Your politicians can weigh the consequences of pleasing Him and His government in exile and displeasing the Chinese government – the real power that runs China, including Tibet. “Might is right”. This is the lesson the West has taught us and others.

I’ve always had an idea that: people around the world are the same to the core though they are broght up in different surroundings, having different beliefs, and speaking different languages. That’s why people of different countries can communicate with each other.

“To err is human”. But my idea is that they err in the same way. So, when you accuse of Chinese people, you accuse of your own people because we’re similar flawed as humans.

For my view of the Tibet, please go to the dear fenqings thread.

What I can tell you is that when our Government say the country’s people have gotten their feelings hurt, at least 80% of the population will feel the same way, i.e. “their feelings are hurt” or more precisely they are “angered”.

Dalai Lama’s “personal reps” in talks with Beiing said that they want all non-Tibetan people in and around today’s Tibetan Autonomous Region to be evicted, including Han, Mongolia, Hui, Menba, and Lhoba Chinese. They also want China’s national defense army to be withdrawn from in and around T.A.R. Can I safely say the reps are insane?

I think you are still unable to understand the point I tried to make in my post. I don’t think I was trying to set a rule in discussions.

Let me make it really simple:

shangganqing (to have gotten feelings hurt) is a term in everyday Chinese.

I’ve explained how this term is used between Chinese people in my post. And now, what does it mean when the Chinese government say the Chinese people it represents have gotten their feelings hurt? It means the people are angered.

In short, it’s a Chinese way of saying someone is disappointed and angered.

Feelings? Well, “feeling” in this case is not HOW the Chinese people or Government feels. It’s actually WHAT they feel towards someone or some country, e.g. I’ve done everthing to make you happy and well (love felt for you), and you don’t trust me and do things that hurt my happiness and well-being; and we’ve done nothing that hurts your country’s national interests (respect of your interests we have), and you sell weapons to our province Taiwan and meet the Dailai Lama.

I think this is essentially a problem of translation. We’re not arguing about the same thing. Ganqing is not feeling.

Huolong: As for the “hurt feelings” and the consequences you refer to in your post, I’m thinking of this talk as a nice way of stifling undesired debates about real issues. Of course that can only work if all parties involved agree to such a stifling rule. I don’t respect such a rule myself. I won’t make demands on others to “respect my feelings”. The only thing I demand is some civility in debate (because a bit of coolness in the right place helps to stick to the issues). It is for my interlocutor to decide if I hurt his feelings and if there is rapport or if there isn’t. In my view, the “hurt feelings” talk only blurs the borders of individual responsibilities.
With or without rapport – you can often walk away from personal relationships. In international relations and functions, you usually can’t walk out of the room of global politics without coming back sooner or later.

My friend Ivan has read this blog post and Austin’s at the Time China Blog. This is what he wants to say:

“For JR and Austin Ramzy: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=AfZaSmk_lrE Sincerely yours, Ivan.”