In Tibet since the Chinese invasion and occupation thousands of followers of the Dalai Lama were killed as they did not agree that Tibet was a part of China. The Dalai Lama fled the country as he feared for his life, monks and nuns that remained were punished and soon monasteries became deserted. The freedom of religion was suppressed as religion was seen as an opponent to the communists. The Chinese ignored international appeals to allow more freedom religion, but that was the only international protest made. Still people were being put in prison, tortured and killed for their beliefs. There was an act against this but it still continued regardless of the law and people still suffered. China also changed the way that the Tibetans worked; they got rid of collective agriculture as well as religion. The people of Tibet lost all of their freedom and like the Chinese people in the first half of this essay no one would dare to say what they truly thought. Still the past few years, supporters of independence for Tibet have been suppressed and there has been little/no improvement in human rights. There is still a lot of political tension between Tibet and China.
The trial of Mao Ze Dong and the rest of the gang of four showed that the choices that had been made by them were bad and that the criticisms that were made were true. It showed that Mao’s beliefs were not accepted, he was generally a bad leader, his schemes were mostly failures and that that his actions had lead to millions of deaths. After the trial of the gang of four there was an opening for a more relaxed leader, Deng Xai Ping. There were lots of problems around as inequalities could be found in the different regions of China, there were fears that the population was increasing too fast and that there would be a food shortage. Deng introduced a looser system, the open door policy. This opened up China to western ways. Private business could reopen, more business men, hotels, bars and clubs. People could dance and listen to music. They also found that they had more money than before and could buy more that the bare minimum that they needed to survive. They only got limited freedoms though the government still controlled what was on TV, radio and in the newspapers. With all of the improvements that the people had been given they still wanted more and thought that things would continue to get better. People had gotten a taste of a better life when compared to what they had before; they just wanted to make things even better for themselves. The people had gotten social freedom but not political freedom and that was what they wanted.
The protests in Tiananmen Square were very peaceful and were mainly students staging a sit-in because they wanted a grater say in how the country, their lives were run, it was a pro-democracy movement. At the time that the protest was staged President Gorbachev was visiting; the protesters also went on a hunger strike and eventually stole the front page of the worlds press and the news headlines. Deng had been humiliated to the world by the students. The protest went on but Deng brought together the peoples army and he imposed martial law. No one expected him to use violent force as he sent the troops in. The peaceful protesters were brutally attacked, but as they had made the news there were still lots of cameras there that captured the whole thing on film. After 22 days the protests stopped as hundreds of people had been injured and lots had been killed. To this day the government still insists that no one was killed in Tiananmen Square. After this the freedom of press was tightly restricted so that no one could criticise Deng’s actions. The movement had been suppressed but it still had followers so it did not completely disappear. Deng’s reaction overall was too harsh. Almost anywhere else in the world, even violent behaviour would not get martial law imposed. Deng had proved himself to be just the same as Mao Ze Dong, if he didn’t like something the best thing to do is use some violent killing to stop it.
People were worried about the hand over of Hong Kong to China for many reasons. People felt uneasy to talk about the subject of Hong Kong, just like human rights under Mao Ze Dong, they thought that it was unpatriotic to say “I’m worried”. With China’s reputation for poor human rights and to use violent force when ever it wants people have a right to be worried. People did have good reasons to be worried as Hong Kong is very important and China is used to using the harsh methods of the communist government so it is clear that people would definitely be worried. Hong Kong is a very important business centre that a country could with changing as little as possible. It is an important business centre and helps to provide a window on the west for China, as it has strong links to Britain, windows work both ways though and China does not want people to see too much from the other side. China really needs to encourage capital into the country and to help China to develop its industries. I think that because Honk Kong is so important that China try to change it as little as possible. China is now one country with two systems, the communist china and the capitalist Hong Kong. Hong Kong has changed little business wise; it is very much the same. Human rights though have changed from when it was a part of Britain, the government have restricted freedom of speech but if China was too oppressive I think that there would bee a reaction from the west, because Hong Kong is an important business centre and a window. The vast difference between the two political cultures is working now but it might not last, will China end up changing Hong Kong for the worse or will Hong Kong change China for the better. The past though has shown that China does usually make bad decisions.
The American government, George Bush and congress man Tom Lantos objected to China hosting the 2008 Olympic Games but I think that they were black mailed into supporting it with the spy that China had got its hands on, conveniently. With China’s track record that mans life would have probably been at risk. The Tibetan government would have objected because it was a stamp of approval for China’s human rights violations. China’s international critics like amnesty international, Tibetan independence activists and former political prisoners would object as there were over 1800 people executed in the months before the decision, some of which would have taken place in sports stadiums. France also objected, as they were also one of the candidates, but also felt that it showed support to a repressive political system. Some, very few of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) would have objected but obviously not enough. The Olympic Committee still selected China, despite of the opposition because they truly believe that it would help them to gain human rights for the countries people. They thought that a strong presence of lots of nations would help the government to improve the countries human rights and to show that a large gathering of people is not such a bad thing that requires violent measures to control it. I think that it is like rewarding them for the poor human rights but they do deserve a chance to change and that this might help things. If things do not change I think that they should be banned from the competition until they can change things for the better, as the games symbolise the countries coming together as equals to celebrate the countries and the individuals’ achievements.
In conclusion I think that the changes to the canal have helped to save some things, like the lockkeeper’s cottage and the canal museum. Overall the changes have helped to destroy the heritage. Most of the buildings along the canal are new and the one that has changed the least is the Smiths flour mill. It will probably not last for long as it is up for sale and is more than likely to be used for property development. The only other building is the lock museum this does help to save our industrial heritage not just as a building but as a small museum, but we did not get to go in. The fact that we did not go in also shows that the public may not have enough access to it and it’s only open a few days a week. The other buildings have fallen into disrepair or have just been torn down. With all of the new buildings, footpaths, foot grips and other “improvements” very little has been saved and I think that we will see even more improvements. I think that there is very little of the canals heritage remaining for the public to have easy access to and that there will become less in years to come, the canal may still be there but there is little else remaining.
I had a lot of maps the ones that I used were not very reliable as they were mostly photocopied that were blurred, the print was very small and was hard to read so some of the names I used may have been wrong. The maps do help to show you the types of buildings and you can see that it was very busy as there were a lot of businesses.
The lock museum was not reliable as it wasn’t open and I didn’t get a chance to go back to get some information.
The archives had a lot of useful information, like clear maps that were easy to read, newspapers, pictures and census records. They were reliable as the pictures gave you a good idea of what all of the canal was like. You got an idea of how important it was to the town and all of the jobs that it provided.
The canal has changed the basin has been extended and enlarged by the art gallery but there are things that haven’t like the Stafford blue bricks on the walls of the canal. It was very useful as it is close by and you can go back once we had started the assignment and understood it more the changes and things that were saved could be found easier.
