. . . What happened in Tibet was a race riot in the same vein as the 1943 and 1967 riots in Detroit, Watts in 1965, and Newark in 1967.

No, there is a difference between the two. Detroit and Watts were not occupied by an act of war, though some people might feel it really was a war of race. Caucasian Americans were not attempting to out breed African-Americans or to destroy their culture. If anything, African-Americans have helped to make America what it is today, in the best sense.

Judging by the blatant attempts of the state-controlled media in China, there is no reflection on their mistakes and the Chinese Communist Party will not accept anything but “One World, One Dream” and it is a dream that is a nightmare for others.

Do keep in mind that Beijing has brought some good things to Tibet. Beijing provides 90% of Tibet’s expenditures. Tibetans live tax-free. China built schools, roads, and hospitals. By all accounts, China has improved the lives of the Tibetans. The Tibetans should be greatful for China’s Tibet policies.

That’s almost word for word what rednecks say back in Australia justifying the cultural genocide white Australians launched against indigenous Australians for upwards of 150 years.

It’s Tibet’s land. Tibet didn’t ask China to come in, take over and build roads. Sure, Tibet has benefited in some ways from China’s occupation but this by no means justifies it.

Not that it matters but, since you asked, IMHO, Carlos and Smith were right to do what they did, for that time. Dissent is healthy and needed periodically, especially to remind Americans that they live in a democracy whether they like it or not.

Simple as that, no matter what premise your argument is based on, the fact is that those Tibetan rioters attempted ethnic cleansing by not only killing Hans but Muslims as well.

Targeting violence at a particular group in a fairly spontaneous riot is not ethnic cleansing, which is a more systematic mass murder or expulsion, usually carried out by government or paramilitary groups.

What happened in Tibet was a race riot in the same vein as the 1943 and 1967 riots in Detroit, Watts in 1965, and Newark in 1967. Those who engaged in violence were properly arrested, but there was national self-reflection in the aftermath to understand the causes in order that similar riots not break out in the future. A group of Chinese academics has wisely and bravely published a petition calling on the Chinese government to hold talks with the Dalai Lama and attempt to address grievances among Tibetans. I applaud these academics for not buying into The Chinese Man’s Burden.

I understand that the Black Power salute incident in 1968 Olympics was criticized heavily by the contemporary media/people. Does the criticism still stands in hindsight and/or today’s standard? Were they wrong in making a political statement in an Olympic event, or can it be even considered a ‘political statement’ anymore?

-Tibetans’ were not justified in their use of violence against Han Chinese.

Right. It would have been best if they engaged in peaceful protests, but riots like these are usually not organized nor planned. When oppressed humans tend to lash out violently.

- By using violence, Tibetans legitimated Beijing’s use of force in retaliation.

In some ways, no. Violence is never legitimized. In fact, are not the Tibetans responding to the violence of the Chinese against their culture and populace? If you legitimize Chinese response, I do not see how you can not legitimize the riots as well.

. . . the fact is that those Tibetan rioters attempted ethnic cleansing

“Ethnic cleansing” is more a state-sponsored effort — much like what the Chinese Government has done in Tibet and elsewhere — to willfully dilute and destroy the social fabric that holds a community together. Tibetans went after the closest symbols of Chinese occupation, namely the Han that had moved in an lived there. Claiming this was “ethnic cleansing” is either a deliberate attempt at misinformation (lie?) or misunderstanding of the concept.

The anti-cnn.com site above, which is bs propaganda as well.

CNN indulges in media bias, which is one reason I do not read their site or watch the American version. Despite the poor quality of some CNN editorial choices, one can not lump all criticism of the despotic Chinese Communist Party into one category as being “anti-Chinese”. If the CCP could rise above their membership that is pure gangster and engage in real leadership and problem-solving, they could have worked this out but, as it is, they act like guilty thieves that stole and are desperately trying to justify the act. (This mink stole and jewelry was and is mine!)

Additionally, though Tibetans could have tried non-violent means, I can still really understand their pent-up anger. To also lump these protesters into one category as being criminals is too easy and should be avoided so as to work out a better solution to this situation.

One can have sympathy of their cause but not violence on such scale and target.

Whether Beijing did a disservice or a service to the Tibetans over the past 50 years is another question. Don’t lump those violence with your sympathy.

See this: http://www.anti-cnn.com