Free ≠ Independent

Just now when I was browsing the webs, I happened to see some pictures photographed in France and the States which display Tibetans' protest worldwide. Well, instead of using the word "independent" as was embarrassingly exclaimed by foolish Bjork in her Shanghai concert, they simply put "free Tibet" as their slogan. I'm not sure you have what ways of thinking; maybe some just treat them exactly identical in meaning in a sec or two. For my part, I draw two completely different pictures of these in my mind's eye. I see that it is one thing citizens in their own nation could be entitled sufficient freedom to decide for themselves what the center of their life is, what they choose to believe, or what they would do to follow the call of their conscience, and the rest, but that it is quite another to disown a people's roots, to cut off cord from the motherland and declare that "we are born to be different ethnically, and we are separate, so what we do has nothing with you".

Evidently, the former has nothing to do with splitting a country, while the latter targets separateness from a country; the former simply practices the fundamental rights of every decent human being, while the latter provokes conflicts within the sovereign of a country; the former being sticked to should not allow compromise in that it spurs the progress of a nation, while the latter being denied is non-negotiable in that it hampers the full development of a nation.

Let's dig it more deeply. Specifically, Tibet is too impoverished to seek independence from China which backs it up with a large amount of economic resources every year. It's so unwise to irritate an ironclad mother and patron. But what then? It's just as if the patron has done 99 good deeds to the poor, yet does the 100th to kill the poor. If the most cherished values of one's life have been deprived, what's the point of muddling along? Every person that has even the slightest reflection on her life dare not say we're not living on our beliefs, no matter how aberrant or how superstitious they may appear as against others'. To hold one's particular belief as well as to hold a community's traditional belief is to exercise people's freedom to make their life meaningful. The saying of "free Tibet" is not even remotely unduly. We all want to be free, let us say "free school", "free company", "free communist party", "free Candice", whatsoever. It is precisely the same with the issue of Tibet. What Tibetans have done is, in fact, trying to urge our government to authentically exercise its promise on Tibetans' autonomy, far removed from attempting independence.

I'm quite earnest to say that I myself, among many of patriotic youths in China, feel in instinct a loath and aversion towards all splittists. But I believe that before we incarcerated all those stubborn people in the name of separating the country it is necessary first to give anybody a justifiable right to speak for what they really want and stand for, or at least we should not be merely convinced by what some people have said without looking into all channels of information to reach a fair judgment. But, if we are not able to command a relatively comprehensive view of the event ( the doing of which in light of our country's current situation is next to impossible), it's never too irresponsible to jump into that bandwagon of ethnic sentiment now having a trend to contain as much well-educated Chinese civilian as possible. Just like what those open-minded have called upon on the world level, we need a face-to-face communication. Believe me, misunderstanding is the most grinding disaster that could fall upon any civil people.