Interesting articles on Tibet
Ben Madigan
ltl...@mindspring.com
HHDL thought treating humans is like treating parrots.
"Even animals, if you look after them sincerely, become loyal. When I
was young, I had a beautiful parrot. One attendant always fed that
parrot and so it was absolutely loyal to him. I got a little bit
jealous. On a few occasions, I fed it. But it never showed me any
loyalty. Then I used a stick. And then the loyalty was absolutely
gone."
If the PRC simply wanted loyalty, the first thing was not to treat them
as citizens, but colonial subjects. China simply had to build more
monasteries, to acknowledge and support more God-kings. The oversupply
of God-kings from different sects, new and old, will then compete for
good will and subsidies from Beijing. Living standard would remain low
in Tibet. Birth rate would drop with more Tibetans devoted to Buddhism.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bud Swanson
highly regarded Tibetan scholars like M.Goldstein and Grunfeld.
All three have written essays about the situation in Tibet
that make suggestions on how some kind of compromise might be
found that protects China's security and preserves Tibetan
culture.
***********************************************************
July 17, 2000
VIEWPOINT
Solving the Tibetan Problem Before it's too late, China and the
Dalai Lama must reach a compromise
By TSERING SHAKYA
Tibet is everywhere these days. Its images are used to sell
insurance; the Dalai Lama's face appears on billboards to promote
computers; there are countless Tibetan festivals and exhibitions.
But Tibet as an issue in global politics has gone nowhere.
China's leaders lose no sleep over Tibet. They have invested huge
amounts of money to improve internal security, making it almost
impossible for Tibetans to stage any kind of protest. (Torture
and imprisonment inevitably follow any such attempt.) The flight
of the 17th Karmapa to India embarrassed China's leaders,
providing them with further evidence of what they see as the
Dalai Lama's "intrigue" and "insincerity." As a consequence,
contact between Beijing and the Dalai Lama has been cut,
effectively ending any hope of a negotiated settlement.
Within Tibet the political situation has worsened. The campaigns
against the Dalai Lama, his so-called "splittist" followers and
religious activities continue. The neighborhood committee
meetings are as intense as those during the Cultural Revolution.
In March at a meeting of China's National People's Congress, Zhou
Yongkang, the Communist Party secretary for Sichuan province
(which incorporates large parts of eastern Tibet), announced that
the teaching of Tibetan in schools was a drain on government
resources.
The flight of the Karmapa and other senior religious leaders and
the continual flow of Tibetans over the Himalayas to Nepal and
India constitute clear proof of China's failure to win over
Tibetans. China has not learned from the Cultural Revolution, the
most violent period in Tibetan and Chinese history. The people's
religious faith was not even dented, and when the party partially
relaxed its control, Tibetan Buddhism rebounded with a vitality
that shook the authorities. The party can coerce Tibetans, but it
cannot win their hearts and minds. Only a wise and tolerant
policy can do that.
The Chinese are confident about their rule in Tibet: they know
that however much Tibetans might protest, neither the Dalai Lama
nor the Tibetans themselves have the power to dislodge them.
Given Beijing's intransigence and the failure of the Tibetan
government-in-exile to arouse the people, China's lack of
interest in a negotiated settlement has left the Tibetans
hopeless and dejected. Their depression has been further deepened
by the Dalai Lama's public statements that he has done his
best to find a solution but has so far failed. Among the Tibetan
refugee community there is a sense of despair about ever
returning to the homeland. An increasing number of Tibetans are
looking overseas, especially to the United States, for their
salvation. Prospects of a bleak future are driving hundreds of
young Tibetans to the West, where they often end up washing
dishes in New York, London or Paris.
Hope that international pressure on China could bring change
remains unfulfilled. Despite growing popular support for the
Tibetan cause in the West, there are no signs that governments
are willing to take up the cause in earnest. The Tibetan problem
lies at the bottom of the heap. And it is likely to remain there
for the simple reason that Tibet has no economic or strategic
value for Western governments, and China is not a country that
can be bullied. It's not that Beijing is immune to international
persuasion,there simply is noconcerted pressure on China to
relent on Tibet.
The gulf between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese leadership is not
insurmountable. A solution can be reached that meets Beijing's
security concerns and gives Tibetans a homeland. However, it will
require courageous and imaginative decisions on both sides. Deng
Xiaoping's bold "one country, two systems" policy has gone a long
way in meeting China's claim to sovereignty while leaving people
in other parts of the country to run their own affairs. If
Beijing insists that it will talk with the Dalai Lama only in
person, refusing to recognize officials appointed by him, he
should be prepared to meet with China's leaders. The Dalai Lama
has declared he does not want independence for Tibet and is
willing to meet Beijing's security concerns by agreeing to
relinquish control of foreign and defense policy to China.
Beijing in return should recognize that by giving Tibet genuine
autonomy its security and status in the world will not be
endangered. If anything it will be enhanced.
Tsering Shakya is the author of The Dragon in the Land of Snows:
A History of Modern Tibet Since 1947
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Bud Swanson
Tibetans are citizens not colonials. They were "liberated" not
conquered. The CCP is fighting "superstition," not Tibetan
culture. Inmates in Loagai are undergoing labor reform not
imprisonment for their oplitical beliefs.
When it comes to lexicon, Marxism-Leninism is second to none.
When it comes to people's lives, it comes up a little short.
"The U.N. Development Program's human development index ranks
life in Tibet on par with that in Zimbabwe or Equatorial Guinea.
The us-and-them [Tibet-and-China] feeling is pervasive at the
Princess Bhrikuti, [a Lhasa bar frequented by educated Tibetans]
a bit like Prague during the cold war. But whether the complaints
[against the CCP] are jovial or bitter, they are always very
discreet...."
source:
http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/magazine/2000/0717/cover1.html
Bud
jpop
news magazines does a cover story on Tibet or DL every year
around the time of DL's world tour. Lo and behold, there it is.
This Tsering Shakya guy sounds reasonable and appears to be a
guy we can do business with, in Lady Thatcher's famous words.
Unfornately, he is not HHDL nor does he represent the majority
of Tibetans. No matter what DL and Tibetans say, we know they
want independence in their hearts. They say they want
negotiation, yet they seize every opportunity to play some petty
shenenigans with China, which makes minimum mutual trust
necessary for any negotiation impossible.
Chinese have a saying goes like this: listen to his words and
watch his deeds. So far we haven't enough evidence that suggest
DL really wants a genuine dialogue and realistic solution.....
Bud Swanson
>In article <056e1940...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
> Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
>> > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
>> >> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
>> >>
>> >Interesting.
>> >HHDL thought treating humans is like treating parrots.
>> >
>> >"Even animals, if you look after them sincerely, become
loyal.
>> When I
>> >was young, I had a beautiful parrot. One attendant always fed
>> that
>> >parrot and so it was absolutely loyal to him. I got a little
bit
>> >jealous. On a few occasions, I fed it. But it never showed me
>> any
>> >loyalty. Then I used a stick. And then the loyalty was
>> absolutely
>> >gone."
>
>Clearly he suggested of treating human is somewhat like treating
>parrots. I think such comparison is demeaning.
>
>Alright, I am biased. What I think about HHDL is really not
important.
>But what do you think? Do you think treating human as treating
parrot
>is a manifestation of great wisdom?
I think parrots and people are similar in that both can develop
loyalty toward someone and something that treat them well and
neither will developes loyalty to those that beats them. Not a
terribly profound insight perhaps but applicable to the
situation in Tibet.
>
>Actually, what you think about HHDL is 100% your business. You
only
>have yourself to answer. However, whether you or other readers
agree
>with me or not, HHDL's comparison human with parrot is the
issue, not
>other Marx's lexicon.
Perhaps, but sometimes even smart people can be suckered by
pretty words when they want to believe bad enough. I know I
have.
Have a nice day :)
Bud
<snip>
Bud Swanson
>In article <056e1940...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
> Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
>> > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
>> >> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
>> >>
>> >Interesting.
>> >HHDL thought treating humans is like treating parrots.
>> >
>> >"Even animals, if you look after them sincerely, become
loyal.
>> When I
>> >was young, I had a beautiful parrot. One attendant always fed
>> that
>> >parrot and so it was absolutely loyal to him. I got a little
bit
>> >jealous. On a few occasions, I fed it. But it never showed me
>> any
>> >loyalty. Then I used a stick. And then the loyalty was
>> absolutely
>> >gone."
>> >
>> treat them
>> >as citizens, but colonial subjects. China simply had to build
>> more
>> >monasteries, to acknowledge and support more God-kings. The
>> oversupply
>> >of God-kings from different sects, new and old, will then
>> compete for
>> >good will and subsidies from Beijing. Living standard would
>> remain low
>> >in Tibet. Birth rate would drop with more Tibetans devoted to
>> Buddhism.
>> >
>>
>> Tibetans are citizens not colonials. They were "liberated" not
>> conquered. The CCP is fighting "superstition," not Tibetan
>> culture. Inmates in Loagai are undergoing labor reform not
>> imprisonment for their oplitical beliefs.
>
>Their support for the PLA led to the defeat of the American
backed,
>aristocrat rebels.
>
>Old Tibetan aristocrates were very superstitious. Dicisions
were often
>made based on advise of Oricles. The religion divided people
into some
>form of cast system.
>
>China is facing a real external threat in Tibet. It is true that
>separatists are jailed. The degree of control is realistic for
the level
>of threat.
>
>Very few people will believe that Dalai's campaign, past and
present is
>independent of USA's geopolitical interest.
>
I know you've explained this before Yu but I'm a slow learner.
Explain it to me one more time.
The CIA had political interest in harassing the CCP in the 1950s
and 60s. Now that Communism is dead and trade with PRC is
growing, what geopolitcal interest does the US have to harass
and sabotage the PRC?
Bud
ltl...@mindspring.com
Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
> > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
> >> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
> >>
> >Interesting.
> >HHDL thought treating humans is like treating parrots.
> >
> >"Even animals, if you look after them sincerely, become loyal.
> When I
> >was young, I had a beautiful parrot. One attendant always fed
> that
> >parrot and so it was absolutely loyal to him. I got a little bit
> >jealous. On a few occasions, I fed it. But it never showed me
> any
> >loyalty. Then I used a stick. And then the loyalty was
> absolutely
> >gone."
The above were HHDL's words.
Clearly he suggested of treating human is somewhat like treating
parrots. I think such comparison is demeaning.
Alright, I am biased. What I think about HHDL is really not important.
But what do you think? Do you think treating human as treating parrot
is a manifestation of great wisdom?
Actually, what you think about HHDL is 100% your business. You only
have yourself to answer. However, whether you or other readers agree
with me or not, HHDL's comparison human with parrot is the issue, not
other Marx's lexicon.
> >
> >If the PRC simply wanted loyalty, the first thing was not to
> treat them
> >as citizens, but colonial subjects. China simply had to build
> more
> >monasteries, to acknowledge and support more God-kings. The
> oversupply
> >of God-kings from different sects, new and old, will then
> compete for
> >good will and subsidies from Beijing. Living standard would
> remain low
> >in Tibet. Birth rate would drop with more Tibetans devoted to
> Buddhism.
> >
>
> Tibetans are citizens not colonials. They were "liberated" not
> conquered. The CCP is fighting "superstition," not Tibetan
> culture. Inmates in Loagai are undergoing labor reform not
> imprisonment for their oplitical beliefs.
>
> When it comes to lexicon, Marxism-Leninism is second to none.
> When it comes to people's lives, it comes up a little short.
>
> "The U.N. Development Program's human development index ranks
> life in Tibet on par with that in Zimbabwe or Equatorial Guinea.
Excellent. Thank for supplying this piece of datum.
> The us-and-them [Tibet-and-China] feeling is pervasive at the
> Princess Bhrikuti, [a Lhasa bar frequented by educated Tibetans]
> a bit like Prague during the cold war. But whether the complaints
> [against the CCP] are jovial or bitter, they are always very
> discreet...."
>
> source:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/magazine/2000/0717/cover1.html
>
> Bud
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
>
>
Yu
Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
> > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
> >> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
> >>
> >Interesting.
> >HHDL thought treating humans is like treating parrots.
> >
> >"Even animals, if you look after them sincerely, become loyal.
> When I
> >was young, I had a beautiful parrot. One attendant always fed
> that
> >parrot and so it was absolutely loyal to him. I got a little bit
> >jealous. On a few occasions, I fed it. But it never showed me
> any
> >loyalty. Then I used a stick. And then the loyalty was
> absolutely
> >gone."
> >
> treat them
> >as citizens, but colonial subjects. China simply had to build
> more
> >monasteries, to acknowledge and support more God-kings. The
> oversupply
> >of God-kings from different sects, new and old, will then
> compete for
> >good will and subsidies from Beijing. Living standard would
> remain low
> >in Tibet. Birth rate would drop with more Tibetans devoted to
> Buddhism.
> >
>
> Tibetans are citizens not colonials. They were "liberated" not
> conquered. The CCP is fighting "superstition," not Tibetan
> culture. Inmates in Loagai are undergoing labor reform not
> imprisonment for their oplitical beliefs.
To the serfs and the slaves Tibetan they were liberated.
Their support for the PLA led to the defeat of the American backed,
aristocrat rebels.
Old Tibetan aristocrates were very superstitious. Dicisions were often
made based on advise of Oricles. The religion divided people into some
form of cast system.
China is facing a real external threat in Tibet. It is true that
separatists are jailed. The degree of control is realistic for the level
of threat.
Very few people will believe that Dalai's campaign, past and present is
independent of USA's geopolitical interest.
Yu
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> In article <056e1940...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
> Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
> > > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
> > >> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
>
> > life in Tibet on par with that in Zimbabwe or Equatorial Guinea.
>
> Excellent. Thank for supplying this piece of datum.
Bud is misleading us.
here is the 1999 ranking:
Canada 1
China 98
Zimbabwe 130
Equitotial Guninea 131
India 132
Nepal 144
*Tibet is not a nation and is not on the list.
http://www.undp.org/hdro/Backmatter2.pdf
(very big file 95 pages. HDI Ranking is samewhere near the end.)
ltl...@mindspring.com
The article data is right.
See http://www.unchina.org/undp/news/html/hdreport.html
Tibet's GDP per capita value is very low.
But why?
Did the writer of the article want to investigate? No, blaming China is
simply too convenient.
In terms of resources and cultural development, Tibet ranks high. The
only reason its low per capita GDP is religion.
One need to take a look at any monastery and the monks and nuns inside.
What do they do every day? What do the monks and nuns produce in terms
of per capita GDP? Zero. If more Tibetans are allowed to be monks and
nuns, the per capita GDP will be lower.
Spiritual pursuit is important.
But one should realize that he or she can only pursuit spiritual goals
when someone else are actually producing something. Hopefully economic
development with concommitant larger degree of mechanization can
support more monks and nuns.
Yu
Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <056e1940...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
> > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >> >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
> >> > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
> >> >> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
> >Very few people will believe that Dalai's campaign, past and
> present is
> >independent of USA's geopolitical interest.
> >
>
> I know you've explained this before Yu but I'm a slow learner.
> Explain it to me one more time.
>
> The CIA had political interest in harassing the CCP in the 1950s
> and 60s. Now that Communism is dead and trade with PRC is
> growing, what geopolitcal interest does the US have to harass
> and sabotage the PRC?
Unfortunately, from U.S. Congress to public opinion polls, China
has always rank top as American's potential adversary.
I believe there is an element of racial prejudice in it, but it is a
fact.
Don't think that USA is a 100% rational nation.
franc...@my-deja.com
"Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
>
Has there been a democratic election in the exile Tibetan community? Will DL
use violence to maintain laws and orders in a chaotic situation?
FP
ltl...@mindspring.com
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> In article <8kjep4$kqu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8kjc61$j40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > In article <056e1940...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
> > > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > > > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
> > > > >> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
> > >
I wuould like to add:
Given the monks still have previleged status, the monks and the nuns
are the best and the brightest of the Tibetan people. Properly trained
they all can be great managers or some other kind of leaders. If the
Tibetans were outcompeted by the Han at present, it is not because of
they were not as intelligent, but they were handicapped.
>
> Spiritual pursuit is important.
> But one should realize that he or she can only pursuit spiritual goals
> when someone else are actually producing something. Hopefully economic
> development with concommitant larger degree of mechanization can
> support more monks and nuns.
>
ltl...@mindspring.com
Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >In article <056e1940...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
> > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >> >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
> >> > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
> >> >> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
> >> >>
> >> >HHDL thought treating humans is like treating parrots.
> >> >
> >> >"Even animals, if you look after them sincerely, become
> loyal.
> >> When I
> >> >was young, I had a beautiful parrot. One attendant always fed
> >> that
> >> >parrot and so it was absolutely loyal to him. I got a little
> bit
> >> >jealous. On a few occasions, I fed it. But it never showed me
> >> any
> >> >loyalty. Then I used a stick. And then the loyalty was
> >> absolutely
> >> >gone."
> >
> >Clearly he suggested of treating human is somewhat like treating
> >parrots. I think such comparison is demeaning.
> >
> >Alright, I am biased. What I think about HHDL is really not
> important.
> >But what do you think? Do you think treating human as treating
> parrot
> >is a manifestation of great wisdom?
>
> loyalty toward someone and something that treat them well and
> neither will developes loyalty to those that beats them.
Parrots and poeple are only similar as animals.
Please don't tell me it is appropriate for any leader, a British MP or
an American congressperson to stand before their constituents and say
something like: "I treated you as well I had treated my parrot, you
should be loyal to me as my parrot"?
If nothing else matter, acknowledging the humanity of a human or a
people, that he is more than an animal, is the first requirement of any
leader.
> Not a
> terribly profound insight perhaps but applicable to the
> situation in Tibet.
I would agree with it if HHDL were a 15 years boy. Young and
inexperienced, it is logical to compare the governing of a people with
the treating of a parrot or other pets.
However, HHDL had been the leader of millions for 10 years and the head
of the so called exiled government for 40 years. It is odd that he had
to rely on such comparison. Could he not think of other examples? Human
is not a parrot. Developing a people with a theocratic tradtion for the
21 century is more complicated than winning the loyalty of a parrot.
>
> >
> >Actually, what you think about HHDL is 100% your business. You
> only
> >have yourself to answer. However, whether you or other readers
> agree
> >with me or not, HHDL's comparison human with parrot is the
> issue, not
> >other Marx's lexicon.
>
> Perhaps, but sometimes even smart people can be suckered by
> pretty words when they want to believe bad enough. I know I
> have.
>
> Have a nice day :)
> Bud
>
> <snip>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
>
>
ltl...@mindspring.com
franc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
> "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
> > Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
> >
>
Will DL
> use violence to maintain laws and orders in a chaotic situation?
While HHDL and his clique claimed a large area shared by many
minorities, their so called exile government is a Tibetan only club.
Wonder what will happen if they are allowed to claim those area. Pure
land through ethnic cleansing?
Tibet and surrounding area had little Han population 80 years ago were
simple. They were expelled after the fall of the Qing goverment.
>
> FP
Yu
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> In article <8kjme4$pr1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > In article <8kjep4$kqu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <8kjc61$j40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > In article <056e1940...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
> > > > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
> > > > > > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
> > > >
Apart from that, Tibet is a classic example of a society where GDP
calculation will be unreliable.
GDP is a measure of the value added to the economy by the current
productive activities of individuals, businesses, governments and
non-residents.
However, where a large part of the economic activities do not involve
cash payment it will not appear in the GDP figure. This is the case with
the nomadic people. Mother Yaks produce baby Yaks and feed on the
grassland. They provide milk, meat, butter, cheese, material for
building tent, foot wear. These non-cash transaction do not show up in
the GDP figures.
In Mongolia where the Tungrik (currency) fell like a rock the nomad were
the least affected because they by pass using cash cash.
franc...@my-deja.com
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> In article <8kk6j5$5ei$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> franc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
> > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
> > > Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
> > >
> >
> Will DL
> > use violence to maintain laws and orders in a chaotic situation?
>
> While HHDL and his clique claimed a large area shared by many
> minorities, their so called exile government is a Tibetan only club.
> Wonder what will happen if they are allowed to claim those area. Pure
> land through ethnic cleansing?
>
If no democratic tendency has been demonstrated in that exile Tibetan
community, I wonder what will take to make it democratic whether or not they
stay where they are or go back to Tibet. Unfortunately, we have 'educated'
people like Bud Swanson and Brian Jackson, who were raised in democratic
countries, behaving as devout supporters of DL and eating up every word
uttered by DL as if his words are the words of a gosepel. On the one hand,
they are opposed to the political dictatorship at Peking, while on the other
they support dictatorship at that exile community. Isn't it a contradiction?
FP
> Tibet and surrounding area had little Han population 80 years ago were
> simple. They were expelled after the fall of the Qing goverment.
>
> >
> > FP
> > >
> >
Bud Swanson
>In article <8kjep4$kqu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> > In article <056e1940...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
>> > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
wrote:
>> > > >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
>> > > > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
>> > > >> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
>> >
>But one should realize that he or she can only pursuit
spiritual goals
>when someone else are actually producing something. Hopefully
economic
>development with concommitant larger degree of mechanization can
>support more monks and nuns.
>
>
>> Before you buy.
>>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
ltl...@mindspring.com
franc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8kkdae$a38$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > In article <8kk6j5$5ei$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > franc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
> > > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
> > > > Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
> > > >
> > >
community?
> > Will DL
> > > use violence to maintain laws and orders in a chaotic situation?
> >
> > While HHDL and his clique claimed a large area shared by many
> > minorities, their so called exile government is a Tibetan only club.
> > Wonder what will happen if they are allowed to claim those area.
Pure
> > land through ethnic cleansing?
> >
>
> If no democratic tendency has been demonstrated in that exile Tibetan
> community, I wonder what will take to make it democratic whether or
not they
> stay where they are or go back to Tibet.
In the same interview,
"TIME: Why do you need spiritual leaders for political work if you have
a government in exile?
Dalai Lama: No matter what we try to do here, the lamas still have
control over the people. Especially because our struggle is very much
related to dharma. It is not purely a political freedom struggle."
It is not purely a political freedom struggle. What else?
Tibetan culture preservation. What aspect of Tibetan culture?
Theocracy. The unchallenged and controlling position of the lamas.
> Unfortunately, we have 'educated'
> people like Bud Swanson and Brian Jackson, who were raised in
democratic
> countries, behaving as devout supporters of DL and eating up every
word
> uttered by DL as if his words are the words of a gosepel. On the one
hand,
> they are opposed to the political dictatorship at Peking, while on
the other
> they support dictatorship at that exile community. Isn't it a
> ontradiction?
> FP
> > Tibet and surrounding area had little Han population 80 years ago
were
> > simple. They were expelled after the fall of the Qing goverment.
> >
> > >
> > > FP
> > > >
> > >
Bud Swanson
>In article <8kjep4$kqu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> > In article <056e1940...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
>> > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
wrote:
>> > > >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
>> > > > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
>> > > >> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
>> >
ranks
>> > > life in Tibet on par with that in Zimbabwe or Equatorial
Guinea.
>> >
>> > Excellent. Thank for supplying this piece of datum.
>>
>> Bud is misleading us.
>> here is the 1999 ranking:
>> Canada 1
>> China 98
>> Zimbabwe 130
>> Equitotial Guninea 131
>> India 132
>> Nepal 144
>>
>> *Tibet is not a nation and is not on the list.
>> http://www.undp.org/hdro/Backmatter2.pdf
>> (very big file 95 pages. HDI Ranking is samewhere near the
end.)
>
>The article data is right.
>See http://www.unchina.org/undp/news/html/hdreport.html
>
>Tibet's GDP per capita value is very low.
>But why?
>Did the writer of the article want to investigate? No, blaming
China is
>simply too convenient.
No one would deny the PRC spends and has spent much money and
resources on Tibet, or that Tibet's Human Development Index
rating would have been much lower before the PLA took over.
(Although I hope you will agree Tibet would have been a lot
farther long if not for the Socialist Education campaign or GP
Cultural Revolution (and if a lighter touch had been used on the
Khampo in the early 1950s).
But I think Tibetan demoralization over occupation plays a big
part in the lack of development. When you feel your country's
future is out of your control, you aren't likely to throw
yourself into its development. I don't think it's a coincidence
that Tibetan drunks and beggar children remind western tourists
of poor aborigines and natives back home.
>
>In terms of resources and cultural development, Tibet ranks
high. The
>only reason its low per capita GDP is religion.
>One need to take a look at any monastery and the monks and nuns
inside.
>What do they do every day? What do the monks and nuns produce in
terms
>of per capita GDP? Zero. If more Tibetans are allowed to be
monks and
>nuns, the per capita GDP will be lower.
I'm no expert on the human development index, but I think
literacy and life span are major components, (In fact I think
they outweigh per capita income). I'm not sure the economic
unproductiveness of monks place a big part in Tibet's low HDI
ranking.
>
>Spiritual pursuit is important.
>But one should realize that he or she can only pursuit spiritual
goals
>when someone else are actually producing something. Hopefully
economic
>development with concommitant larger degree of mechanization can
>support more monks and nuns.
>
>
franc...@my-deja.com
Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> But I think Tibetan demoralization over occupation plays a big
> part in the lack of development. When you feel your country's
> future is out of your control, you aren't likely to throw
> yourself into its development. I don't think it's a coincidence
> that Tibetan drunks and beggar children remind western tourists
> of poor aborigines and natives back home.
I think you need more than just this kind of observation in order to prove
that the natives in Tibet are having difficulties adapting to the commercial
culture of the modern day China. I doubt very much if the natives back home
and the poor aboriginals were born to be what they are and that they have
been deprived of the opportunites to realize their potential by the
establishment either intentionally or through mismanagement.
ltl...@mindspring.com
Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >In article <8kjep4$kqu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> In article <8kjc61$j40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >> > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
> part in the lack of development.
Any person will be considered demoralized if the best he or she can
think of is to be a monk or a nun.
Will Tibet be better under HHDL?
What do you think?
Is HHDL ready to tell every Tibetans that monks and nuns are no big
deal and each and everyone of them can be a great scientists, a great
entrepeuners, and etc?
Or does he think lamas should in a controlling postion and theocracy
should continue?
> When you feel your country's
> future is out of your control, you aren't likely to throw
> yourself into its development. I don't think it's a coincidence
> that Tibetan drunks and beggar children remind western tourists
> of poor aborigines and natives back home.
The presence of beggars and other pan-handlers are a function of city
ordinance. Don't think there are any poor aborigines and natives in
some American cities. One can still see pan-handlers.
> >
> >In terms of resources and cultural development, Tibet ranks
> high. The
> >only reason its low per capita GDP is religion.
> >One need to take a look at any monastery and the monks and nuns
> inside.
> >What do they do every day? What do the monks and nuns produce in
> terms
> >of per capita GDP? Zero. If more Tibetans are allowed to be
> monks and
> >nuns, the per capita GDP will be lower.
>
> I'm no expert on the human development index, but I think
> literacy and life span are major components, (In fact I think
> they outweigh per capita income).
At the lower end and the upper end of GDP per capita, the addition of
literacy and life span will not significantly change the ranking.
Common sense. At the lower end, not enough money for anything. At the
higher end, spending in education and medicine will not be severe
contraints of the budget.
> I'm not sure the economic
> unproductiveness of monks place a big part in Tibet's low HDI
> ranking.
If you just count the number of monks and nuns, you are right.
But, for each monk that, there are many more who want to join their
rank. This desire, by itself is a barrier to greater aspirations. Monks
and nuns are the best and the brightest among the Tibetans. Their being
monks robbed Tibet numerous inventors, manufactures, bankers, and etc.
In addition, their devotion of things spiritual deprives the rest of
the Tibetan leaderships and role-models in things practical. For
example, the best HHDL can think of in term of governing is parrot.
> >Spiritual pursuit is important.
> >But one should realize that he or she can only pursuit spiritual
> goals
> >when someone else are actually producing something. Hopefully
> economic
> >development with concommitant larger degree of mechanization can
> >support more monks and nuns.
> >
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
>
>
Yu
> future is out of your control, you aren't likely to throw
> yourself into its development. I don't think it's a coincidence
> that Tibetan drunks and beggar children remind western tourists
> of poor aborigines and natives back home.
The pre- WW2 European Jews and the the Indonesian Chinese seem to fit
the same discription and yet did extremely well compared with the
general population.
Desire to throw childish tantrum tend to obscure the reality of all the
Himalayan states. All of them are at the bottom of human development.
Apart form the error in computing GDP, the terrain is hostile to
economic efficiency.
Bud Swanson
I don't know about that. There is a lot of devotion to the Dharma
in Thailand and Korea and they seem pretty chipper. Their
economies aren't exactly stagnating either.
>
>Will Tibet be better under HHDL?
>What do you think?
>
>Is HHDL ready to tell every Tibetans that monks and nuns are no
big
>deal
That I doubt.
>and each and everyone of them can be a great scientists, a great
>entrepeuners, and etc?
Why can't he tell them they can be monks OR great scientists,
etc.?
>
>Or does he think lamas should in a controlling postion and
theocracy
>should continue?
(HH Dalai Lama on his roll when he returns to TIbet)
`....Personally, I have made up my mind that I will not play any
role in the future government of Tibet, let alone seek the Dalai
Lama's traditional political position in the government. There
are important reasons why I have made this decision. There is no
doubt that the Tibetans, both in and outside Tibet, have great
hope in and reverence for me. From my side too, I am determined
to do whatever I can for the well-being of my people. The fact
that I am in a position to do this is due to my karma and prayers
over past lives. However, in the future I will not hold any
official position in the government. I will most likely become
some sort of public figure who may be called on to offer advice
or resolve some particularly significant and difficult problems
which could not be overcome by existing government or political
mechanisms. I think I will be in a better position to serve the
people as an individual outside the government."
(HH Dalai Lama on future govt in Tibet)
"....My hope is that Tibet will then be a zone of peace where
environmental protection becomes the official policy. I also hope
that Tibetan democracy will derive its inspiration from the
Buddhist principles of compassion, justice, and equality. Apart
from being a multi-party system of parliament, the future Tibetan
political system, I hope, will have three organs of government,
namely legislature, executive, and judiciary, with clear
separation of powers between them, each independent of the others
and all vested with equal powers and authority...."
(from www.tibet.com/future.html)
ltl...@mindspring.com
None the above countries are theocratic.
Monks and nuns are powerful in a theocratic society because they are
the whole "truth;" this life and everlasing. Scientific knowledge would
not change that, wealth would not change that.
> >
> >Will Tibet be better under HHDL?
> >What do you think?
> >
> >Is HHDL ready to tell every Tibetans that monks and nuns are no
> big
> >deal
>
> That I doubt.
>
> >and each and everyone of them can be a great scientists, a great
> >entrepeuners, and etc?
>
> Why can't he tell them they can be monks OR great scientists,
> etc.?
All scientists will question the concept re-incarnation and thus the
legitimacy of the reincarnated lamas.
In the above, he is talking about his ideal.
In reality, it is his opinion that no matter what he or some other
people do, the lamas will still control the people.
Bud Swanson
>In article <1542bf8b...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
> Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> >In article <16ff2edc...@usw-ex0105-040.remarq.com>,
>> > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
wrote:
>> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> >> >In article <8kjep4$kqu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> >> > Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <8kjc61$j40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> >> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
036.remarq.com>,
>> >> >> > Bud Swanson
<elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> >> >> > > >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
>> >> >> > > > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > >> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
>> >> >> >
>
Dharma
>> in Thailand and Korea and they seem pretty chipper. Their
>> economies aren't exactly stagnating either.
>>
>
driving force
>behind the Thai economy. Unfortunately Chinese schools and news
papers
>were mostly banned in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Human rights
hypocrite have
>a very large and selective blind spot that overlook the plight
of the
>ethnic Chinese.
I was not aware human rights groups had embraced the Thai
government. Weren't quite a few students shot by security forces
in democratic uprisings?
>Tibet Hypocrites = CIA front
>
>
>
>> (HH Dalai Lama on future govt in Tibet)
>> "....My hope is that Tibet will then be a zone of peace where
>> environmental protection becomes the official policy.
>
>CIA's Dalai wants Qinghai for his zone of piss. This is where
China's
>nuclear research labs are located.
>Tibetan forms only 20% of population of Qinghai. I suppose 80%
of the
>currently existing population will have to be ethnically
cleansed to
>make way for his land of piss.
He's asking for an end to immigration. I don't think anything
has been said about kicking out existing non-Tibetan population.
>
>> I also hope
>> that Tibetan democracy will derive its inspiration from the
>> Buddhist principles of compassion, justice, and equality.
>
>Historical record showed large number of political
assassinations within
> the ruling Tibet aristocrat circle. For most of the 19th
>century all of Tibet's Dalai Lamas died young and in suspicious
>circumstances in palatial power struggle.
>In 1947 they murdered Regent Reting in the dungeon of the
Potalla
>Palace, right under the nose of the current Dalai Lama 14th.
>Regent Reting was anti-British and pro-Nanjing gov of Republic
of China.
Reting may have been murdered (he died "under suspicious
circumstances"), but he was not some innocent victim of
plotters. There was an uprising against the Tibetan government
at Sera monestery on his behalf. He is known to Tibetan scholars
as a corrupt playboy and incompetent ruler, not a principled
supporter of unity with the motherland.
>In 1974 the Royal family of Bhutan uncovered a plot by Dalai's
close
>associates to murder the King of Bhutan. Dalai's brother
>(who headed the CIA operation in Tibet) fled to India just in
time to
>avoid arrest.
>
>All the religions in the world invariably BS a lot about peace
and
>compassion, but in real life they are just as good in murder and
>cruelty.
>
>> Apart
>> from being a multi-party system of parliament, the future
Tibetan
>> political system, I hope, will have three organs of
government,
>> namely legislature, executive, and judiciary, with clear
>> separation of powers between them, each independent of the
others
>> and all vested with equal powers and authority...."
>> (from www.tibet.com/future.html)
>
>Chinese tax payers are not keen to pay for CIA foothold in
China.
>The last time Beijing offer to talk with the Dalai Lama in 1984
there
>was 6 years of rioting until 1989.
The last time Beijing offer to talk with the Dalai Lama the
Cultural Revolution had just ended and there was tremendous pent
up frustration and bitterness against Chinese authorities.
>The aristocrat pest around the Dalai Lama has no desire to live
>peacefully with all the other 56 ethnic groups in China. They
can do
>what they know best, selling lies in the west.
Bud Swanson
belief to any scientific system....This is not to say that I
consider things like the oracle and the ability of monks to
survive nights spent out in freezing conditions to be evidence
of magical powers. Yet I cannot agree with our Chinese brothers
and sisters, who hold that Tibetan acceptance of these phenomena
is evidence of our backwardness and barbarity. Even from the
most rigorous scientific viewpoint, this is not an objective
attitude.
At the same time, even if a principle [e.g. the Dharma] is
accepted, it does not mean that everything connected with it is
valid. By way of analogy, it would be ludicrous to follow
slavishly and without discrimination every utterance of Marx and
Lenin in the face of clear evidence that Communism is an
imperfect system. Great vigilance must be maintained at all
times when dealing in areas about which we do not have great
understanding. This, of course, is where science can help. After
all, we consider things to be mysterious only when we do not
understand them.." (HH Dalai Lama from Freedom in Exile p.220)
Bud Swanson
13th Dalai Lama had left a testament that I read. Also, some of
the monks who were helping my studies had been in monasteries
with Mongolians...
It was only when I went to China in 1954-55 that I actually
studied Marxist ideology and learned the history of the Chinese
revolution. Once I understood Marxism, my attitude changed
completely. I was so attracted to Marxism, I even expressed my
wish to become a Communist Party member.
Tibet at that time was very, very backward. The ruling class did
not seem to care, and there was much inequality. Marxism talked
about an equal and just distribution of wealth. I was very much
in favor of this. Then there was the concept of self-creation.
Marxism talked about self-reliance, without depending on a
creator or a God. That was very attractive. I had tried to do
some things for my people, but I did not have enough time. I
still think that if a genuine communist movement had come to
Tibet, there would have been much benefit to the people....
..I still have hope. The Chinese people too have a rich culture
and a long history. For thousands of years the Tibetans and the
Chinese have lived side by side. Sometimes there were very happy
moments. Sometimes there were very difficult moments. But one
day they will see that my middle approach will bring us all
genuine stability and unity. I am sure that a day will come when
there will be good things, full of friendship, mutual respect
and helping each other...."
(from: Time Magazine October 4, 1999 "Exile : His Journey by the
Dalai Lama")
Yu
Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >In article <16ff2edc...@usw-ex0105-040.remarq.com>,
> > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >> >In article <8kjep4$kqu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> > Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> In article <8kjc61$j40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >> >> > In article <056e1940...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
> >> >> > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> > > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >> >> > > >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
> >> >> > > > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
> >> >> >
> I don't know about that. There is a lot of devotion to the Dharma
> in Thailand and Korea and they seem pretty chipper. Their
> economies aren't exactly stagnating either.
>
The not so religious Thai Chinese provide very important driving force
behind the Thai economy. Unfortunately Chinese schools and news papers
were mostly banned in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Human rights hypocrite have
a very large and selective blind spot that overlook the plight of the
ethnic Chinese.
Tibet Hypocrites = CIA front
> (HH Dalai Lama on future govt in Tibet)
> "....My hope is that Tibet will then be a zone of peace where
> environmental protection becomes the official policy.
CIA's Dalai wants Qinghai for his zone of piss. This is where China's
nuclear research labs are located.
Tibetan forms only 20% of population of Qinghai. I suppose 80% of the
currently existing population will have to be ethnically cleansed to
make way for his land of piss.
> I also hope
> that Tibetan democracy will derive its inspiration from the
> Buddhist principles of compassion, justice, and equality.
Historical record showed large number of political assassinations within
the ruling Tibet aristocrat circle. For most of the 19th
century all of Tibet's Dalai Lamas died young and in suspicious
circumstances in palatial power struggle.
In 1947 they murdered Regent Reting in the dungeon of the Potalla
Palace, right under the nose of the current Dalai Lama 14th.
Regent Reting was anti-British and pro-Nanjing gov of Republic of China.
In 1974 the Royal family of Bhutan uncovered a plot by Dalai's close
associates to murder the King of Bhutan. Dalai's brother
(who headed the CIA operation in Tibet) fled to India just in time to
avoid arrest.
All the religions in the world invariably BS a lot about peace and
compassion, but in real life they are just as good in murder and
cruelty.
> Apart
> from being a multi-party system of parliament, the future Tibetan
> political system, I hope, will have three organs of government,
> namely legislature, executive, and judiciary, with clear
> separation of powers between them, each independent of the others
> and all vested with equal powers and authority...."
> (from www.tibet.com/future.html)
Chinese tax payers are not keen to pay for CIA foothold in China.
The last time Beijing offer to talk with the Dalai Lama in 1984 there
was 6 years of rioting until 1989.
The aristocrat pest around the Dalai Lama has no desire to live
peacefully with all the other 56 ethnic groups in China. They can do
what they know best, selling lies in the west.
Yu
Knaus said this about the Dalai Lama:
"In 1959, his flight into exile wasn't voluntary, but we [the CIA] lived
up to that commitment." Knaus found that the CIA's subsidies to the
Dalai Lama lasted, at an unspecified level, until 1974.
Voluntary or not that was Knaus' opinion, Dalai has served the CIA for
50 years.
No responsible Chinese leader can afford to ignore that fact.
The people around him are 100% anti-Chinese to the core.
Bud Swanson
>> Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
wrote:
>>> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>> >In article <16ff2edc...@usw-ex0105-040.remarq.com>,
>>> > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>>> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>> >> >In article <8kjep4$kqu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>>> >> > Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> In article <8kjc61$j40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>>> >> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>036.remarq.com>,
>>> >> >> > Bud Swanson
><elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> > > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>> >> >> > > >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
>>> >> >> > > > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> > > >> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
>>> >> >> >
>>
>Dharma
>>> in Thailand and Korea and they seem pretty chipper. Their
>>> economies aren't exactly stagnating either.
>>>
>>
>driving force
>>behind the Thai economy. Unfortunately Chinese schools and news
>papers
>>were mostly banned in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Human rights
>hypocrite have
>>a very large and selective blind spot that overlook the plight
>of the
>>ethnic Chinese.
>
>government. Weren't quite a few students shot by security forces
>in democratic uprisings?
**********************************************************
http://www.amnesty.org/news/2000/33900200.htm
Amnesty International Public document
AI Index ASA 39/002/2000
News Service Nr. 85
17 May 2000
Thailand
Justice denied eight years after Bangkok massacre
Eight years after the massacre of almost 100 pro-democracy
demonstrators by security forces in Bangkok, the Royal Thai
Government has failed to take action, Amnesty International said
today. No one in the security forces has been brought to
justice, the government investigation remains secret, and the
victims and their families have received no official compensation
for their loss.
"Until action is taken, the May 1992 killings will haunt both the
government and the people of Thailand. The security forces will
continue to operate with almost complete impunity, and the
victims' families will be unable to move forward with their
lives," Amnesty International said today.
On this day in 1992 the security forces opened fire at head
height on thousands of unarmed demonstrators in the streets of
Bangkok. Forty-four people were killed and at least 38
"disappeared", although the number could be much higher. None of
the bodies of those who went missing have been found. Thousands
of demonstrators were wounded, some of whom are now
permanently disabled......
Bud Swanson
>In article <15cd800d...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com>,
HH DID take money from the CIA but if I'm not mistaken they shut
off his funds after Nixon visited PRC around 1972. (Which
doesn't add up to 50 years I don't think). It has been more than
ten years since HH Dalai Lama officially abandoned the goal of
independence for Tibet with his Strasbourg Proposal.
>No responsible Chinese leader can afford to ignore that fact.
>The people around him are 100% anti-Chinese to the core.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yu
> > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >> >In article <16ff2edc...@usw-ex0105-040.remarq.com>,
> >> > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >> >> >In article <8kjep4$kqu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> >> > Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <8kjc61$j40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> >> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> 036.remarq.com>,
> >> >> >> > Bud Swanson
> <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
> >> >> >> > > > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
> >> >> >> >
>
> I was not aware human rights groups had embraced the Thai
> government. Weren't quite a few students shot by security forces
> in democratic uprisings?
You are mixing different issues.
The cultural genicide of the ethnic Chinese schools and most Chinese
language newspapers in Thailand in the 60s,70s, and 80s recieved no
attention from these HR hypocrites.
The student up rising was a different matter.
Bud, are you even aware that Chinese language schools were banned in
places like Indonesia and Thailand until very recently.
> He's asking for an end to immigration. I don't think anything
> has been said about kicking out existing non-Tibetan population.
Almost anything can be twisted and lies upon as we see in the Qinghai
World Bk Project. I think most Chinese are convinced by now that nothing
constructive can ever come out of working with these Tibet Activists.
Their motive is to serve American geo-political interest.
> >Historical record showed large number of political
> assassinations within
> > the ruling Tibet aristocrat circle. For most of the 19th
> >century all of Tibet's Dalai Lamas died young and in suspicious
> >circumstances in palatial power struggle.
> >In 1947 they murdered Regent Reting in the dungeon of the
> Potalla
> >Palace, right under the nose of the current Dalai Lama 14th.
> >Regent Reting was anti-British and pro-Nanjing gov of Republic
> of China.
>
> Reting may have been murdered (he died "under suspicious
> circumstances"), but he was not some innocent victim of
> plotters. There was an uprising against the Tibetan government
> at Sera monestery on his behalf. He is known to Tibetan scholars
> as a corrupt playboy and incompetent ruler, not a principled
> supporter of unity with the motherland.
Believer of peace and compassion blah blah blah put to death an
incompetent playboy in the dungean of the Potalla Palace!!
Please, you are smart enough to see that this guy has been murdered for
some thing more than that. He was a threat to the pro-British fraction
in Lhasa.
> >Chinese tax payers are not keen to pay for CIA foothold in
> China.
> >The last time Beijing offer to talk with the Dalai Lama in 1984
> there
> >was 6 years of rioting until 1989.
>
> The last time Beijing offer to talk with the Dalai Lama the
> Cultural Revolution had just ended and there was tremendous pent
> up frustration and bitterness against Chinese authorities.
Cultural revolution was over in 1976 with the arrest of the Gang of
Four. The rioting in Lhasa took place about 10 years later.
Declassified state Department documents in the 60s (cultural revolution)
revealed something very interesting points.
It recorded Mr. Thondup's, (Dalai 's brother) report to the CIA on
Tibet.
Apparently CIA was able to infiltrate the Tibet local Gov with
spies before the cultural revolution (CR). These spies were completely
purged and some
of them executed during the cultural revolution. Thus severly damaging
the CIA's ability to stir trouble in Tibet.
After the CR the CIA must have went back and revived their operation and
the weak leadership of Hu Yaobang must have tempted the CIA to try and
trigger a chain reaction of disintegration in China by stirring up the
Lhasa riot.
Yu
Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:> >>In article <1542bf8b...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
> >> Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >>> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >>> >In article <16ff2edc...@usw-ex0105-040.remarq.com>,
> >>> > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >>> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >>> >> >In article <8kjep4$kqu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >>> >> > Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >> In article <8kjc61$j40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >>> >> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >036.remarq.com>,
> >>> >> >> > Bud Swanson
> ><elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >> > > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >>> >> >> > > >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
> >>> >> >> > > > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >> > > >> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
> >>> >> >> >
> >>
> >Dharma
> >>> in Thailand and Korea and they seem pretty chipper. Their
> >>> economies aren't exactly stagnating either.
> >>>
> >>
> >driving force
> >>behind the Thai economy. Unfortunately Chinese schools and news
> >papers
> >>were mostly banned in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Human rights
> >hypocrite have
> >>a very large and selective blind spot that overlook the plight
> >of the
> >>ethnic Chinese.
> >
> >government. Weren't quite a few students shot by security forces
> >in democratic uprisings?
>
AI ever utter a word about banning of Chinese language schools in
Indonesia or Thailand. The Chinese in Indonesia was not even allowed to
celebrate Chinese lunar new year until 1999.
The student up rising in Thailand in the 70 and 80 was mostly left wing
non-communist in nature. Even then I doubt AI has ever support their
course during the cold war years. Prove me wrong if you can.
It was only after the cold war that AI feel comfortable in supporting
these non-communist left wingers.
Yu
> > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> HH DID take money from the CIA but if I'm not mistaken they shut
> off his funds after Nixon visited PRC around 1972. (Which
> doesn't add up to 50 years I don't think).
The rule is CIA declassify their 30 years and older documents. Even then
they did it selectively. Nobody have seen their 1970s document yet.
I don't think you can find many Chinese who believe that CIA has lost
interest in sabortageing China.
Do you honestly believe that CIA has hand off policy in Tibet?
> It has been more than
> ten years since HH Dalai Lama officially abandoned the goal of
> independence for Tibet with his Strasbourg Proposal.
>
> >No responsible Chinese leader can afford to ignore that fact.
> >The people around him are 100% anti-Chinese to the core.
kingj...@my-deja.com
> Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
> > > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
> > >> Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
> > >>
> > >HHDL thought treating humans is like treating parrots.
> > >
> > >"Even animals, if you look after them sincerely, become loyal.
> > When I
> > >was young, I had a beautiful parrot. One attendant always fed
> > that
> > >parrot and so it was absolutely loyal to him. I got a little bit
> > >jealous. On a few occasions, I fed it. But it never showed me
> > any
> > >loyalty. Then I used a stick. And then the loyalty was
> > absolutely
> > >gone."
>
> The above were HHDL's words.
> Clearly he suggested of treating human is somewhat like treating
> parrots. I think such comparison is demeaning.
>
You're not really Chinese are you? I guess you are probably just some
ignorant redneck trying to make Chinese look bad...That is so pathetic.
Get a life.
ltl...@mindspring.com
franc...@my-deja.com
Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> (Although I hope you will agree Tibet would have been a lot
> farther long if not for the Socialist Education campaign or GP
> Cultural Revolution
The whole China, looking back in retrospective, would have been a lot farther
ahead without those things you mentioned above. For that matter, the whole
Vietnam would have been long ahead too without the central planning economic
mechanism imported from the Russians. What else is new? But now all that is
behind us.
(and if a lighter touch had been used on the
> Khampo in the early 1950s).
>
> But I think Tibetan demoralization over occupation plays a big
> part in the lack of development.
First of all, you have to define "the lack of development" vs. what is
supposed to be the optimal development that you would expect to have been
realized in the absence of occupation. That I don't think you can prove.
Secondly, how can you prove that it "demoralization" as such exists.
Thirdly, how can you prove that "demoralization", if it did exist, must have
come from occupation.
Fourthly, how can you prove that "demoralization", if it did exist, bears a
cause and effect relationship with "the lack of development", provided also
the latter did exist. Maybe it is the belief system in recarnation that
causes "development".
Fifthly, what makes you think that development at this level and at this
pace, is not appropriate for the natives? I remember that you were
complaining "over-development" in other posts.
FP
When you feel your country's
> future is out of your control, you aren't likely to throw
> yourself into its development. I don't think it's a coincidence
> that Tibetan drunks and beggar children remind western tourists
> of poor aborigines and natives back home.
>
> >
> >In terms of resources and cultural development, Tibet ranks
> high. The
> >only reason its low per capita GDP is religion.
> >One need to take a look at any monastery and the monks and nuns
> inside.
> >What do they do every day? What do the monks and nuns produce in
> terms
> >of per capita GDP? Zero. If more Tibetans are allowed to be
> monks and
> >nuns, the per capita GDP will be lower.
>
> I'm no expert on the human development index, but I think
> literacy and life span are major components, (In fact I think
> they outweigh per capita income). I'm not sure the economic
> unproductiveness of monks place a big part in Tibet's low HDI
> ranking.
>
> >
> >Spiritual pursuit is important.
> >But one should realize that he or she can only pursuit spiritual
> goals
> >when someone else are actually producing something. Hopefully
> economic
> >development with concommitant larger degree of mechanization can
> >support more monks and nuns.
> >
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
>
>
Bud Swanson
>In article <01ee5ff0...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com>,>> >In article <1542bf8b...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
>> > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
wrote:
>> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> >> >In article <16ff2edc...@usw-ex0105-040.remarq.com>,
>> >> > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> >> >> >In article <8kjep4$kqu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> >> >> > Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article <8kjc61$j40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> >> >> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> 036.remarq.com>,
>> >> >> >> > Bud Swanson
>> <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
>> >> >> >> > > > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > >> Take a look at
http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
>> >> >> >> >
>
>>
>> government. Weren't quite a few students shot by security
forces
>> in democratic uprisings?
>
>The cultural genicide of the ethnic Chinese schools and most
Chinese
>language newspapers in Thailand in the 60s,70s, and 80s recieved
no
>attention from these HR hypocrites.
>The student up rising was a different matter.
>Bud, are you even aware that Chinese language schools were
banned in
>places like Indonesia and Thailand until very recently.
I was not. It is a violation of human rights and activists
should have protested it.
"There was a popular saying among the Tibetans that change
reached Tibet last, in the way that a ripple from the centre of a
pool of water finally areaches the edge...The campaign to root
out the ultra-leftist faction from the regional CCP was not
carried out earnestly until the middle of the 1980s." (from The
Dragon in the Land of the Snows p.369) The first big post-CR riot
in Lhasa was in 1987 I think.
>
>Declassified state Department documents in the 60s (cultural
revolution)
>revealed something very interesting points.
>It recorded Mr. Thondup's, (Dalai 's brother) report to the CIA
on
>Tibet.
>
>Apparently CIA was able to infiltrate the Tibet local Gov with
>spies before the cultural revolution (CR). These spies were
completely
>purged and some
>of them executed during the cultural revolution. Thus severly
damaging
>the CIA's ability to stir trouble in Tibet.
>
>After the CR the CIA must have went back and revived their
operation and
>the weak leadership of Hu Yaobang must have tempted the CIA to
try and
>trigger a chain reaction of disintegration in China by stirring
up the
>Lhasa riot.
>
If the "CIA must have" started disorder, wouldn't Beijing have
offered us some evidence of that by now? Something doesn't seem
quite right. If Tibetans are basically happy with Chinese rule,
and if riots are caused only by CIA agents, and there are many
tens of thousands of Chinese security personnel in T.A.R. with
interogation and prisons (if not torture chambers) available for
them to use, then why is the CIA able to do anything at all in
Tibet? There must be some other explanation for discontent than
the CIA.
Yu
>"There was a popular saying among the Tibetans that change
>reached Tibet last, in the way that a ripple from the centre of a
>pool of water finally areaches the edge...The campaign to root
>out the ultra-leftist faction from the regional CCP was not
>carried out earnestly until the middle of the 1980s." (from The
>Dragon in the Land of the Snows p.369) The first big post-CR riot
>in Lhasa was in 1987 I think.
If you are saying that the Lhasa rioting of 1987 was a spontaneous
expression of anger then it is hard to explain why people can
wait that long and wait for the radical to be purged, then go out and
beat up the moderate.
The worse part of CR was in the 60s, 20 years before the Lhasa riot of
1987.
The Lhasa rioting was not spontaneous.
CIA cells were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution (State
Department document).
From the 70s, Dalai's exiles started radio broadcast to Tibet.
From 1979 to early 80s atmosphere was very relax. Dalai's
representatives were all over Tibet.These representatives, as soon
as they got off the bus started giving speeches inciting violence. They
took advantage of the relaxed atmosphere and with their
money they re-build their network.
John Ackerly the president of the International Campaign for Tibet
claimed that he was in Tibet by accident and witnessed the
1987 Lhasa riot.
I don't believe his story.
On Sept. 21 DL gave a speech to US congress declaring Tibet a nation
under Chinese occupation. On 27th Sept. rioting broke
out and John Ackerly was there filming it by chance?
And he went on to become the president of the International Campaign for
Tibet receiving fiunding form NED.
This was all well planned with American involved.
Those radio broadcast was made possible only with India and USA backing
it.
>If the "CIA must have" started disorder, wouldn't Beijing have
>offered us some evidence of that by now? Something doesn't seem
>quite right. If Tibetans are basically happy with Chinese rule,
>and if riots are caused only by CIA agents, and there are many
>tens of thousands of Chinese security personnel in T.A.R. with
>interogation and prisons (if not torture chambers) available for
>them to use, then why is the CIA able to do anything at all in
>Tibet? There must be some other explanation for discontent than
>the CIA.
Bud, you give me $20mil cash and a radio station I make you a riot in
USA. ( I have no experience though :))
No country has 100% happy people, in the case of Tibet the discontent
was predominently with in the religious segment of the
society who lost their special previlage.
China has locked up some of these people.
franc...@my-deja.com
Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, from U.S. Congress to public opinion polls, China
> has always rank top as American's potential adversary.
> I believe there is an element of racial prejudice in it, but it is a
> fact.
They don't want to treat as equals the Chinese that they once looked down
upon. As a matter of fact, they are jealous of the Chinese for fear that the
Chinese will take over their number 1 place in many areas. In most of the US
movies, it is always the WASP that tell the Chinese what to do. Chinese are
depicted as timid people, people who don't want to get involved, people who
can do the WASP a favor if you just say hello to them, even the PRC
government agents are attracted to Richard Gere and as a result commit
treason against her government.... The WASP are getting to be more and more
insecure. Even the Desert Storm hero Powell once called the Chinese Chinamen
in front of the news medium in order to be accepted by the white communisty
himself.
FP
FP
> Don't think that USA is a 100% rational nation.
Phipps
>
> In article <8kjvqb$sm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, from U.S. Congress to public opinion polls, China
> > has always rank top as American's potential adversary.
> > I believe there is an element of racial prejudice in it, but it is a
> > fact.
>
> They don't want to treat as equals the Chinese that they once looked down
> upon. As a matter of fact, they are jealous of the Chinese for fear that the
> Chinese will take over their number 1 place in many areas.
That's a matter of interpretation or of projection, not a matter of
fact. If you insist on calling it a matter of fact: then provide the
factual evidence to support your statement.
Meanwhile, would you care to nominate which, in your opinion, would
instead be the top potential adversary? Senegal? Kiribati? Finland?
After you eliminate present adversaries (i.e. North Korea, Iran, Iraq,
FRY), the field narrows down dramatically.
The current geostrategic and geopolitical situation points only to
Russia as a likely rival for the slot of top potential adversary - and
Russia is unlikely to be the one, given that the US's allies in central
and western Europe have been reducing their militaries over the last
decade. PRC would be seen as a potential adversary even if its
population looked like Swedes or Italians.
Bear in mind also that there is a powerful Taiwan lobby that has a
serious vested interest in promoting the notion of PRC as a potential
adversary.
If the people of PRC were polled: who do you think they would consider
PRC's top potential adversary? I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were
the US.
> In most of the US
> movies, it is always the WASP that tell the Chinese what to do. Chinese are
> depicted as timid people, people who don't want to get involved, people who
> can do the WASP a favor if you just say hello to them, even the PRC
> government agents are attracted to Richard Gere and as a result commit
> treason against her government....
That sounds remarkably similar to blonde Daniela Bianchi (in the role of
Tatiana Romanova) falling for Sean Connery (James Bond) in the movie,
"From Russia With Love". Or another blonde, Honor Blackman (Pussy
Galore) turning against her employer, Goldfinger. Or the blonde employee
of the South African consulate falling for Mel Gibson in "Lethal Weapon
II".
It's a hackneyed plot formula... but we don't see you get worked up over
blonde white women falling for the hero and turning traitor. Looks like
racism on your part. <g>
The WASP are getting to be more and more
> insecure. Even the Desert Storm hero Powell once called the Chinese Chinamen
> in front of the news medium in order to be accepted by the white communisty
> himself.
Colin Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It's pretty safe
to say that someone who got to the pinnacle position in the military has
already been accepted; and, as you pointed out, he was considered a
hero. In most societies, heroes are typically quite well accepted,
wouldn't you say?
In the wake of the Gulf War, Powell was the most popular American alive.
Uttering a derogatory comment about an ethnic group - IF he did - was
not going to enhance his popularity, and instead would have damaged it.
franc...@my-deja.com
mrph...@slip.net wrote:
> franc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <8kjvqb$sm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Unfortunately, from U.S. Congress to public opinion polls, China
> > > has always rank top as American's potential adversary.
> > > I believe there is an element of racial prejudice in it, but it is a
> > > fact.
> >
> > They don't want to treat as equals the Chinese that they once looked down
> > upon. As a matter of fact, they are jealous of the Chinese for fear that the
> > Chinese will take over their number 1 place in many areas.
>
> That's a matter of interpretation or of projection, not a matter of
> fact. If you insist on calling it a matter of fact: then provide the
> factual evidence to support your statement.
>
The fact that I may not be able to provide 'fact' does not mean it is not
real. In order to provide facts of a quantitative nature, one has to go into
the library to do tons of studies in order to satisfy someone like yourself.
To use observation may not be enough to support a statement like that above.
But it does not mean that statement is totally voided of elements of truth.
> Meanwhile, would you care to nominate which, in your opinion, would
> instead be the top potential adversary? Senegal? Kiribati? Finland?
> After you eliminate present adversaries (i.e. North Korea, Iran, Iraq,
> FRY), the field narrows down dramatically.
>
> The current geostrategic and geopolitical situation points only to
> Russia as a likely rival for the slot of top potential adversary - and
> Russia is unlikely to be the one, given that the US's allies in central
> and western Europe have been reducing their militaries over the last
> decade. PRC would be seen as a potential adversary even if its
> population looked like Swedes or Italians.
>
There is no doubt that the PRC is the number one adversary of the US
currently. The dragged pace of political development does represent a
potential threat to the US, no doubt. But I think we were on a slightly
different topic as below.
> Bear in mind also that there is a powerful Taiwan lobby that has a
> serious vested interest in promoting the notion of PRC as a potential
> adversary.
Italy was also an enemy of the US in the second world war. But I don't think
there was an element of institutionalized racism against the Italians.
Somehow I feel the element of racism against the Chinese people is to a
certain extent 'institutionalized'. The "oppression of the Tibetans" by the
Hans, for example, has been a form of 'institutionalized' racism against the
people rather than the form of government in Peking. Bud Swanson, being a HK
government economist, has been preaching against what he was taught at school
in the topic of economic development in Tibet. He always talks about the
impact of Hans on Tibet as opposed to seeing how people there as a whole are
working hard to improve that society. Either he is a paid propagandist of
the exile Tibetan community or he is a graduate from the college of Wanchai
in HK.
> If the people of PRC were polled: who do you think they would consider
> PRC's top potential adversary? I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were
> the US.
Yes, no doubt. But I don't think there is an element of racism against the
American people by the Chinese at all.
>
> > In most of the US
> > movies, it is always the WASP that tell the Chinese what to do. Chinese are
> > depicted as timid people, people who don't want to get involved, people who
> > can do the WASP a favor if you just say hello to them, even the PRC
> > government agents are attracted to Richard Gere and as a result commit
> > treason against her government....
>
> That sounds remarkably similar to blonde Daniela Bianchi (in the role of
> Tatiana Romanova) falling for Sean Connery (James Bond) in the movie,
> "From Russia With Love". Or another blonde, Honor Blackman (Pussy
> Galore) turning against her employer, Goldfinger. Or the blonde employee
> of the South African consulate falling for Mel Gibson in "Lethal Weapon
> II".
>
> It's a hackneyed plot formula... but we don't see you get worked up over
> blonde white women falling for the hero and turning traitor
How do you know that? As a matter of fact, I wrote to a local newspaper
sometime ago that it is silly to learn from the WASP in the boosting of a
race's ego. I did that in view of the fact that some of the HK movie makers
are learning that cheap trick from the Hollywood producers by describing
white women falling for Kung Fu heroes. I think the movie "Red Corner" was
meant to send out a message that the Tibetans are being oppressed by the Han
Chinese rather than by the system. Maybe the audience are too stupid to
understand how people are oppressed by system. Even our old Mikie who has
had a college education does not seem to understand how a system oppresses
people. Just look at his posts in other ng such as bc.politics, in which he
appears to believe HK Chinese were 'born' with the immoral DNA of doing
property speculation to the point it hurts the stable Canadians.
. Looks like
> racism on your part. <g>
>
> The WASP are getting to be more and more
> > insecure. Even the Desert Storm hero Powell once called the Chinese Chinamen
> > in front of the news medium in order to be accepted by the white communisty
> > himself.
>
> Colin Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It's pretty safe
> to say that someone who got to the pinnacle position in the military has
> already been accepted; and, as you pointed out, he was considered a
> hero. In most societies, heroes are typically quite well accepted,
> wouldn't you say?
It was a subconscious thing in him which he unconsciously or habitually
reflected in his remarks. Of course he did not need to do that or
deliberately do that in order to get any more acceptance.
> In the wake of the Gulf War, Powell was the most popular American alive.
> Uttering a derogatory comment about an ethnic group - IF he did - was
> not going to enhance his popularity, and instead would have damaged it.
It damaged him a bit. The remark was explained to be "unintentional". I
believe it was unintentional too. It was all that racist shit shovelled into
him during his growth that found an outlet of expression without his
conscious intention.
FP >
Bud Swanson
>In article <1ba6fd69...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
> Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >In article <01ee5ff0...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com>,
>> > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
wrote:
>> >> Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> >In article <1542bf8b...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
>> >> > Bud Swanson <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
040.remarq.com>,
>> >> >> > Bud Swanson
<elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >In article <8kjep4$kqu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> >> >> >> > Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> In article <8kjc61$j40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > In article <056e1940.e29a861c@usw-ex0105-
>> >> 036.remarq.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> > Bud Swanson
>> >> <elmer_swan...@hotmail.com.invalid>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > > >In article <8kiii8$3q5$1...@gxsn.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> > > > "Ben Madigan" <benma...@hatmale.com>
wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > > >> Take a look at
>> http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/
<snip>
>If you are saying that the Lhasa rioting of 1987 was a
spontaneous
>expression of anger then it is hard to explain why people can
>wait that long and wait for the radical to be purged, then go
out and
>beat up the moderate.
The short answer is people waited because "the radical[s]" run a
tighter police state and it's much harder to demonstrate or rise
up against them. (Even so there was at least one case of
Tibetans attacking and killing Han officials during the GPCR.
In 1969 "Thrinley Choedron and her gang marched to the xian
headquarters in Nyemo, armed with swords and spears, and
proceeded to slaughter almost all the Chinese there,
along with their Tibetan workers." from Dragon in the Land of
the Snows)
But yes, it raises a very important question for Chinese. In
1987 moderates were in charge in Tibet, so is this what happens
when we try to be nice and to Tibetans and meet them half way?
My answer is that the Cultural Revolution was much different for
Tibetans than for Chinese. China had control over Tibet off and
on for centuries. But China and Chinese officials had NEVER had
control over the day-to-day lives of Tibetans before the PLA
invaded Tibet.
Until 1900 even during the Qing dynasty, "Tibet maintained its
own language, officials, and legal system, and paid no taxes or
tribute to China...." (Goldstein)
After the PLA took over "Despite constant Chinese propaganda
claiming that `Tibet had always been part of China' and
depicting the old society as brutal and corrupt, most Tibetans
still looked towards the old society as a period when there were
no Chinese in Tibet." (from Dragon in the Land of the Snows)
The GPCR was not a bad patch of governance, but something that
happened just 15 years after the PLA took over. It was the
climax of a Chinese crackdown and renunciation of Seventeen-
Point Agreement between Beijing and Tibet, which followed the
uprising in Lhasa, which followed the uprising in Kham which
started only three years after "liberation". For Tibetans the
G.P. Cultural Revolution was not what happens when radicals are
in power, but what happens when Chinese are in charge.
<snip>
>The Lhasa rioting was not spontaneous.
>CIA cells were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution (State
>Department document).
>From the 70s, Dalai's exiles started radio broadcast to Tibet.
>From 1979 to early 80s atmosphere was very relax. Dalai's
>representatives were all over Tibet. These representatives, as
soon
>as they got off the bus started giving speeches inciting
violence. They
> took advantage of the relaxed atmosphere and with their
>money they re-build their network.
Any evidence for this assertion?
Here it what a Tibetan-speaking scholar says: 'the Chinese claim
that the [1987] demonstration was in part inspired by
Dharamsala. It is not clear whether Dharamsala (or other exile
elements) actually asked one or more of the Drepung monastery
monks to organize a demonstration, but it is clear that the
monk's demonstration was meant to counter Chinese criticism
broadcast in the Lhasa media and demonstrate support
for the Dalai Lama's new initiative in the United States. To
this day the monks are proud that they risked (and are risking)
their lives to support the Dalai Lama's efforts in the West on
Tibet's behalf."
(Snow Lion and the Dragon)
>
>John Ackerly the president of the International Campaign for
Tibet
>claimed that he was in Tibet by accident and witnessed the
>1987 Lhasa riot.
>I don't believe his story.
>On Sept. 21 DL gave a speech to US congress declaring Tibet a
nation
>under Chinese occupation. On 27th Sept. rioting broke
>out and John Ackerly was there filming it by chance?
>And he went on to become the president of the International
Campaign for
>Tibet receiving fiunding form NED.
>This was all well planned with American involved.
You always have a few facts you try to turn into a conspiracy.
Are American tourists with video cameras that rare? I tell you
it doesn't take intelligence operatives to be moved by the sight
of Monks demonstrating and rioting in a holy city under Marxist
Leninist control and then being beaten and shot by police.
>Those radio broadcast was made possible only with India and USA
backing
>it.
>
>>If the "CIA must have" started disorder, wouldn't Beijing have
>>offered us some evidence of that by now? Something doesn't seem
>>quite right. If Tibetans are basically happy with Chinese rule,
>>and if riots are caused only by CIA agents, and there are many
>>tens of thousands of Chinese security personnel in T.A.R. with
>>interrogation and prisons (if not torture chambers) available
for
>>them to use, then why is the CIA able to do anything at all in
>>Tibet? There must be some other explanation for discontent
than
>>the CIA.
>
>Bud, you give me $20mil cash and a radio station I make you a
riot in
>USA. ( I have no experience though :))
No you won't.
>No country has 100% happy people, in the case of Tibet the
discontent
>was predominantly with in the religious segment of the
>society who lost their special previlage.
>China has locked up some of these people.
"...anywhere from six to twenty Tibetans were killed when Police
fired at the crowds." The Tibetan demonstrators knew police
would not hesitate to used deadly force but they demonstrated
and attacked the police station anyway. Can you really right
this off as a tantrum by people who've "lost their special
previlage" and were incited by clever radio broadcasts?
Have nice day :)
Bud Swanson
Phipps
>
> In article <397F40...@slip.net>,
> mrph...@slip.net wrote:
> > franc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <8kjvqb$sm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > Yu <yug...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Unfortunately, from U.S. Congress to public opinion polls, China
> > > > has always rank top as American's potential adversary.
> > > > I believe there is an element of racial prejudice in it, but it is a
> > > > fact.
> > >
> > > They don't want to treat as equals the Chinese that they once looked down
> > > upon. As a matter of fact, they are jealous of the Chinese for fear that the
> > > Chinese will take over their number 1 place in many areas.
> >
> > That's a matter of interpretation or of projection, not a matter of
> > fact. If you insist on calling it a matter of fact: then provide the
> > factual evidence to support your statement.
> >
>
> The fact that I may not be able to provide 'fact' does not mean it is not
> real. In order to provide facts of a quantitative nature, one has to go into
> the library to do tons of studies in order to satisfy someone like yourself.
Not at all. One single study would be sufficient to provide a substrate
for your construct that it's a fact, even if there were a brace of
studies concluding the opposite... of which you might not be aware.
A single one would suffice to give you cover. Surely someone who had
launched such a vicious and parochially Friedmanite attack as you
perpetrated on Bud Swanson [below], would have had the savvy to have
consecrated enough effort to find even minimalist support for an at
least equivalently idiosyncratic interpretation of economic theory?
???
> To use observation may not be enough to support a statement like that above.
> But it does not mean that statement is totally voided of elements of truth.
Quite. But when you make a counter-intuitive statement, the onus is on
you to establish a fact where you claim one exists.
A very large segment of the population is grossly ignorant of other
countries, even of their nearest neighbors in Canada and Mexico: they
are hardly likely to be "jealous" of China surpassing the US, since the
are unlikely to give China much thought at all - positively or
negatively. The media from which they draw their infotainment are not
stellarly known for extolling China's development, apart perhaps from
the military buildup.
At the other end of the spectrum, there is a tier of worldly and
informed people who are well aware of the dangers inherent in making
straight-line extrapolations. PRC faces challenging bottlenecks which
may be intractable without bold developments which the Party is expected
to resist on political grounds.
Not unlike other societies, the people of the US tend to exhibit
xenophobia more stridently in times of economic distress; and the US
economy is experiencing the duration-record peacetime boom. When times
are good: who cares how well do those in 2nd... 3rd... 5th... 20th...
lower... place? Dole had campaigned on a platform of alleviation of tax
burden, and went down to defeat with a pronounced yawn. What makes you
think that Americans would worry about distant China, when they proved
unimpassioned in regards to their own (presumed to be viscerally odious)
tax burden?
>
> > Meanwhile, would you care to nominate which, in your opinion, would
> > instead be the top potential adversary? Senegal? Kiribati? Finland?
> > After you eliminate present adversaries (i.e. North Korea, Iran, Iraq,
> > FRY), the field narrows down dramatically.
> >
> > The current geostrategic and geopolitical situation points only to
> > Russia as a likely rival for the slot of top potential adversary - and
> > Russia is unlikely to be the one, given that the US's allies in central
> > and western Europe have been reducing their militaries over the last
> > decade. PRC would be seen as a potential adversary even if its
> > population looked like Swedes or Italians.
> >
>
> There is no doubt that the PRC is the number one adversary of the US
> currently.
If indeed you do hold that view: how shall you maintain that you had not
arrived at that conclusion through a racist prism: as you seek to impose
on Americans who conclude similarly?
> The dragged pace of political development does represent a
> potential threat to the US, no doubt.
Is that an admission that considering PRC as the most likely adversary
need not be the result of racism? Golly-gee!
> But I think we were on a slightly
> different topic as below.
And I think otherwise. Yu had ascribed racism to a perception of PRC as
the US's most likely potential adversary, and that was the topic of our
exchange. You concede that the converse holds... but prefer to consider
that the PR Chinese arrive at such a conclusion dispassionately, while
Americans who reach a similar conclusion must do so, on the basis of
common data... along racist criteria: because you say so. That would, of
course, not reflect racism: since they do not have the benefit of the
Eternal Chinese Culture, naturally.
Of course you can introduce other elements into the discussion. These
shall be debated, or not, by mutual [rpt: MUTUAL] consent; but the
initial issue has not been resolved, and remains "in play" until a
consensus determine otherwise.
>
> > Bear in mind also that there is a powerful Taiwan lobby that has a
> > serious vested interest in promoting the notion of PRC as a potential
> > adversary.
>
> Italy was also an enemy of the US in the second world war. But I don't think
> there was an element of institutionalized racism against the Italians.
The British TV station, London Weekend Television, produced an excellent
documentary series narrated by Sir Lawrence Olivier, "the World At War."
In the program covering Pearl Harbor, a Japanese-American had opined
that Thomas Mann pleaded against being interned, as that would represent
the final injustice after he had fled the Nazi concentration camps; that
Joe DiMaggio's mother had spoken movingly about the patriotism of
Italian-Americans; but there was nobody of stature to speak out on
behalf of the Japanese-Americans.
The German-American population had experienced significant
discrimination during the period of America's participation in WWI. It's
not the prettiest expression of human consciousness; but war is
fundamentally an irrational circumstance, and leads humans to act
irrationally: e.g., acts of extreme heroism on the field of battle.
> Somehow I feel the element of racism against the Chinese people is to a
> certain extent 'institutionalized'.
At least this time you had the decency of including an exculpatory
disclaimer... though perhaps for tactical reasons. Motes & beams.
> The "oppression of the Tibetans" by the
> Hans, for example, has been a form of 'institutionalized' racism against the
> people rather than the form of government in Peking.
If it had been "institutionalized", you should have no difficulty in
pointing out the institutions. Your next task, shall you at least
cursively have gotten past your ethnic prejudices, ought to be an effort
at fudging the very real ethnographic differences between the Tibetans,
and the non-Tibetan migrants introduced into Tibet through the agency of
the distant and unaccountable locus of power in Beijing.
> Bud Swanson, being a HK
> government economist, has been preaching against what he was taught at school
> in the topic of economic development in Tibet.
Had you two gone into such depth of conversation as to exchange info
about the economics curricula you each studied? Perhaps he would care to
confirm or to deny that you might know so exactly what teaching he had
received.
> He always talks about the
> impact of Hans on Tibet as opposed to seeing how people there as a whole are
> working hard to improve that society. Either he is a paid propagandist of
> the exile Tibetan community or he is a graduate from the college of Wanchai
> in HK.
...Or he might be one of those economists who have acquired an awareness
that economics is basically the study of the satisfaction of human
needs, and that many of these needs are not monetized - viz, 'the
fallacy of misplaced concreteness', writ large.
>
> > If the people of PRC were polled: who do you think they would consider
> > PRC's top potential adversary? I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were
> > the US.
>
> Yes, no doubt. But I don't think there is an element of racism against the
> American people by the Chinese at all.
That's the way YOU see it. Fine.
So: the Chinese can arrive at essentially the same conclusion as the
"WASPs" - but the former exclusively by rational analysis, and the
latter by dint racism... although the same body of data is generally
available to both.
Because you said so.
>
> >
> > > In most of the US
> > > movies, it is always the WASP that tell the Chinese what to do. Chinese are
> > > depicted as timid people, people who don't want to get involved, people who
> > > can do the WASP a favor if you just say hello to them, even the PRC
> > > government agents are attracted to Richard Gere and as a result commit
> > > treason against her government....
> >
> > That sounds remarkably similar to blonde Daniela Bianchi (in the role of
> > Tatiana Romanova) falling for Sean Connery (James Bond) in the movie,
> > "From Russia With Love". Or another blonde, Honor Blackman (Pussy
> > Galore) turning against her employer, Goldfinger. Or the blonde employee
> > of the South African consulate falling for Mel Gibson in "Lethal Weapon
> > II".
> >
> > It's a hackneyed plot formula... but we don't see you get worked up over
> > blonde white women falling for the hero and turning traitor
>
> How do you know that? As a matter of fact, I wrote to a local newspaper
As you said, you wrote to a *local* newspaper. Not everyone reading this
ng scans local HK papers to glean a few pearls of your wisdom.
Could that be something of a revelation? In case you had not noticed,
the world does not revolve around you.
> sometime ago that it is silly to learn from the WASP in the boosting of a
> race's ego.
You might have taken that as an invitation to interpret the information
on which you focused, through other than a race-based perspective....
Ah, well...
> I did that in view of the fact that some of the HK movie makers
> are learning that cheap trick from the Hollywood producers by describing
> white women falling for Kung Fu heroes.
What's wrong with that? Are white women not good enough for your kung fu
heroes???
Your tirades against 'whiteys' going around with Chinese girlfriends
struck me as phallocentric; and your latest foray into the matter from
the opposite angle does nothing to dispel that impression.
Women are not chattel, you should know. For every white guy engaging in
a romantic interlude with an Asian woman - on the silver screen, or off
it: there is an Asian woman freely engaging with a white guy. The
paternalistic bent implicit in your criticism is not in the least
edifying.
You might also bear in mind that fictional movies cater to a fantasy,
and the audience - bar a scattering of idiots - recognizes it as such.
There is an attraction in the exotic, and "white" women are as exotic to
Asian men as the reverse. Wouldn't you be more worried at seeing a
caucasian male on the screen spurning an Asian goddess because of her
color, or an Asian turning down a white beauty because of her ethnicity?
I'd rather see more, and more, and more again, popularized examples of
inter-ethnic love, along all available or possible permutations. It's a
good vector for breaking down racist prejudice - if 'whitey' [/fill in
the blank/] can vicariously fall in love with a [fill in the blank]
woman: wouldn't he be less likely to despise her father/mother/sister/
brother/cousin/childhood friend... ???
> I think the movie "Red Corner" was
> meant to send out a message that the Tibetans are being oppressed by the Han
> Chinese rather than by the system. Maybe the audience are too stupid to
> understand how people are oppressed by system.
Speculative. I would think that most people are at least vaguely aware
of how the system oppressed Jews and others in Nazi Germany... and
non-Party members behind the Iron Curtain. For starters.
One would expect that 5 decades of opposing oppressive regimes would not
so quickly fade from collective memory.
> Even our old Mikie who has
> had a college education does not seem to understand how a system oppresses
> people. Just look at his posts in other ng such as bc.politics, in which he
> appears to believe HK Chinese were 'born' with the immoral DNA of doing
> property speculation to the point it hurts the stable Canadians.
Ascribing to genetics a propensity toward property speculation would be
junk, from a scientific pov. But had he expressed such in a barefaced
and unconscienable manner... or had he couched such a proposition amid a
batch of variously interpretable caveats?
There is nothing new in the notion of Chinese having a major effect on
BC property markets. In the run-up to the HK handover, many HK people
took out Canadian nationality (you might know a few...), and in
aggregate purchased homes on a large scale in BC: HK Chinese purportedly
made up 1/3 of the Vancouver property market at one point.
Of course, a surge in demand for housing is likely to have negative
effects on sections of society: renters and local first-time home
buyers, for example. Where there is a newly/recently arrived identifiabe
group accounting for such a surge, it is likely to provoke resentment
among portions of the newly disadvanteged established population. In
Vancouver, the HKers would be that group, therefore the resentment is
racist, isn't it? Whereas in SF, it is the "dot.coms" - who come from
similar ethnic and even 'class' backgrounds as many of those who are
being displaced: hence, no racism. The causes and effects are remarkably
similar, though. Same phenomenon, same consequences, same resentments -
but different identities: thus racism in one case, but merely
anti-elitism in another... no?
From my experience of human nature: I would expect that if you replaced
the HKers in Vancouver by another identifiable group - Quebeckers, or
whatever... the backlash would have arisen regardless. People
irrationally hate being priced out of a home. Go Figure.
It would be interesting to see what might be the reaction of the local
population if suddenly an influx of, say, Finns, bought up a third of
available housing in Shanghai: thereby pricing many native Shanghainese
out of the market. There are anecdotal indicators of discrimination in
coastal Chinese cities against rural immigrants - the these are much of
the same ethnicity as the populations native to those cities.
To experience Chinese racism, one need not have done any more than be
confronted with i.a. the discriminatory RMB exchange rates PRC had
enforced on [non-ethnic-Chinese] tourists. THAT was institutionalized
racism, in the fullest sense.
To PRC's relative credit, it was not as racist as the practices of South
Africa during the same period. Faint praise, of course - but yet an
appropriate field of comparison.
>
> . Looks like
> > racism on your part. <g>
> >
> > The WASP are getting to be more and more
> > > insecure. Even the Desert Storm hero Powell once called the Chinese Chinamen
> > > in front of the news medium in order to be accepted by the white communisty
> > > himself.
> >
> > Colin Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It's pretty safe
> > to say that someone who got to the pinnacle position in the military has
> > already been accepted; and, as you pointed out, he was considered a
> > hero. In most societies, heroes are typically quite well accepted,
> > wouldn't you say?
>
> It was a subconscious thing in him which he unconsciously or habitually
> reflected in his remarks. Of course he did not need to do that or
> deliberately do that in order to get any more acceptance.
Isn't that magnanimous of you!
Yet you remain obdurate in suggesting that there would be some
conspiracy whereby the "whites" would co-opt "blacks" so as jointly to
oppress "yellows". I will refrain from categorizing it as a (-quote-)
"matter of fact"... but the empirical evidence across my transom
suggests that persons of east-Asian origin are vastly more readily
accepted into a mainstream "WASP" community (cf. the brouhaha over
"Asians" as the "model minority"), than would be persons of African
descent. Studies I had read, bore this out; but I had not retained such
references, and therefore shall, signally in contrast, exercize caution
before introducing this as a "fact".
>
> > In the wake of the Gulf War, Powell was the most popular American alive.
> > Uttering a derogatory comment about an ethnic group - IF he did - was
> > not going to enhance his popularity, and instead would have damaged it.
>
> It damaged him a bit. The remark was explained to be "unintentional". I
> believe it was unintentional too. It was all that racist shit shovelled into
> him during his growth that found an outlet of expression without his
> conscious intention.
One way of looking at it - especially attractive when coming from a
perspective of busted imperial pride.
Another would be that the term had not, until the rather recent
phenomemon of "politically correctness" took hold, been considered
derogatory... or where seldom it had, then only mildly so. "Negro" used
to be acceptable (e.g., "the United Negro College Fund"), as was
"Oriental" - they since also have been socially engineered to become
'politically incorrect'.
Maybe we can look forward to the day when Caucasians will no longer be
called "gweilos," often even to their face ... but there's no point in
holding one's breath over it.
Powell might simply not have been sufficiently fashion-conscious for you
- again, *if* he said that (and, if so: in what context? When, where...
...???)
Reasonable doubt apparently does not count for much in your
discernation. I hope you never get called for jury duty.
Perhaps at some juncture you will grow to transcend imperial China's
fall from hegemony over its known sphere, and recover from that loss of
imperial overlordship previously imposed on the Vietnamese, the Koreans,
and others. Get over it.
franc...@my-deja.com
I think you are side-tracking the issue. I was talking about a phenomenon in
which people who have had a reasonably good education can fail to understand
the link between the political policies of a system and its impact on people,
and as a result link people as an escapegoat to the impact. And I use this
to project how racism can be 'observed' in the national arena towards a
foreign nation as a result either of people's ignorance of this link or of
others using racism to fan a move towards a foreign nation. You have been
running round and round producing long statements who could have been
expressed in a few words.
---------------snipped--------------------
Phipps
*** in order to bury your traces. ***
No wonder you snipped the previous exchange from your post: to bury your
"running round and round" writing extraneous barbs aimed at Bud Swanson
with your references to Wanchai (read: prostitution), and your casting
aspersions over his professional competence... which aspersions reflect
little more than your Friedmanite academic prejudices, and prejudging of
Bud as a person.
You went far out of your way, with obvious malice, to promote a
prejudicial and viciously defamatory portayal of Bud Swanson; yet you
have the infinite gall to castigate me for running "round and round" for
challenging your defamatory and plainly inaccurate - at best -
accusations of racism among the US populace.
That would be racist of you, if the US were not such an ethnically
diverse nationality.
*
You introduced as a "fact", that Americans, quote, "are jealous of the
Chinese for fear that the Chinese will take over their number 1 place in
many areas." I had pointed out that this is counter-intuitive, and
explained how. Your response was to censor that: "<snip>"
Curiouser and curiouser.
Ltlee wrote today, "a factual statement needs a lot of evidences which
in turn need capability and resources to discover." You two might care
to get together and hammer out some protocol whereby you both commit to
not undermine eachother's advocacy.
*
As far as
> people who have had a reasonably good education can fail to understand
> the link between the political policies of a system and its impact on people,
you are way off the mark. Americans had lived under at least 5 recent
decades of opposing repressive systems, starting with the Nazis, and
continuing with opposing the Soviet-style regimes in eastern and central
Europe. A very large proportion of the US population derives its
ancestry from Germany, Poland (remember Solidarity?), Russia,
Czechoslovakia (remember the Prague Spring?), and so on.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were more American citizens of
central and eastern European descent, than of British descent: more
Americans have German ancestry than any other ethnic affiliation... at
the time of WWII, roughly one quarter of the population. If the people
were bombarded with wartime propaganda vilifying the Germans as
ethnically evil, I sincerely doubt that i.a. the ethnically-German
D.W. Eisenhower would have gone along with the fight against Nazi
Germany. If the US had stressed ethnicity in its opposition to the
Soviet Union: for personal safety or peace of mind, Solzhenitsin would
more likely have chosen France, Sweden, or even Mauritania, as his
residence of exile... rather than Vermont.
Your characterization of my "running around", reflects nothing more than
that it often takes far more time and effort to refute a nasty and
targeted calumny, than it does to pubicize that calumny.
"Abianchn"/Liguo has based his tactics on that assymetry, as in his
scientifically unsound and outright mendacious (as established by a
definitive refutation by Hank Greely, chair of the Project's ethics
committee) characterization of the goals and actions of the Human Genome
Diversity Project.
If you want to wallow in slime along the path 'liguochen' chose, that's
your choice.
Now to the matter of China and Tibet. It's easy enough to see how you
could become annoyed at seeing references to "Han this.." and "Han
that..." - but it remains that the Tibetans and the Han are distinct
ethnic groups, and the former are being overwhemed by the latter on
their home territories under the aegis of a central government under no
discernable external accountability, and hugely dominated by the latter
ethnic group. Where you see "racism" in acknowledging the ethnic clash
between the two populations, others without such a suspect whiff of
interested ethnic prejudice will recognize that clash as a reality
existing on the ground. You choose to cast unsubstantiated (and, when
challenged: unsupported,) accusations of "racism", where your political
opponents merely underline a very real inter-ethnic clash.
Cheap tactics... but they are likely to be effective among the racially-
centered readers among whom you sought to curry favor.
For those who might miss what you had excised for political purposes:
here is what you snipped/censored.
> Subject:
> Re: Interesting articles on Tibet
> Date:
> Sun, 30 Jul 2000 17:36:51 -0700
> From:
> Phipps <mrph...@slip.net>
> Newsgroups:
> talk.politics.tibet, free.tibet
> References:
> 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9
franc...@my-deja.com
YOU HAVE WON THE ARGUMENT THIS TIME, AT LEAST IN A WAY THAT IS PROPER AND
ORTHODOX. I AM NOT ABLE TO COME UP WITH THE KIND OF EVIDENCE NEEDED TO
SUSTAIN A STATEMENT THAT SUGGESTS ELEMENTS OF RACISM HAVE BEEN USED/OBSERVED
IN THE CONDUCT OF US FOREIGN POLICIES TOWARDS EITHER THE PRC OR ANY OTHER
COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD. INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM BY THE HOLLYWOOD
ESTABLISHMENT OR US NEWS MEDIUM IS SEPARABLE FROM WHAT THE US GOVERNMENT
DOES.
NEXT TIME IT WILL BE MY TURN. CHEERRIO!
FP
In article <39877D...@slip.net>,