To understand something you need to rely on your own experience and culture. Does this mean that is impossible to have objective knowledge?
Due to the recent sudden arising of a large scaled 'Free Tibet' protest, I fell into great confusion as to which side of the debate was at fault. As a Chinese student who is currently studying in Australia, the overwhelming horrific images released by the western media of the mistreatment of Tibetans by the Chinese Government, strongly opposed my previous beliefs. I was forced to confront the question of what is the impartial truth in this debate, and is it even possible for me to understand something without relying on my personal experience and culture? If there is an unshakable reliance, does it therefore mean I would never be able to acquire objective knowledge?
Before delving any deeper, it's important to explain my personal understanding of the term 'objective knowledge'.
To me it means absolute truth, which is the reality out there or has been fully justified. So in the case of Tibet's independence debate, I will have to check historical record and hope that truth can be found. However, the history regarding to the China-Tibet relation in China are very different from Tibet. According to China's historical record, China and the Tibetan Local Government signed a 17-point agreementÃ¯Â¿Â½concerning the peaceful liberation of Tibet in 1951. It was supported by the 14th Dalai Lama and he acknowledged Tibet as a part of China. Whereas Tibetans claim that the 17-point agreement was imposed on the Tibetan Government by the threat of arms after 40,000 PLA troops had already seized Tibet's eastern provincial capital, Chamdo. In Tibet, the 14th Dalai Lama could not freely express his disapproval but he repudiated this Agreement after he went to India stating it...