We are very sorry to hear that BBC have got some hostile Fax under the number of *** from China. *** used this number to keep communicating with some old clients in China last year. However, it was used only temporarily and legally was never belong to ***company or Beijing rep office. Therefore all information this fax provides to BBC does not represent *** company’ s opinion and interest.  *** Beijing rep office is a foreign Business agent and we do not involve in any political movement other than commercial business only.

we feel sorry for this unpleasant information which deliver to BBC and the inconvenience it might cause. if you need any support about further investigation please let us know without hesitation.

Best wishes and have a nice day

BBC收到A的邮件后，回复了如下邮件：

Dear Mr **

Thank you for your reply.

If you look at the *** website, the fax number ********* is still shown as in use by *** in Beijing!!!!:

*** Representative Office Beijing
**************
Mr. *****
Tel.:0086-**********
Fax.:0086-10-*******
Mobile:0086-1***********

If the fax number is not *** perhaps you can tell me who owns the fax number?

（注：该传真号为A家里的号码，所有人为个人，但偶尔用于接收公司传真）

A的回复邮件如下：

Dear ***:

The website is not updated on time, we will change it very soon. Meanwhile, we are a Foreign business agent in China, we are unable to delivery this kind of information to you.

I advise you to contact Chinese Tel company or related Chinese authority to get the answer. I hope that can help.

我对BBC的调查信息和处理不同意见的方式感到震惊，从以上的往来邮件不难看出，

l            BBC标榜的言论自由和开放的心态，并未在其身上体现。在遇到攻击时，首先想到的是如何镇压。

l            在镇压手段上，BBC可谓恶毒至极，不惜动用公司总部和中国政府。BBC一边在批评中国政府的言论不自由，一边试图利用中国政府压制不同意见者。这点比当初YAHOO的邮件泄露事件要严重得多。估计如果BBC能控制一个国家，且不受别人的监管，其手段可能不亚于希特勒。

西方多党制的目的在于互相监督和竞争，其实媒体也一样, 在社会上起着很重要的信息披露和独立监督的作用。如果有一个独霸一方的媒体，如美国的CNN和英国的BBC，缺乏社会的监督,一旦偏离了客观公正的基础，尤其是刻意强调其长期惯有的观点或阻止别人表达不同的观点，则可能误导社会公众乃至统治阶层做出错误决策。下面是我一个美国朋友对其美国媒体的看法：

I agree that the western media have an attitude problem, and there is a bias against China in general. I've told you before that I'm not a fan of for-profit news media, which have become dominant over the past 10 years. The building of support for the Iraq invasion in 2002-2003 is a perfect example of how things can go wrong. My country has an independent, free press (media) precisely because their job is to question the government and make sure that the government is telling the truth. In the case of Iraq, the media believed the Bush administration's story, largely because of the profit motive. Eventually the many, competing media outlets found the truth, and Bush now has the lowest approval rating of any modern US president.

媒体在本国往往因经济利益而丧失客观性，而在外国则可能将其自身的价值观强加给不同社会文化背景的其他国家。即使欧洲的马志尼学说在欧洲很适用，但他们也不能以此学说要求全世界国家，因为每个国家都是独立的个体，都有他们所谓的‘人权’和‘国权‘。从某种意义上说，这些主流媒体控制的国际舆论，如果明显有失偏颇，对其他国家也构成了一定的‘言论’暴力，也是对其主权与文化的侵犯人权行为。一个同事曾就职于美国一著名媒体的上海OFFICE。据说该媒体的的记者和编辑没有中国人，中国人所能做的只是写些最基本的生活小片段，而绝非表达个人对中国社会的任何观点。不难理解，没有中国人参与的对中国的评论，自然会打上文化偏见的烙印。相对而言，我更喜欢势力稍弱的FINANCIAL TIMES，分析相对比较中立，也比较深入，或许这与其目标读者多为高素质的金融企业界人士有关。

想起假钞，似乎是4年前的事情。当时不小心拿了50元的假钞，现在已经变成我家庭博物馆的一部分了。最近几年，假钞在北京似乎已经销声匿迹了。

今天中午，一个同事说在ATM机到假钞，而更可气的是，另一个同事也取到了假钞，同样都在楼下招商银行的ATM机。施展出我老银行家的习惯，我拿来两张假钞比较一番，发现两张超片号码竟然相同，显然出自一个BATCH。与真钞比起来，本BATCH假钞有如下特征：

l            纸面非常平滑，少有粗超擦手的感觉。真钞则表面凸凹不平，尤其是毛主席的头部和身体各部分。真钞右下角盲人触摸点非常明显，而假钞则只是平面图案，用手根本摸不出盲人点。

l            假钞整体颜色层次鲜明，真钞颜色逐步过渡，非常平缓。

l            假钞左侧的毛主席水印发黄绿，真钞则无明显颜色。

l            真钞左下角100右边的100亮水印很清晰，假钞左下角100右侧则没有100的水印。

第一个发现假钞的同事找到招商银行营业部，被告知没有足够证据证明钞票取自招行取款机 – 除非你取款时马上发现假钞并及时在ATM机的摄像头下展示假钞。同事只得作罢。我跟两个同事商量一下，本着对招行客户服务及内控负责的态度，决定去招行营业部，告诉他们假钞不是个别现象，可能是有组织的内部舞弊。试想，客户拿到假钞后，从自动存款机和柜台均不能将假钞存入，所以假钞一定来自招行内部。如果是工行这么烂的服务，我们也就懒得DO THEIR A FAVOR TO 告诉他们了。

招行第一个接待我们的人，讲了很多招行现金管理内控如何好的事。好在我有公司及银行内控的经验，并曾参与过银行每日的现金盘点和督查工作，便直接告诉该人：不管招行内控多少，假钞是存在的；此外，即使有100个内控流程控制假钞，在最后一步银行员工将假钞直接放入ATM机的可能性还是有的，所以前面的99个内控流程没有意义，尤其多数ATM机在吐钞时无法鉴别客户取出的钞票是否为真钞。鉴于该人死不认账，我们决定找他的老板 – 营业部经理。其中的一个原因是，假如该人参与了假钞案，则跟他反映无疑类似信访办将投诉信转到当事人手中一样没意义。此外，即使他没参与舞弊，从其职责和考核的角度看，他当然也不希望他的错误被上司发现了。

营业部经理来了，我们表明了是本着对招行负责的态度而非为取回200元假钞。的确如此，如果我们不反映，客户发现假钞后自然对招行失去信心，同时银行也无法发现内控缺口，进而可能银行更大的舞弊。如果被藏人取到了，还可能引发更大的民族矛盾。营业部经理要老成得多，记下两个同事的一卡通卡号和联系方式。同事也要求，银行必须给个交代，不能就这么糊里糊涂的过去。

回到办公室后，我们越想越觉得这件事情有问题。下班时，本着对其他银行客户负责的态度，两个同事去派出所报警了。与预料的相似，派出所也不愿受理此案，因为也没有直接凭据表明两个同事直接从ATM机取出假钞。

不管最后结果如何，大家还是要多留意身边的假钞问题，尤其是在取款时。即使我们损失100元不算什么，但让不法分子利用假钞获益，进而破坏国家金融秩序，却不是我们希望看到的。

之前提到媒体之争，这几天也在思考，为啥西方媒体盯着我们不放，为啥周围的外国朋友提到西藏台湾便死不让步。如果说西方国家或部分媒体反对我们还带有冷战的色彩，则普通民众不支持我们就有更深层的原因了。

周日一朋友找我吃晚饭，因为她的欧洲老公与一群老外出去玩，她不想参加。尽管之前他们也经常争论西藏和台湾问题，但之后双方很快和好，而这次似乎双方的分歧更大。回家后另一个中国朋友抱怨他在某著名西方媒体的女友与他关于西藏发生激烈的争论，以至于双方决定近期不再往来。前一天跟一个在美国的朋友提过西藏问题。他很NICE，但这次他直接表达了对我观点的不认同。

我也一直在思考，为什么我们几个好朋友或同事在其他方面都非常融洽，唯独在台湾西藏乃至其他中国民族问题上有如此大的争议？于是又发挥了一下想象力，并施展了擅长的BAIDU搜功，暂且认为下面中西文化政治上的主要差异是导致中西冲突的主要原因。欢迎拍砖。

l            历史和意识的差异：

u        中国是有5千年（西方认为是3500年）历史的多民族国家，是世界上唯一一个拥有连续历史的大国。经历过无数次分分合合，但主流还是统一的一个中央集权国家，各民族统治阶级均认可自己的中国（NOT汉人！）身份。因为有了统一的国家认同，也没有大规模的宗教冲突，所以中国历史上的民族矛盾比西方小。中国的强大无不表现在疆域的扩大和各民族的融合，也为拥有一个各民族大团结的社会而自豪，中国的没落无不表现在中央集权的瓦解和各地区各民族的自治。只有近代才有了俄罗斯，英国，日本等外国的侵略，也让中国人记得刻骨铭心。因此，国家与人民对领土的分割异常敏感。

u        西方主流国家中最长的不过几百年的连续历史，很多国家民族比较单一。尽管欧洲经历过多民族的大国，如古罗马帝国，阿拉伯帝国和奥斯曼土耳其帝国，及短期的异族侵入（如阿提拉的匈奴军和后来的蒙古军），但这些国家都为不同的国家，且最后纷纷瓦解，产生了现今的多个独立国家。目前欧洲很多主要国家都是当时的‘殖民地’或被侵略者，曾深受其他民族或宗教的压迫，对独立和自由有深重的渴望和追求。尤其是阿拉伯帝国和土耳其帝国，因宗教和文化冲突的原因，一直在西欧形象欠佳，甚至被认为是阻碍经济科技文化发展的大障碍。所以在西方眼里，一个大国统治过其他国家不能成为拥有或索取领土的基础，每个民族或地区人民的自诀最重要，是促进社会进步的重要因素。

u        殖民：中国一般不采取直接殖民的办法，而是采取保护国的方法，如朝鲜，琉球，不丹，尼泊尔等。西方除侵略邻国外，还海外殖民。近代美国加拿大澳大利亚等国先后脱离英国统治，均独立且经济文化程度高，所以西方认同各国的独立，尽管他们均讲英文。二战中，德意勾结试图独霸世界。二战后，各国的殖民地纷纷独立，即使是前苏联为代表的社会主义阵营长期控制的东欧各国也在近20年纷纷独立，建立自己民族的国家。所以欧洲人认为侵略-独立这个模式很正常。

u        因此，欧洲很多国家的发展史其实就是他们追求独立，追求个人发展和宗教自由的历史。而中国的出发点是一个统一的中央集权国家如何发展的问题，与西欧的民族自决完全不同。

l            政治上：社会主义制度在西方一直被认为是无比邪恶的，尤其在人权与舆论自由方面。一个社会主义国家，不管做什么，都可能受到非议。如果中国的透明度不高，媒体受到管制，则让西方误解的可能性就更高了。

l            文化上：东方有太多西方不能理解的内容，如

u        中国传统思维方式以直觉和经验为特征；西方更注重对自然和逻辑的探索；

u        人与人的关系是中国文化关心的核心，当官不成则求当圣人，报国不得则退做隐士,或吟诗饮酒自得风浪；西方文化中人生价值呈多元化.从政经商均被认为有价值，最好的职业莫过于律师和医生；

u        西方的社会原子观念:个人是原子,不依靠任何人而存在,个人权利任何人不得侵犯；中国以家族为本位，脱离家便是"游子",强调家庭中有长幼关系,夫妻关系；  

u        从上面不难看出，中国更崇尚集体的兴盛，尤其是国家，民族和家庭的利益高高在上；西方则更崇尚个人的理想，价值和权力。这也解释了为什么发生争议时我们更多考虑的是国家利益，西方更多考虑的是对个人，尤其是弱者的关怀。

一个美国朋友曾说过，他们自小受得教育便是，世界有两大文明：欧洲文明（埃及，巴比伦，希腊罗马及后来的阿拉伯土耳其）与东方的中国文明（包含日韩越等）。目前世界上与中国类似的有几千年连续历史的多民族中央期权国家不存在。即使文化上与西方很不同的国家，如日本，也因为国家较小，民族单一，且‘民主’，而没有成为西方国家一致反对的对象；东欧前苏联等社会主义国家，因与西欧北美国家的文化与宗教无完全冲突，也没有造成如此大的文化与社会认同差异；印度被认为是‘民主’国家，长期为英国殖民地，经济文化影响力有限，也很难成为西方反对的对象；以中东为代表的伊斯兰文明，因没有一个强大的国家，影响力也有限。因此，中西方的文化社会冲突，更应该被称为两大文明的碰撞，尤其在一个政治体制，经济和现代文明落后且不透明的国家，与更‘civilized’世界的冲突。随着中国实力的不断崛起，这个冲突有可能愈演愈烈。

其实欧洲历史上因为民族，语言发生多次领土争议，远比中国的多。如上世纪德国以对讲德语的领土（包括捷克的苏台德和波兰的西里西亚）提出要求为借口，引发了第二次世界大战。

对近代的民族自决，有两个重要的学说：

l            马志尼学说：即一个民族建一个国家，一个国家只有一个民族。但这个原则也有限制，如只适用于一定规模的民族，民族国家必须拥有悠久的精英文化,独特的民族文学和官方语言。但在民族国家内部，对少数民族的歧视、清洗和同化就成为了马志尼民族主义的自然产物，如各国驱赶犹太人，土耳其驱赶亚美尼亚人。1918年3月，德国在波罗的海沿岸建立了三个独立小国，其中爱沙尼亚和拉脱维亚甚至从未有过立国的历史。这也验证了我拉脱维亚同学对自己国家身份感到困惑的事实 - 他只能想到自己国家曾经有几个部落，后来糊里糊涂有国家了！。第一次世界大战也与奥匈帝国的民族政策有关 – 巴尔干，到现在还是火药桶，包括刚独立的科索沃。

l            美国总统威尔逊在1919年的凡尔赛条约中提出了著名的“威尔逊主义”，即民族自决原则，其核心是民族不分大小，应该是平等的，所有民族都可以自己决定自己民族的命运，也就是说所有民族，都可以提出立国的要求，只要是民族大多数成员的共识。

l            从马志尼15个欧洲国家的理想，到现在欧洲40几个独立国家的现状，近代欧洲的民族主义运动深深影响了欧洲乃至世界历史进程。不过现又发展到组建更紧密合作关系的欧盟，似乎是在对其历史的修正。但欧洲人缺乏一个多民族统一和谐大国的样板，所以质疑我们是否能做到。或许，中国的多民族融合是很多国家乃至地区的未来目标，也许欧盟松散型的链接方式更适合。

中西方对国家民族的冲突，来自不同的社会文化背景与现状。所以任何一方不能认为对方完全不对，也不可能完全接受对方。

西方以人为本的观念，值得我们借鉴。但他们也有不足的地方，如他们低估了民族分裂或国家分裂对一个国家乃至民族的影响。如果世界上有能够清晰将面积，资源，人口简单划分成不同民族的方法，还可以理解。但实际情况绝非这么简单。如云南中甸是多民族聚居区，把中甸强行划给任何一个民族成立独立国家都不能满足全体人民的需要。反而隶属中央集权的多民族国家更让人信服。看了电影卢旺达饭店后，我更深深感受到，稳定小康的生活比常年残酷的战争不知要幸福多少倍。

中国也有不足的地方，尤其表现在对一个大一统集权国家的无线怀念和憧憬。这种天朝老大的思想，往往使自己对内忽视个体，尤其是群体的利益（如只谈国家利益不谈民族感受！），对外则不屑于与别人交流。正如我一个英国同学说的，中国几千年来少被CHALLENGE过，所以容易有自大的想法。如别人侵略我们使我们牢记在心，巴不得丢原子弹炸掉日本。但想想藏人，维人，蒙古人，及各个弱小额少数民族（如备受清政府折磨的苗族），想不被外族折磨有多难。其他例子还包括对朝鲜韩国日本越南文化的鄙夷，总希望他们说每句话都提到是从中国学的，以至于看到韩国端午节申遗就发疯。试想，如果这个节日在韩国过，他们的确有申遗的权利，就像我们也可以把从西域传过来的琵琶申遗一样。