(Free Tibet) Why Tibet??
LT Lee
> I hope without sounding insensitive, and with a real sincerity, I
> ask...Why is the political issues of Tibet so important? It's an issue
> I see on Bumper Stickers and Tee-Shirts all the time, and I've seen it
> for the better part of a decade. But what I don't understand is where
> does the passion come from? Why Tibet? Why not (insert favorite
> African nation here) or any half dozen (extreme)Islamic nations under
> oppression (as oppossed to the Moderates in the region)? How about
> Free N. Korea or Cuba? I guess everyone picks their battles, but Tibet
> just doen't seem to be the worse place...all other things being equal.
> But again, I realise in asking I am in a position of ignorance on the
> Tibet matter. That's why I'm here...for you to explain it to me.
Racism against Chinese supported by mostly Europeans.
The following is their characterization of "very very Chinese" in an
award winning article showcased by the Internation Campaign for Tibet.
http://www.savetibet.org/News/News.cfm?ID=1019&c=6
"...very, very Chinese. The inner feelings lack the human touch, the
human quality, the caring nature, the loving heart and every thing
that is gentle. They are like human robots with no human feelings.
..."
-----------------
Second Prize Winning Essay
May 3, 2002
Question: In a post-solution Tibet, what rights should be granted to
Chinese workers and residents living in Tibet?
By Ngawang Choeney
The hour has drawn nigh and the moon has lent its cooling light to
shine over the darkness that has just passed by. The year is 2008AD
and the Tibetan problem has found a solution. It is the post solution
period.
The Tibetans in exile have embraced everything that the Tibetans in
Tibet have to offer except the deep-rooted Maoist ideology that is so
brutal, so devoid of compassion that they can not just have it even if
offered on a platter. The Tibetans in exile have been true followers
of the teachings of Lord Buddha which sums up the fact; commit no sin,
nurture and carry out everything that is good, control the mind and
that is the teaching in a nutshell. The Tibetans in exile have always
done their best to represent the Tibetan race as a race that abides by
compassion, love, kindness and friendliness.
Now that they have reunited with their brothers and sisters in Tibet,
it feels uneasy to commit one self to the near ones. This is because
the near ones have an absolutely different set of thoughts that are so
un-Tibetan but very, very Chinese. The inner feelings lack the human
touch, the human quality, the caring nature, the loving heart and
every thing that is gentle. They are like human robots with no human
feelings. The realization strikes back like a powerful lighting out of
the black clouds and you feel so numb, so helpless.
A decision is made. The Tibetans from both sides will accept one
another on an equal footing but the final judgment will be given by a
special group consisting of equal number of representatives.
So, the meeting has begun to discuss what to do with the innumerable
Chinese workers and the settlers in Tibet. At this moment it is not
possible to send them back to Chinese mainland where they may not have
any source of income and thus they would have to lead an unstable,
miserable livelihood. More over, it does not seem right on the part of
the Tibetans to cause suffering to the many Chinese residents. It is
the firm belief of the Tibetans not to harm others if one can not be
helpful.
The discussion has gone for three days and finally the panel has to
give the judgment. The panel has five Tibetans born and brought up in
Tibet and five representing the exiled Tibetans. The Tibetans in Tibet
have no sympathy for the Chinese workers and the residents though many
of them have been in Tibet for more than half a century. They have
forwarded the judgment that the Chinese workers must be sent back to
Chinese mainland whether they like it or not. They deserve the
suffering as they have made the Tibetans suffer much during those many
years of Chinese rule in Tibet.
Then a contradiction is forwarded by the representatives of the exiled
Tibetans saying that it is not fair and justified because the judgment
is against the diction of Buddhism. The Chinese settlers must be
allowed to remain in Tibet but they must adopt direct taxation method
for the contribution of Tibet's economy.
The panel then touches upon the work permit and the decision that the
members favor is to let the Chinese residents work as per their skills
to produce the best result. They must be given payment measured
against they performance. The Tibetan government will enroll only the
well-trained Chinese in the field of their own specialization as
responsible officials at work. The government will ensure that they
are provided with the basic rights of the employments as per the rules
of work and HUMAN RIGHTS PROVISIONS under the CHARTER OF THE WORLD
HUMAN RIGHTS BODY. There will be no discrimination on the basis of
sex, colour or creed. The employer must ensure their welfare keeping
in mind that they are employees appointed on the criteria of the
specialized category. They must have legal provisions like their
Tibetan counterparts. The Chinese workers can feel free to voice their
discontentment in any circumstances. They must get appropriate
reprisal for the same.
The most important topic of discussion is the discipline, and the
given judgment is that the Chinese residents must follow the rules and
regulations set by the government of Tibet. They must abide by the
normal jurisdiction of any normal person residing in Tibet. The
SECURITY OFFICE UNDER THE CABINET OF THE TIBETAN GOVERNMEMT will be
responsible for overseeing the discipline of the Chinese residents.
Any misdemeanor on their part can land the culprits behind the bars
with an extremely high bail order.
As for the children of the Chinese settlers, the panel feels, they
will not face much obstacles in the field of education that is to be
given in Tibetan because most of them have been born and brought up in
Tibet. They will be given opportunity of attending schools that are
free of cost up to the HIGH SCHOOL level. The University level will be
cost-effective but the Chinese too can avail of scholarship if they
have the right aptitude, the sharpness of intelligence and the will
power to carry on with specialized field of education. The Chinese
graduates are expected to contribute something to the Tibetan
government. They must be ready to give back a little after completing
their respective courses. They shall not double-cross the Tibetan
government that has been very hospitable and concerned with their
welfare and of course which has been so homely, so understanding. The
educated Chinese will be assured of security in every circumstance.
As for the choice of religion, the Chinese residents have the freedom
to adopt the religion of their choice. Their beliefs, ceremonies will
be respected. If they choose to convert to Buddhism, there will be no
restrictions. They need never fear the cropping of religious
distension. The communal harmony is one vital aspect of the Tibetan
government that draws much attention.
Finally, the panel has reached the last point of discussion, which is
to decide the future of the Chinese workers and residents. Once they
decide to remain in Tibet for the rest of their lives, they are
required to possess valid documents that need renewal every five
years. They can become Tibetan citizens after a period of continuous
stay within Tibetan boundary for at least ten years. If they come
across any legal problems, they have the right to appeal at any court
of law on par with the Tibetans.
Order, it is believed is the first law of heaven. Tibet will certainly
see to its law and order to be invigilated every now and then. Tibet
can then emerge as a nation of peace, modernization and stability. The
Chinese residents are expected to share the responsibility of making
Tibet a complete zone of peace, a sanctuary of peace-loving human
being and a budding nation with no objection to the visitors from
beyond the Himalayas. Tibet of the fresh century sees itsself as a
haven of peace, nonviolence, love, compassion, and fraternity where
the Chinese workers and settlers too have a role to play.
Then let the world say; Behold, how good and pleasant it is when
brothers and sisters dwell in unity, peace, love, happiness and
prosperity. Let this be an example to the world of the fresh century.
Let the united people belonging to two different cultures living as
one on one soil open a fresh chapter in the world history.
Thomas J Wheat
> CFAlv...@msn.com (CFAIII) wrote in message news:<367edd88.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> > I hope without sounding insensitive, and with a real sincerity, I
> > ask...Why is the political issues of Tibet so important? It's an issue
> > I see on Bumper Stickers and Tee-Shirts all the time, and I've seen it
> > for the better part of a decade. But what I don't understand is where
> > does the passion come from? Why Tibet? Why not (insert favorite
> > African nation here) or any half dozen (extreme)Islamic nations under
> > oppression (as oppossed to the Moderates in the region)? How about
> > Free N. Korea or Cuba? I guess everyone picks their battles, but Tibet
> > just doen't seem to be the worse place...all other things being equal.
> > But again, I realise in asking I am in a position of ignorance on the
> > Tibet matter. That's why I'm here...for you to explain it to me.
>
> Racism against Chinese supported by mostly Europeans.
> The following is their characterization of "very very Chinese" in an
> award winning article showcased by the Internation Campaign for Tibet.
>
> http://www.savetibet.org/News/News.cfm?ID=1019&c=6
>
> "...very, very Chinese. The inner feelings lack the human touch, the
> human quality, the caring nature, the loving heart and every thing
> that is gentle. They are like human robots with no human feelings.
> ..."
call the tibetans backward and uncivilized. At least this person's
vision of a free tibet would include a better life for both Chinese
and Tibetans living in Tibet.
Also the majority of Chinese are racist towards other races, thinking
that their race is superior to all others. Most chinese think their
race invented civilization.
betelnut
chinese must civilize them.
"LT Lee" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eb15984.03112...@posting.google.com...
betelnut
"Thomas J Wheat" <thoma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:57cf3dba.03112...@posting.google.com...
we are talking about TIBET, no?
LT Lee
Of course, there are racist people everywhere, Chinese is no
exception. However, an organization which promotes such racist view is
a racist organization. A movement which promote such racist view is a
racist movement.
Makoto Taniguchi
> tibet has been a backward civilization stuck in the middle ages. the
> chinese must civilize them.
You sound just as bad as those Christian missionaries who have
stripped the Native Americans of their land and culture.
charles liu
> > CFAlv...@msn.com (CFAIII) wrote in message news:<367edd88.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> > > I hope without sounding insensitive, and with a real sincerity, I
> > > ask...Why is the political issues of Tibet so important? It's an issue
> > > I see on Bumper Stickers and Tee-Shirts all the time, and I've seen it
> > > for the better part of a decade. But what I don't understand is where
> > > does the passion come from? Why Tibet? Why not (insert favorite
> > > African nation here) or any half dozen (extreme)Islamic nations under
> > > oppression (as oppossed to the Moderates in the region)? How about
> > > Free N. Korea or Cuba? I guess everyone picks their battles, but Tibet
> > > just doen't seem to be the worse place...all other things being equal.
> > > But again, I realise in asking I am in a position of ignorance on the
> > > Tibet matter. That's why I'm here...for you to explain it to me.
> >
> > Racism against Chinese supported by mostly Europeans.
> > The following is their characterization of "very very Chinese" in an
> > award winning article showcased by the Internation Campaign for Tibet.
> >
> > http://www.savetibet.org/News/News.cfm?ID=1019&c=6
> >
> > "...very, very Chinese. The inner feelings lack the human touch, the
> > human quality, the caring nature, the loving heart and every thing
> > that is gentle. They are like human robots with no human feelings.
> > ..."
> This is no different then the racist comments uttered by Chinese who
> call the tibetans backward and uncivilized.
And this is no different than the racist comments uttered by someone
who says Native American casinos justify US' continued subjugation of
Native Americans.
Can you agree wrong is wrong no matter who's doing it?
Can you agree in order to benefit Tibetans, American style reservation
system should be imposed (to bring China "up to par" sort of
speaking)?
Can you agree if it is the right thing to do for China to
unilatterally reliniquish 20% of her existing statehood to restore
Tibetan sovereignty, then it is also the right thing to do for US to
unilatterally reliniquish (at minimum) 20% of her existing statehood
for restoration of Native sovereignty?
Magister
> chinese must civilize them.
Even if they do not want the Chinese communist version of
civilization?
It is appalling that the Chinese play the race card at every turn, but
it is simply another method of dodging the real issues. These parrots
of Beijing obviously have no minds.
Water Barbarian
"Magister" <magi...@witches.zzn.com> wrote in message
news:75bbf78c.03112...@posting.google.com...
ircirc
They can play card they want and you can't play any. Fair and
balanced baby... ha!
betelnut
"Makoto Taniguchi" <bartr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:195ad9c0.03112...@posting.google.com...
no no. there's a difference. chinese had no intention of wiping out their
population or culture, but only to modernize, educate and civilize them.
tibet today is thriving as a complete entity within tibet. chinese never
had the intention to convert tibetan buddhists into atheists.
betelnut
news:<g6uxb.3165$ZmO....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> > tibet has been a backward civilization stuck in the middle ages. the
> > chinese must civilize them.
>
> Even if they do not want the Chinese communist version of
> civilization?
that's the problem of being backward/uncivilized.
> It is appalling that the Chinese play the race card at every turn, but
> it is simply another method of dodging the real issues. These parrots
> of Beijing obviously have no minds.
tibet is part of china, although an autonomous zone. tibet should advance
along with the rest of china while preserving its distinct tibetan culture.
of course, tibetan culture, just like every other culture in the world, will
change with progress.
if china left tibet to rot, it wouldn't do good to both tibet and china.
even within a neighborhood, there would be conflicts between the
poor/uneducated and the "rich"/educated. also, a backward tibet under the
influence of china's enemies would prove to be a major threat to china.
Sutek
news:<367edd88.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> > I hope without sounding insensitive, and with a real sincerity, I
> > ask...Why is the political issues of Tibet so important? It's an issue
> > I see on Bumper Stickers and Tee-Shirts all the time, and I've seen it
> > for the better part of a decade. But what I don't understand is where
> > does the passion come from? Why Tibet? Why not (insert favorite
> > African nation here) or any half dozen (extreme)Islamic nations under
> > oppression (as oppossed to the Moderates in the region)? How about
> > Free N. Korea or Cuba? I guess everyone picks their battles, but Tibet
> > just doen't seem to be the worse place...all other things being equal.
> > But again, I realise in asking I am in a position of ignorance on the
> > Tibet matter. That's why I'm here...for you to explain it to me.
>
> Racism against Chinese supported by mostly Europeans.
> The following is their characterization of "very very Chinese" in an
> award winning article showcased by the Internation Campaign for Tibet.
>
> http://www.savetibet.org/News/News.cfm?ID=1019&c=6
>
> "...very, very Chinese. The inner feelings lack the human touch, the
> human quality, the caring nature, the loving heart and every thing
> that is gentle. They are like human robots with no human feelings.
> ..."
Sutek
can do whatever the fukk they want with it.
Sutek
"Makoto Taniguchi" <bartr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:195ad9c0.03112...@posting.google.com...
governements.
Sutek
"Water Barbarian" <Wa...@barbarian.com> wrote in message
news:nnPxb.142928$Dw6.597291@attbi_s02...
> Not to mention your love to play Beijing commie card.
the square.
Sutek
<ircirc> wrote in message news:2umfsv8sjn9j0bjqd...@4ax.com...
> The China haters' Rule No.1
>
> They can play card they want and you can't play any. Fair and
> balanced baby... ha!
double standards it's amazing. No wonder China is still behind the rest of
the world.
Sutek
>
>
>
>
>
Sutek
>
> "Magister" <magi...@witches.zzn.com> wrote in message
> news:75bbf78c.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > "betelnut" <84...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<g6uxb.3165$ZmO....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> > > tibet has been a backward civilization stuck in the middle ages. the
> > > chinese must civilize them.
> >
> > Even if they do not want the Chinese communist version of
> > civilization?
>
> that's the problem of being backward/uncivilized.
>
> > It is appalling that the Chinese play the race card at every turn, but
> > it is simply another method of dodging the real issues. These parrots
> > of Beijing obviously have no minds.
>
> tibet is part of china, although an autonomous zone. tibet should advance
> along with the rest of china while preserving its distinct tibetan
culture.
> of course, tibetan culture, just like every other culture in the world,
will
> change with progress.
>
> if china left tibet to rot, it wouldn't do good to both tibet and china.
> even within a neighborhood, there would be conflicts between the
> poor/uneducated and the "rich"/educated. also, a backward tibet under the
> influence of china's enemies would prove to be a major threat to china.
golden age with the rest of them.
Loser.
Pilar Quezzaire
: "Magister" <magi...@witches.zzn.com> wrote in message
: news:75bbf78c.03112...@posting.google.com...
:> "betelnut" <84...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
: news:<g6uxb.3165$ZmO....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
:> > tibet has been a backward civilization stuck in the middle ages. the
:> > chinese must civilize them.
:>
:> Even if they do not want the Chinese communist version of
:> civilization?
: that's the problem of being backward/uncivilized.
No, that's the "problem" of wanting to establish their modernization for
themselves. Europeans colonized much of the world assuming their version
of "modernity" was the right one. It wasn't necessarily, and we feel the
after-effects of that short-sightedness all over the world. China has made
some of the same mistakes.
I'd be all about the idea of a benevolent government assisting the people
of Tibet if things had stayed at the level of involvement they were when
the occupation first started. Now, Tibet is yet another place to dump
China's overblown Han population and do a little strip-mining while
they're at it. *I* wouldn't want China in Tibet if I were Tibetan with
they way they treat the country either, whatever their oiginal intentions
were.
:> It is appalling that the Chinese play the race card at every turn, but
:> it is simply another method of dodging the real issues. These parrots
:> of Beijing obviously have no minds.
: tibet is part of china, although an autonomous zone.
Because the Communists went in, occupied it, and said it was.
: tibet should advance
: along with the rest of china while preserving its distinct tibetan culture.
: of course, tibetan culture, just like every other culture in the world, will
: change with progress.
That's smokescreening for what's going on in Tibet. The Chinese are fine
with keeping the parts of the culture that make it a good tourist
destination, and that's about it. Lhasa looks like every other industrial
city the Chinese have built recently, and they mighht as well make Potala
Palace into a day-spa. Parts of Tibet that offer no natural resources or
potential places to dump more Chinese are ignored. China is doing no
service to the vast majority of Tibet whatsoever.
: if china left tibet to rot, it wouldn't do good to both tibet and china.
: even within a neighborhood, there would be conflicts between the
: poor/uneducated and the "rich"/educated. also, a backward tibet under the
: influence of china's enemies would prove to be a major threat to china.
It's proving a threat now, mostly because a good deal of Tibet is tired of
being exploited. The same thing's happening in Xinjiang. China only cares
about keeping the natural resources in those regions, and has shown very
little interest in the religion and culture of its peoples. Part of it's
racism, part of it's the anti-religious stance of the government. Sure,
that's softened since Mao, but not nearly enough to suggest true
tolerance. China will continue not to care about that callousness until
something blows up and kills lots of Hans.
I can't say what the government's original intent was, and I can't say how
much they heeded the calls of Tibetans for modernization and an end to the
theocracy when Tibet was first occupied. I can only say that just about
everyone realizes now that there has to be a better solution to how to
deal with Tibet than what's up at the moment.
--
Pilar
betelnut
"Sutek" <go...@egypt.gov> wrote in message
news:379bf1c60dbc76e0...@news.teranews.com...
you need to be educated and civilized by the chinese as well.
LT Lee
> In soc.culture.hongkong betelnut <84...@icqmail.com> wrote:
>
> : "Magister" <magi...@witches.zzn.com> wrote in message
> : news:75bbf78c.03112...@posting.google.com...
> :> "betelnut" <84...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<g6uxb.3165$ZmO....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> :> > tibet has been a backward civilization stuck in the middle ages. the
> :> > chinese must civilize them.
> :>
> :> Even if they do not want the Chinese communist version of
> :> civilization?
>
> : that's the problem of being backward/uncivilized.
>
> No, that's the "problem" of wanting to establish their modernization for
> themselves. Europeans colonized much of the world assuming their version
> of "modernity" was the right one. It wasn't necessarily, and we feel the
> after-effects of that short-sightedness all over the world. China has made
> some of the same mistakes.
>
> I'd be all about the idea of a benevolent government assisting the people
> of Tibet if things had stayed at the level of involvement they were when
> the occupation first started. Now, Tibet is yet another place to dump
> China's overblown Han population and do a little strip-mining while
> they're at it. *I* wouldn't want China in Tibet if I were Tibetan with
> they way they treat the country either, whatever their oiginal intentions
> were.
Facts: You are not in Tibet and you are no Tibetan.
It is also doubtful that you know any fundamental differences between
Han Chinese and Tibetan Chinese besides racist bs similar to those
posted in ICT.
betelnut
"Pilar Quezzaire" <quez...@ls04.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:bqacp2$k41$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
>
> : "Magister" <magi...@witches.zzn.com> wrote in message
> : news:75bbf78c.03112...@posting.google.com...
> :> "betelnut" <84...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
> : news:<g6uxb.3165$ZmO....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> :> > tibet has been a backward civilization stuck in the middle ages. the
> :> > chinese must civilize them.
> :>
> :> Even if they do not want the Chinese communist version of
> :> civilization?
>
> : that's the problem of being backward/uncivilized.
>
> No, that's the "problem" of wanting to establish their modernization for
> themselves. Europeans colonized much of the world assuming their version
> of "modernity" was the right one. It wasn't necessarily, and we feel the
bullsheeyit. europeans just wanted to exploit other nations for resources.
> after-effects of that short-sightedness all over the world. China has made
> some of the same mistakes.
china has been the victim of imperialistic europeans.
> I'd be all about the idea of a benevolent government assisting the people
> of Tibet if things had stayed at the level of involvement they were when
> the occupation first started. Now, Tibet is yet another place to dump
> China's overblown Han population and do a little strip-mining while
> they're at it. *I* wouldn't want China in Tibet if I were Tibetan with
> they way they treat the country either, whatever their oiginal intentions
> were.
give me a break. what's wrong about some hans living in tibet? it gets the
businesses going. why you never accuse the tibetans of being racists and
intolerant?
> :> It is appalling that the Chinese play the race card at every turn, but
> :> it is simply another method of dodging the real issues. These parrots
> :> of Beijing obviously have no minds.
>
> : tibet is part of china, although an autonomous zone.
>
> Because the Communists went in, occupied it, and said it was.
so? the chinese already went in since hundreds of years ago. it's part of
china. communists went everywhere in china, not just tibet. the political
situation during that period of time demanded that the communists go there.
there was a civil war and the government needed to establish power to
control the whole nation, or else china would've been in chaos.
> : tibet should advance
> : along with the rest of china while preserving its distinct tibetan
culture.
> : of course, tibetan culture, just like every other culture in the world,
will
> : change with progress.
>
> That's smokescreening for what's going on in Tibet. The Chinese are fine
> with keeping the parts of the culture that make it a good tourist
> destination, and that's about it. Lhasa looks like every other industrial
> city the Chinese have built recently, and they mighht as well make Potala
> Palace into a day-spa. Parts of Tibet that offer no natural resources or
> potential places to dump more Chinese are ignored. China is doing no
> service to the vast majority of Tibet whatsoever.
you seem to make tibet look like Sangli-la. you think tibet is so special
special? tibet will get similar treatment that most other parts of china
get.
> : if china left tibet to rot, it wouldn't do good to both tibet and china.
> : even within a neighborhood, there would be conflicts between the
> : poor/uneducated and the "rich"/educated. also, a backward tibet under
the
> : influence of china's enemies would prove to be a major threat to china.
>
> It's proving a threat now, mostly because a good deal of Tibet is tired of
> being exploited. The same thing's happening in Xinjiang. China only cares
> about keeping the natural resources in those regions, and has shown very
> little interest in the religion and culture of its peoples. Part of it's
> racism, part of it's the anti-religious stance of the government. Sure,
> that's softened since Mao, but not nearly enough to suggest true
> tolerance. China will continue not to care about that callousness until
> something blows up and kills lots of Hans.
splittists and terrorists will always exist. developements in tibet and
xinjiang are the result of resources taken from other parts of china,
including the use of han chinese. what has tibet and xinjian people
contributed to china other than the so-called resources?
>
> I can't say what the government's original intent was, and I can't say how
> much they heeded the calls of Tibetans for modernization and an end to the
> theocracy when Tibet was first occupied. I can only say that just about
> everyone realizes now that there has to be a better solution to how to
> deal with Tibet than what's up at the moment.
yeah improvement is always possible and needed, just like everywhere else in
china.
>
> --
> Pilar
>
betelnut
the whole world knows and accepts tibet as part of china.
Makoto Taniguchi
Oh give me a break, it's been clearly documented that the Native
children were beaten down by the nuns who ran the missionaries
whenever they spoke their own language.
LT Lee
They did many bad things, including selling babies.
"I was visiting it at the suggestion of Ken Duncan, an aid and development
consultant who had heard that I was interested in the Catholic organization
Opus Dei. Duncan, not himself a Catholic, had been taken aback by the
activities of Opus in Peru and wanted to tell his experiences to someone who
might draw attention to what he saw as unacceptable behavior on the part of
the Opus clergy. In particular he had been shocked by a Peruvian orphange to
which he had been invited. He was surprised at its size; the Quechua Indians
with their extended families rarely needed the services of an orphanage. He
was even more surprised to discover that some of the children in the
institution were not even orphans. The Church authorities had simply said
that their fathers and mothers had not been thought suitable parents, and the
children had been taken from them. "What happens when the children grow up?"
querried Duncan, noticing that few of the orphans were more than five or six
years old. "We have friends in America or Germany who take them off our
hands, he was told. People are not charged, he was told, but to make a
donation. It seem remarkably like selling babies."(OPUS DEI by Michael Walsh )
Sutek
Sutek
get back to China and leave the American dollars in Texas.
Sutek
>
> "Pilar Quezzaire" <quez...@ls04.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> news:bqacp2$k41$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> > In soc.culture.hongkong betelnut <84...@icqmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > : "Magister" <magi...@witches.zzn.com> wrote in message
> > : news:75bbf78c.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > :> "betelnut" <84...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
> > : news:<g6uxb.3165$ZmO....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> > :> > tibet has been a backward civilization stuck in the middle ages.
the
> > :> > chinese must civilize them.
> > :>
> > :> Even if they do not want the Chinese communist version of
> > :> civilization?
> >
> > : that's the problem of being backward/uncivilized.
> >
> > No, that's the "problem" of wanting to establish their modernization for
> > themselves. Europeans colonized much of the world assuming their version
> > of "modernity" was the right one. It wasn't necessarily, and we feel the
>
> bullsheeyit. europeans just wanted to exploit other nations for
resources.
>
> > after-effects of that short-sightedness all over the world. China has
made
> > some of the same mistakes.
>
> china has been the victim of imperialistic europeans.
>
> > I'd be all about the idea of a benevolent government assisting the
people
> > of Tibet if things had stayed at the level of involvement they were when
> > the occupation first started. Now, Tibet is yet another place to dump
> > China's overblown Han population and do a little strip-mining while
> > they're at it. *I* wouldn't want China in Tibet if I were Tibetan with
> > they way they treat the country either, whatever their oiginal
intentions
> > were.
>
> give me a break. what's wrong about some hans living in tibet? it gets
the
> businesses going. why you never accuse the tibetans of being racists and
> intolerant?
Sutek
>
>
>
Sutek
"Makoto Taniguchi" <bartr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:195ad9c0.03112...@posting.google.com...
> "Sutek" <go...@egypt.gov> wrote in message
news:<5fc26de23fa537b3...@news.teranews.com>...
> > "Makoto Taniguchi" <bartr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:195ad9c0.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > "betelnut" <84...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<g6uxb.3165$ZmO....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> > > > tibet has been a backward civilization stuck in the middle ages.
the
> > > > chinese must civilize them.
> > >
> > > You sound just as bad as those Christian missionaries who have
> > > stripped the Native Americans of their land and culture.
> > More antireligion? Missionaries don't do much culture stripping, it's
> > governements.
>
> Oh give me a break, it's been clearly documented that the Native
> children were beaten down by the nuns who ran the missionaries
> whenever they spoke their own language.
Sutek
news:<5fc26de23fa537b3...@news.teranews.com>...
> > "Makoto Taniguchi" <bartr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:195ad9c0.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > "betelnut" <84...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<g6uxb.3165$ZmO....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> > > > tibet has been a backward civilization stuck in the middle ages.
the
> > > > chinese must civilize them.
> > >
> > > You sound just as bad as those Christian missionaries who have
> > > stripped the Native Americans of their land and culture.
> > More antireligion? Missionaries don't do much culture stripping, it's
> > governements.
>
> They did many bad things, including selling babies.
Boar Huntr
and Hawaii.
After the Han dynasty a lot of nomadic people from the west and northwest of
China intruded into China. Some actually set up kingdoms inside Chinese
territory. The Tibetans did the same thing, except back then they were called
"Tsiang" people, or protoTibetan people. Some of China's palaces have Tibetan
sciptural inscriptions on them. Several Chinese dynasties sent princesses to
marry Tibetan noblemen, so there was a pattern of cultural interaction
throughout both China and Tibet's history. All these intercultural and
historical ties certainly forge a stronger bond than say between Alaska and the
U.S. If you base claims of territory on historical interactions, then even
California cannot say to rightfully belong to the U.S., but rather should
belong to Mexico, and maybe even France.
Modern day Tibetan independence was fed by the British, who delight in the
divide and conquer method. Since they were already established in the Indian
subcontinent, and had influence even into Afghanistan, they were seeking an
inroad into the periphery of China to balance an aggressive Russia, which had
steadily been exerting its influence eastwards since Peter the Great. Getting
Tibet independent would have given Great Britan a swath of influence from the
Indian subcontinent into the western regions of China. It was a move that would
have killed two birds with one stone. One, it would have threatened Russia at
its East-West nexus, and secondly, it would have serious hampered China's
hegemony to its west and Southwest and Northwest.
Without western interference Tibet would have never ever sounded the
independence bell. Historically it was a backward theocracy, and its people
slaved for the religious establishment. It was a dirt poor country, backward
and insular in its thinking, not a religious Shangri La as westerners are wont
to depict. When you send most of your young men to the monasteries it means the
rest of the population has to scrimp and save to upkeep the living expenses of
these non-productive people. When you have tens of thousands of monks chanting
away in the temples, exempt from taxation and public service labor, the rest of
the populace has to shoulder the burden, and starvation is only one step away.
A country like that can hardly be said to be progressive in the modern sense.
Modern nations are supposed to be of the people, for the people, by the people.
Tibet hardly fits this mold. A nation like that would sooner or later vanish
from the face of the earth, like smoke into the air. It has no relevancy.
How can Americans rant and rave about the Theocracy in Iran, the country run by
Ayatollahs, and on the other hand support a Theocracy of old Tibet ? The Dalai
Llama is a smiling, gracious figure, but does the world know that his regency
is supported by dirt poor peasants, who barely have a yak to milk ?
When America is willing to talk about giving Native Alaskans independence, or
give Hawaii back to the Royal Hawwaians, who were overthrown by Americans, when
California is willing to organize a referendum to see if the Hispanics want to
go back to Mexico, then maybe China should consider Tibetan independence.
Until then we Chinese will keep Tibet. We are one nation, and Tibetans are just
one of the threads among many ethnicities making up the tapestry we call China.
Why do we not hear about westerners agitating for Manchurian independence ?
The Manchus were not considered Chinese 300 years ago, Manchuria was off limtis
to Han immigration, but today Manchus consider themselves Chinese.
So you westerners, like Richard Gere,who know nothing about history, I wish you
guys would shut up and go back to your little ignorant hole.
boarhuntr
Pilar Quezzaire
: Oh give me a break, it's been clearly documented that the Native
: children were beaten down by the nuns who ran the missionaries
: whenever they spoke their own language.
Not usually nuns -- the vast majority of the "Indian Mission Schools" were
Protestant, not Catholic. No nuns.
Native children were forced to wear European dress, forbidden from
speaking their native language, were expected only to learn European
manners, history, and social customs -- in other words, they were expected
to erase their Native identities entirely. It was part of a plan to
assimilate Native Americans into mainstream culture, to "civilize" them,
as they put it.
Catholics were regarded with suspicion in most parts of the country, so
Protestants, especially Baptists, tended to run the schools. California,
New Mexico, and western Arizona had some Catholic missions because of
Spanish/Mexican influence in those areas.
--
Pilar
charles liu
Do you remember the conqisdors? They decimated the Native American
population in South America and wiped out the Incas. The Jesuits used
to kiddnap Native Americans and force them to convert.
How about a more recent example? Remeber Oliver North and his
Christian Officers Club? They sold missles to Iranians to kill Iraqis,
then diverted the funds without Congressional appropriation to fund a
catholic cult called Contras who killed anyone that doesn't convert
and sware off communism.
betelnut
>
> "betelnut" <84...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Hq9yb.26889$ZmO....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >
> > "Pilar Quezzaire" <quez...@ls04.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> > news:bqacp2$k41$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> > > In soc.culture.hongkong betelnut <84...@icqmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > : "Magister" <magi...@witches.zzn.com> wrote in message
> > > : news:75bbf78c.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > :> "betelnut" <84...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
> > > : news:<g6uxb.3165$ZmO....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> > > :> > tibet has been a backward civilization stuck in the middle ages.
> the
> > > :> > chinese must civilize them.
> > > :>
> > > :> Even if they do not want the Chinese communist version of
> > > :> civilization?
> > >
> > > : that's the problem of being backward/uncivilized.
> > >
> > > No, that's the "problem" of wanting to establish their modernization
for
> > > themselves. Europeans colonized much of the world assuming their
version
> > > of "modernity" was the right one. It wasn't necessarily, and we feel
the
> >
> > bullsheeyit. europeans just wanted to exploit other nations for
> resources.
> Always assume the worst.
not assumption, but historical fact.
> >
> > > after-effects of that short-sightedness all over the world. China has
> made
> > > some of the same mistakes.
> >
> > china has been the victim of imperialistic europeans.
> So? China has been an imperialist aggressor. Get over it.
> >
> > > I'd be all about the idea of a benevolent government assisting the
> people
> > > of Tibet if things had stayed at the level of involvement they were
when
> > > the occupation first started. Now, Tibet is yet another place to dump
> > > China's overblown Han population and do a little strip-mining while
> > > they're at it. *I* wouldn't want China in Tibet if I were Tibetan
with
> > > they way they treat the country either, whatever their oiginal
> intentions
> > > were.
> >
> > give me a break. what's wrong about some hans living in tibet? it gets
> the
> > businesses going. why you never accuse the tibetans of being racists
and
> > intolerant?
> Because they're the ones getting fukked in the ass by you commies.
all chinese were "getting fucked."
betelnut
"Sutek" <go...@egypt.gov> wrote in message
news:a965d73e267f4f2d...@news.teranews.com...
betelnut
"betelnut" <84...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:tvryb.104306$Fv8....@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Pilar Quezzaire
: news:bqacp2$k41$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
:> No, that's the "problem" of wanting to establish their modernization for
:> themselves. Europeans colonized much of the world assuming their version
:> of "modernity" was the right one. It wasn't necessarily, and we feel the
: bullsheeyit. europeans just wanted to exploit other nations for resources.
That's not all they wanted to do, though that certainly was their primary
aim. Missions were only partly about exploitation, they were primaril
about spreading Western ideas of culture and refinement. Europeans thought
they were right, and they forced many of us to agree.
:> after-effects of that short-sightedness all over the world. China has made
:> some of the same mistakes.
: china has been the victim of imperialistic europeans.
That works for some things, let's talk about what they're doing now.
Just because they lost a few wars to Britain doesn't mean they're
exonerated from their own actions. China's got quite a long history of
domination all by itself, before Europeans ever showed up on the scene.
:> I'd be all about the idea of a benevolent government assisting the people
:> of Tibet if things had stayed at the level of involvement they were when
:> the occupation first started. Now, Tibet is yet another place to dump
:> China's overblown Han population and do a little strip-mining while
:> they're at it. *I* wouldn't want China in Tibet if I were Tibetan with
:> they way they treat the country either, whatever their oiginal intentions
:> were.
: give me a break. what's wrong about some hans living in tibet? it gets the
: businesses going. why you never accuse the tibetans of being racists and
: intolerant?
Some do, some always have, that's not the issue. What is at issue is how
the Chinese government is encouraging businesspeople to move their in
droves to drive out certain elements of the Tibetan population, on top of
the exploitation of Tibet's resources without regard to its people or its
environment. One could add the tensions between the Chinese government and
the exiled Tibetan theocracy, but I agree that's a stickier issue to
consider than just out-and-out saying it's an injustice.
You asked about racist Tibetans here. The first thing I would ask before
speaking to that is: racist in terms fo what? Against the Chinese? I'm
sure many of them are, but if there's a specific thing you want to
discuss...
:> : tibet is part of china, although an autonomous zone.
:>
:> Because the Communists went in, occupied it, and said it was.
: so? the chinese already went in since hundreds of years ago.
Then they weren't there for a few hundred years after that, until after
World War II.
it's part of
: china. communists went everywhere in china, not just tibet. the political
: situation during that period of time demanded that the communists go there.
: there was a civil war and the government needed to establish power to
: control the whole nation, or else china would've been in chaos.
Tibet was an independent nation at that time. It wasn't part of China.
IIRC, the Chinese were invited by part of the population to assist in
removing the theocracy, which in turn ended in actual occupation. It was
then that the government said 'Oh, it's been ours anyways, there's no
problem here'. Well, that's kinda like saying the Mongolians should have
Beijing because after all, it was Khanbalik first, and since it was Mongol
first, it should be part of Mongolia.
That's not how it works.
:> That's smokescreening for what's going on in Tibet. The Chinese are fine
:> with keeping the parts of the culture that make it a good tourist
:> destination, and that's about it. Lhasa looks like every other industrial
:> city the Chinese have built recently, and they mighht as well make Potala
:> Palace into a day-spa. Parts of Tibet that offer no natural resources or
:> potential places to dump more Chinese are ignored. China is doing no
:> service to the vast majority of Tibet whatsoever.
: you seem to make tibet look like Sangli-la. you think tibet is so special
: special? tibet will get similar treatment that most other parts of china
: get.
That's too bad, because the Chinese government has run roughshod over much
of the rest of China too.
Chinese and Tibetans are distinct from one another. They speak different
langauges, their practice of Buddhism is different, and are of different
cultures. Tibet /should/ be treated differently in regards to its culture
-- that's true of any minority population in China. Why it's so sticky to
give that regard in Tibet is probably stemmed in a lot of bitterness and a
desire to take the material from Tibet without dealing with the culture.
:> It's proving a threat now, mostly because a good deal of Tibet is tired of
:> being exploited. The same thing's happening in Xinjiang. China only cares
:> about keeping the natural resources in those regions, and has shown very
:> little interest in the religion and culture of its peoples. Part of it's
:> racism, part of it's the anti-religious stance of the government. Sure,
:> that's softened since Mao, but not nearly enough to suggest true
:> tolerance. China will continue not to care about that callousness until
:> something blows up and kills lots of Hans.
: splittists and terrorists will always exist. developements in tibet and
: xinjiang are the result of resources taken from other parts of china,
: including the use of han chinese. what has tibet and xinjian people
: contributed to china other than the so-called resources?
How would you know if you make no effort to find out about them, don't
care about their language or culture, and treat them as second-class
citizens? Ahh, a conundrum!
--
Pilar
Pilar Quezzaire
Sounds like a trip to Guangdong as much as Tibet.
--
Pilar
...
"Pilar Quezzaire" <quez...@login2.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:bqg8ea$9e9$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
how so?
...
> http://www.salon.com/travel/feature/1999/08/07/tibet/
>
Nevermind the Salon travelogue and stop insulting Tibetans. It doesn't have
anything to do with whether China has a right to be in Tibet.
http://www.tibet-china.org/historical_status/english/content.html
ircirc
>:> No, that's the "problem" of wanting to establish their modernization for
>:> themselves. Europeans colonized much of the world assuming their version
>:> of "modernity" was the right one. It wasn't necessarily, and we feel the
>
>: bullsheeyit. europeans just wanted to exploit other nations for resources.
>
>That's not all they wanted to do, though that certainly was their primary
>aim. Missions were only partly about exploitation, they were primaril
>about spreading Western ideas of culture and refinement. Europeans thought
>they were right, and they forced many of us to agree.
I don't think the European think in terms of right or wrong at that
point of time. I can't believe any civilization would thought of drug
pushing and outright burglary is right, of course the
European"civilization" may be different.
>:> after-effects of that short-sightedness all over the world. China has made
>:> some of the same mistakes.
>
>: china has been the victim of imperialistic europeans.
>
>That works for some things, let's talk about what they're doing now.
>Just because they lost a few wars to Britain doesn't mean they're
>exonerated from their own actions. China's got quite a long history of
>domination all by itself, before Europeans ever showed up on the scene.
China's history of domination is in form rather than substance. The
Koreans and Viets merely exchanged gifts with China, they usually get
more than they give. No interference of internal affairs, no stealing
resources and no drug pushing.
>Some do, some always have, that's not the issue. What is at issue is how
>the Chinese government is encouraging businesspeople to move their in
>droves to drive out certain elements of the Tibetan population, on top of
>the exploitation of Tibet's resources without regard to its people or its
>environment. One could add the tensions between the Chinese government and
>the exiled Tibetan theocracy, but I agree that's a stickier issue to
>consider than just out-and-out saying it's an injustice.
>
>You asked about racist Tibetans here. The first thing I would ask before
>speaking to that is: racist in terms fo what? Against the Chinese? I'm
>sure many of them are, but if there's a specific thing you want to
>discuss...
Racial tensions among Tibetans/Han are far and few between.
Especially nowadays where Tibetan lives has seen transformation from
agarian society towards more industrialization. Of course, the
western press picks out and magnify specific cases, but China with her
increased confidence seems to care less and less about those things
anymore.
>Tibet was an independent nation at that time. It wasn't part of China.
>IIRC, the Chinese were invited by part of the population to assist in
>removing the theocracy, which in turn ended in actual occupation. It was
>then that the government said 'Oh, it's been ours anyways, there's no
>problem here'. Well, that's kinda like saying the Mongolians should have
>Beijing because after all, it was Khanbalik first, and since it was Mongol
>first, it should be part of Mongolia.
>
>That's not how it works.
The thing is, even Dalai Lama himself doesn't go by that tune anymore.
Independent because they say so? At the time of the Great Game, it is
pretty much worthless to claim that one's independent or not.
>Chinese and Tibetans are distinct from one another. They speak different
>langauges, their practice of Buddhism is different, and are of different
>cultures. Tibet /should/ be treated differently in regards to its culture
>-- that's true of any minority population in China. Why it's so sticky to
>give that regard in Tibet is probably stemmed in a lot of bitterness and a
>desire to take the material from Tibet without dealing with the culture.
Yada Yada, in my opinion, Tibetans should be treated just the same as
any other, no special previliges whatsoever.
>:> It's proving a threat now, mostly because a good deal of Tibet is tired of
>:> being exploited. The same thing's happening in Xinjiang. China only cares
>:> about keeping the natural resources in those regions, and has shown very
>:> little interest in the religion and culture of its peoples. Part of it's
>:> racism, part of it's the anti-religious stance of the government. Sure,
>:> that's softened since Mao, but not nearly enough to suggest true
>:> tolerance. China will continue not to care about that callousness until
>:> something blows up and kills lots of Hans.
>
>: splittists and terrorists will always exist. developements in tibet and
>: xinjiang are the result of resources taken from other parts of china,
>: including the use of han chinese. what has tibet and xinjian people
>: contributed to china other than the so-called resources?
>
>How would you know if you make no effort to find out about them, don't
>care about their language or culture, and treat them as second-class
>citizens? Ahh, a conundrum!
There is basically no conundrum, there are just minor problems, in
5-10 years, problems would disappear.
Pilar Quezzaire
: "Pilar Quezzaire" <quez...@login2.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: how so?
Because you're just as likely to find an animal trapper looking for exotic
animals, making monkeys and snakes fight, and making sculptures out of
some substance most of us would find offensive in Guangdong as you would
Gansu. Some people think the local cuisine is just as bad too.
SARS started in Guangdong for a reason, folks, so if the Chinese are so
concerned with modernizing Tibet...they should be just as concerned about
the part of the country that is theirs sans dispute.
--
Pilar
Sigmund I.
LT Lee wrote:
> CFAlv...@msn.com (CFAIII) wrote in message news:<367edd88.03112...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>I hope without sounding insensitive, and with a real sincerity, I
>>ask...Why is the political issues of Tibet so important? It's an issue
>>I see on Bumper Stickers and Tee-Shirts all the time, and I've seen it
>>for the better part of a decade. But what I don't understand is where
>>does the passion come from? Why Tibet? Why not (insert favorite
>>African nation here) or any half dozen (extreme)Islamic nations under
>>oppression (as oppossed to the Moderates in the region)? How about
>>Free N. Korea or Cuba? I guess everyone picks their battles, but Tibet
>>just doen't seem to be the worse place...all other things being equal.
>>But again, I realise in asking I am in a position of ignorance on the
>>Tibet matter. That's why I'm here...for you to explain it to me.
>
>
> Racism against Chinese supported by mostly Europeans.
I beg to differ. Tibet is the site of an ancient culture with no
militaristic allure and based on theological values that stress
spiritual self-improvement. It is easy to feel simpathy for this type of
culture, and is equally easy to feel the sadness of seeing modern
society, be it communism or social capitalism :-), steamrolling it all.
This simpathy is immaterial to the inevitability of the development, and
there is no doubt in my mind that chinese will "win" and propel Tibet in
the developed world all the same.
It remembers me the native american cultures being steamrolled by the
american expansion: you cannot help feeling simpathy for the native
american way of life, even though it is clear that there is no room for
that in the new world.
Water Barbarian
"Pilar Quezzaire" <quez...@ls02.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:bqgit9$abj$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
and Black Hawk.
> --
> Pilar
>
Pilar Quezzaire
: I beg to differ. Tibet is the site of an ancient culture with no
: militaristic allure and based on theological values that stress
: spiritual self-improvement. It is easy to feel simpathy for this type of
: culture, and is equally easy to feel the sadness of seeing modern
: society, be it communism or social capitalism :-), steamrolling it all.
As much as I would like to agree with you, this is a very inaccurate
picture of Tibet's history. The theocracy has a history of violence
against its population and foreign invasion. Tibet is no different in that
regard from any other part of Asia. Its isolation didn't allow for great
expansion, nor did its population swell to require conquest.
: This simpathy is immaterial to the inevitability of the development, and
: there is no doubt in my mind that chinese will "win" and propel Tibet in
: the developed world all the same.
You act as if that's bad. What's bad is that it's being done at the cost
of the culture, and under oppressive conditions. A modern Tibet is not
inadvisable, in fact, it could prove an excellent social experiment.
Perhaps I am influenced -- I've heard the Dalai Lama speak at MIT about
the connections between faith and neurology recently. He's a highly
"modern" guy, and whatever you think of his politics, he's a marvelous
blend of the old and the new.
: It remembers me the native american cultures being steamrolled by the
: american expansion: you cannot help feeling simpathy for the native
: american way of life, even though it is clear that there is no room for
: that in the new world.
*eyeroll* The Plains Indians in particular were some of the most
conflict-driven, violent groups in the world. Whites conquered them in
part because they were fighting amongst themselves. Let's not sugarcoat
and baby-ize these cultures, or put them on some sort of pedestal. Their
oppression is sufficient to feel sorry -- they don't need to be
represented as naive on top of that. That's just as racist as calling them
backward -- it's an imbalanced view.
--
Pilar
mongoose
> > : news:75bbf78c.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > :> "betelnut" <84...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<g6uxb.3165$ZmO....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> > :> > tibet has been a backward civilization stuck in the middle ages. the
> > :> > chinese must civilize them.
> > :>
> > :> Even if they do not want the Chinese communist version of
> > :> civilization?
>
> >
> > No, that's the "problem" of wanting to establish their modernization for
> > themselves. Europeans colonized much of the world assuming their version
> > of "modernity" was the right one. It wasn't necessarily, and we feel the
> > some of the same mistakes.
> >
> > of Tibet if things had stayed at the level of involvement they were when
> > the occupation first started. Now, Tibet is yet another place to dump
> > China's overblown Han population and do a little strip-mining while
> > they're at it. *I* wouldn't want China in Tibet if I were Tibetan with
> > they way they treat the country either, whatever their oiginal intentions
> > were.
>
> It is also doubtful that you know any fundamental differences between
> Han Chinese and Tibetan Chinese besides racist bs similar to those
> posted in ICT.
Why don't you address her point that Tibetans should determine their
own way of modernization, rather than speculate about what she does or
doesn't know about Tibetans? I know a lot of Tibetans and all of them
feel strongly that the CCP occupation of Tibet is doing little or
nothing for Tibetans other than to destroy their traditional culture
and extract their natural resources.
> >
> > :> It is appalling that the Chinese play the race card at every turn, but
> > :> it is simply another method of dodging the real issues. These parrots
> > :> of Beijing obviously have no minds.
>
> > : tibet is part of china, although an autonomous zone.
> >
> > Because the Communists went in, occupied it, and said it was.
> >
> > : tibet should advance
> > : along with the rest of china while preserving its distinct tibetan culture.
> > : of course, tibetan culture, just like every other culture in the world, will
> > : change with progress.
> >
> > That's smokescreening for what's going on in Tibet. The Chinese are fine
> > with keeping the parts of the culture that make it a good tourist
> > destination, and that's about it. Lhasa looks like every other industrial
> > city the Chinese have built recently, and they mighht as well make Potala
> > Palace into a day-spa. Parts of Tibet that offer no natural resources or
> > potential places to dump more Chinese are ignored. China is doing no
> > service to the vast majority of Tibet whatsoever.
> >
> > : if china left tibet to rot, it wouldn't do good to both tibet and china.
> > : even within a neighborhood, there would be conflicts between the
> > : poor/uneducated and the "rich"/educated. also, a backward tibet under the
> > : influence of china's enemies would prove to be a major threat to china.
> >
> > It's proving a threat now, mostly because a good deal of Tibet is tired of
> > being exploited. The same thing's happening in Xinjiang. China only cares
> > about keeping the natural resources in those regions, and has shown very
> > little interest in the religion and culture of its peoples. Part of it's
> > racism, part of it's the anti-religious stance of the government. Sure,
> > that's softened since Mao, but not nearly enough to suggest true
> > tolerance. China will continue not to care about that callousness until
> > something blows up and kills lots of Hans.
> >
mongoose
> "Makoto Taniguchi" <bartr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:195ad9c0.03112...@posting.google.com...
> news:<g6uxb.3165$ZmO....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> > > tibet has been a backward civilization stuck in the middle ages. the
> > > chinese must civilize them.
> >
> > stripped the Native Americans of their land and culture.
>
> population or culture,
Of course they (meaning the Chinese Communist Party) did. Tibet's
traditional language and culture, being almost completely different
from those of China, is living proof that Tibet developed without
significant Chinese influence. That's why they're seen as a threat to
the CCP claim that "Tibet has always been a part of China". No one
looking at the evidence objectively could believe that, thus the
cultural genocide in Tibet is simply a way of destroying damaging
evidence.
>but only to modernize, educate and civilize them.
> tibet today is thriving as a complete entity within tibet. chinese never
> had the intention to convert tibetan buddhists into atheists.
Pilar Quezzaire
: ltl...@hotmail.com (LT Lee) wrote in message news:<5eb15984.03112...@posting.google.com>...
The reason he can't is because JT has nothing to stand on. When he
doesn't, he goes for "factoids" that he thinks are going to somehow
support his arguments. He also doesn't seem to understand that for those
of us somewhat knowledgeable in these areas, empathy is a useful thing to
have. Anyone who has an iota of an idea of what's really going on is
concerned, Tibetan or not. You have to completely give into CCP propaganda
or stick your head in the sand NOT to be concerned. I'm fairly balanced
about my views on Tibetans compared to many Americans, and I /still/ know
that what is happening there is wrong.
--
Pilar
betelnut
"Pilar Quezzaire" <quez...@login2.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:bqg8ea$9e9$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> : http://www.salon.com/travel/feature/1999/08/07/tibet/
>
>
> Sounds like a trip to Guangdong as much as Tibet.
oh? there are dog-monkey fights in gurangdong? tibetan style education for
the kids in guangdong? guangdong people's disdain against tibetans?
>
> --
> Pilar
>
betelnut
"Pilar Quezzaire" <quez...@ls02.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:bqgit9$abj$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
>
> : "Pilar Quezzaire" <quez...@login2.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> : news:bqg8ea$9e9$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> :> In soc.culture.hongkong betelnut <84...@icqmail.com> wrote:
> :> : http://www.salon.com/travel/feature/1999/08/07/tibet/
> :>
> :>
> :> Sounds like a trip to Guangdong as much as Tibet.
> :>
> :> --
> :> Pilar
> :>
>
> : how so?
>
> Because you're just as likely to find an animal trapper looking for exotic
> animals, making monkeys and snakes fight, and making sculptures out of
> some substance most of us would find offensive in Guangdong as you would
> Gansu. Some people think the local cuisine is just as bad too.
>
> SARS started in Guangdong for a reason, folks, so if the Chinese are so
hey, the guangdong people have been eating like that for thousands of years.
how many SARS like epidemics occurred all these times?
LT Lee
I gave you clear evidence of explicit racist comment against the
Chinese people showcased by prominent free-tibet organization. More
evidence from "free tibet (from Han Chinese)" supporter from this
thread:
1. "What is at issue is how the Chinese government is encouraging
businesspeople to move their in droves to drive out certain elements
of the Tibetan population..."
How does the above compare to "Free America (from non-white)"
movement's complain like the following?
"What is at issue is how the American government is encouraging negros
to move in droves to cause white flight in many white communities."
2. Why is Han Chinese in Tibet which is part of China unacceptible?
"Chinese and Tibetans are distinct from one another. They speak
different
langauges, their practice of Buddhism is different, and are of
different
cultures."
What would you say if a white supremist tell you the following on why
segregation is necessary?
"White and black in America are distinct from one another. They speak
different languages, their pracitice of [whatever] is different, and
are of different cultures."
And of course, "free-tibet (from Han Chinese)" supporters frequently
espouse the view that Tibet belongs to the ethnic Tibetans only,
forever and ever. Similarly, "Free-America (from non-white people)"
supporters frequently espouse the view that America is white's
promised land from God. So, only white should be allowed in America.
Sutek
by white government. Which, by the way, are not all white.
betelnut
> In soc.culture.hongkong betelnut <84...@icqmail.com> wrote:
> : "Pilar Quezzaire" <quez...@ls04.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> : news:bqacp2$k41$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
>
> :> No, that's the "problem" of wanting to establish their modernization
for
> :> themselves. Europeans colonized much of the world assuming their
version
> :> of "modernity" was the right one. It wasn't necessarily, and we feel
the
>
> : bullsheeyit. europeans just wanted to exploit other nations for
resources.
>
> That's not all they wanted to do, though that certainly was their primary
> aim. Missions were only partly about exploitation, they were primaril
> about spreading Western ideas of culture and refinement. Europeans thought
> they were right, and they forced many of us to agree.
no. exploitation was their sole intention. modernization was their excuse.
> :> after-effects of that short-sightedness all over the world. China has
made
> :> some of the same mistakes.
>
> : china has been the victim of imperialistic europeans.
>
> That works for some things, let's talk about what they're doing now.
> Just because they lost a few wars to Britain doesn't mean they're
> exonerated from their own actions. China's got quite a long history of
> domination all by itself, before Europeans ever showed up on the scene.
there is quite a huge difference between china and the western civilizations
in this regard alright, especially when you disregard the periods when china
itself had been ruled by foreign intruders such as the yuan and ching
dynasty.
> :> I'd be all about the idea of a benevolent government assisting the
people
> :> of Tibet if things had stayed at the level of involvement they were
when
> :> the occupation first started. Now, Tibet is yet another place to dump
> :> China's overblown Han population and do a little strip-mining while
> :> they're at it. *I* wouldn't want China in Tibet if I were Tibetan with
> :> they way they treat the country either, whatever their oiginal
intentions
> :> were.
>
> : give me a break. what's wrong about some hans living in tibet? it gets
the
> : businesses going. why you never accuse the tibetans of being racists
and
> : intolerant?
>
> Some do, some always have, that's not the issue. What is at issue is how
> the Chinese government is encouraging businesspeople to move their in
> droves to drive out certain elements of the Tibetan population, on top of
> the exploitation of Tibet's resources without regard to its people or its
> environment. One could add the tensions between the Chinese government and
> the exiled Tibetan theocracy, but I agree that's a stickier issue to
> consider than just out-and-out saying it's an injustice.
drive out what elements? every nation in history had inevitably degraded
its environment as they developed and modernized.
> You asked about racist Tibetans here. The first thing I would ask before
> speaking to that is: racist in terms fo what? Against the Chinese? I'm
> sure many of them are, but if there's a specific thing you want to
> discuss...
separatists forces in tibet are a tiny minority.
> :> : tibet is part of china, although an autonomous zone.
> :>
> :> Because the Communists went in, occupied it, and said it was.
>
> : so? the chinese already went in since hundreds of years ago.
>
> Then they weren't there for a few hundred years after that, until after
> World War II.
communists went into crush the rebels and establish authority. is that so
unexpected during the kind of political environemnt of that time?
> it's part of
> : china. communists went everywhere in china, not just tibet. the
political
> : situation during that period of time demanded that the communists go
there.
> : there was a civil war and the government needed to establish power to
> : control the whole nation, or else china would've been in chaos.
>
> Tibet was an independent nation at that time. It wasn't part of China.
> IIRC, the Chinese were invited by part of the population to assist in
> removing the theocracy, which in turn ended in actual occupation. It was
> then that the government said 'Oh, it's been ours anyways, there's no
> problem here'. Well, that's kinda like saying the Mongolians should have
> Beijing because after all, it was Khanbalik first, and since it was Mongol
> first, it should be part of Mongolia.
majority of tibetans see tibet as part of china. i don't know what else do
you want?
> That's not how it works.
>
> :> That's smokescreening for what's going on in Tibet. The Chinese are
fine
> :> with keeping the parts of the culture that make it a good tourist
> :> destination, and that's about it. Lhasa looks like every other
industrial
> :> city the Chinese have built recently, and they mighht as well make
Potala
> :> Palace into a day-spa. Parts of Tibet that offer no natural resources
or
> :> potential places to dump more Chinese are ignored. China is doing no
> :> service to the vast majority of Tibet whatsoever.
>
> : you seem to make tibet look like Sangli-la. you think tibet is so
special
> : special? tibet will get similar treatment that most other parts of
china
> : get.
>
> That's too bad, because the Chinese government has run roughshod over much
> of the rest of China too.
this is chinese history in the making. china underwent other more turbulent
times in past history.
> Chinese and Tibetans are distinct from one another. They speak different
> langauges, their practice of Buddhism is different, and are of different
> cultures. Tibet /should/ be treated differently in regards to its culture
> -- that's true of any minority population in China. Why it's so sticky to
> give that regard in Tibet is probably stemmed in a lot of bitterness and a
> desire to take the material from Tibet without dealing with the culture.
if canada can do it, china can do it.
> :> It's proving a threat now, mostly because a good deal of Tibet is tired
of
> :> being exploited. The same thing's happening in Xinjiang. China only
cares
> :> about keeping the natural resources in those regions, and has shown
very
> :> little interest in the religion and culture of its peoples. Part of
it's
> :> racism, part of it's the anti-religious stance of the government. Sure,
> :> that's softened since Mao, but not nearly enough to suggest true
> :> tolerance. China will continue not to care about that callousness until
> :> something blows up and kills lots of Hans.
>
> : splittists and terrorists will always exist. developements in tibet and
> : xinjiang are the result of resources taken from other parts of china,
> : including the use of han chinese. what has tibet and xinjian people
> : contributed to china other than the so-called resources?
>
> How would you know if you make no effort to find out about them, don't
> care about their language or culture, and treat them as second-class
not true at all.
King Amdo
doing 'their dirty work ' for them. ...is a 'construct' of ritual
racist child abuse.
Tribal socities, have inherently a belief in and respect for the
living reality fo the sacred mother goddess....which is
programmed/brainwashed out by the influence of the ritual racist child
abusers. (a anti tribal, anti female goddess pyscopathy that calls
itself christianity)...yes these abusive secret rituals really are the
way this paradym is CONSTRUCTED.
....the manifestation of these rituals are the destruction/rape of the
mother goddess and the destruction of tribal
societies/realities....thge way emmisions are increasing, it will be
like chain reaction, running out of control...overheating..panicking
westerners/unbelievers as temeratures hit the boiling point ov water.
this is a reality, not fiction....this is the western (plus imitators)
trip. I (we) know here in bloody blighty.
In a sense the commies in Tibet are naive, but pathetic also ... to
hide behind anti western arisorcracy/imperialism in there faulty
analysis of The Tibetan senario...however the Free Tibet Campaign DOES
NOT AID THIS by insisting on calling the Tibetan tribal leadreship
'aristorcracy' and 'Royalty'...the reality is that this order, these
people, in the west are vampires.
Thus this (western type) reality is fucked...one way or the
other...either as the new age prophites, including the Dalai Lama, say
that there will be a break in this order both on a individual and
collective basis, and thus a total change in reality, or,
alternatively if this TOTALLY INSANE (ids) order maintains its fear
power grip for long enough, then before any transformation as
described happens, their will be a destruction (purification) of
'westernworld' (etc),...as many native american traditionals
prohecise...I'm hedging my bets by (at theis present time)..looking
for a remote mountain property.
In other words, maoists, you are agents of the western ritualsistic
abusers.
OM SHIVA!
King Amdo
Pilar Quezzaire <quez...@login1.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<bqi5ga$flk$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
Sigmund I.
Pilar Quezzaire wrote:
....
>
> : This simpathy is immaterial to the inevitability of the development, and
> : there is no doubt in my mind that chinese will "win" and propel Tibet in
> : the developed world all the same.
>
> You act as if that's bad. What's bad is that it's being done at the cost
> of the culture, and under oppressive conditions. A modern Tibet is not
> inadvisable, in fact, it could prove an excellent social experiment.
I intended to aswer the original question illustrating the point of view
of an "I love tibet" type. I myself prefer modernization to theocracy,
however illuminated the theocrat may be.
I doubt, however, that there will be much "social experimentation" going
on in tibet: the Han will simply come over and take over. The population
and economical pressure is just too strong. I love the Han at large, but
this is a painful process for tibetans, and I understand when romantics
miss the good old life.
Sigmund I.
Pilar Quezzaire wrote:
>
> : It remembers me the native american cultures being steamrolled by the
> : american expansion: you cannot help feeling simpathy for the native
> : american way of life, even though it is clear that there is no room for
> : that in the new world.
>
> *eyeroll* The Plains Indians in particular were some of the most
> conflict-driven, violent groups in the world. Whites conquered them in
> part because they were fighting amongst themselves. Let's not sugarcoat
And so what? Who is sugarcoating? *I* should be eyerolling here:
- were native american cultures steamrolled? yes X no O
- can *you* help feeling simpathy for them? yes X no O
- is there room for them in the modern world? yes O no X
That's all I have said. I know that they were belligerant. And feel
simpathy all the same. So do you.
Amanda
> > >
> > > "Thomas J Wheat" <thoma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:57cf3dba.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > > ltl...@hotmail.com (LT Lee) wrote in message
> news:<5eb15984.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> news:<367edd88.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > I hope without sounding insensitive, and with a real sincerity, I
> > > > > > ask...Why is the political issues of Tibet so important? It's an
> issue
> > > > > > I see on Bumper Stickers and Tee-Shirts all the time, and I've
> seen
> it
> > > > > > for the better part of a decade. But what I don't understand is
> where
> > > > > > does the passion come from? Why Tibet? Why not (insert favorite
> > > > > > African nation here) or any half dozen (extreme)Islamic nations
> under
> > > > > > oppression (as oppossed to the Moderates in the region)? How about
> > > > > > Free N. Korea or Cuba? I guess everyone picks their battles, but
> Tibet
> > > > > > just doen't seem to be the worse place...all other things being
> equal.
> > > > > > But again, I realise in asking I am in a position of ignorance on
> the
> > > > > > Tibet matter. That's why I'm here...for you to explain it to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Racism against Chinese supported by mostly Europeans.
> > > > > award winning article showcased by the Internation Campaign for
> Tibet.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.savetibet.org/News/News.cfm?ID=1019&c=6
> > > > >
> > > > > "...very, very Chinese. The inner feelings lack the human touch, the
> > > > > human quality, the caring nature, the loving heart and every thing
> > > > > that is gentle. They are like human robots with no human feelings.
> > > > > ..."
> > > > call the tibetans backward and uncivilized. At least this person's
> > >
> > > we are talking about TIBET, no?
> > According to communists, we are talking about China, which owns Tibet and
> > can do whatever the fukk they want with it.
>
> the whole world knows and accepts tibet as part of china.
No. I don't.
betelnut
"Amanda" <amanda...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:57d43f8b.03120...@posting.google.com...
that's too bad. there's nothing you can do to change it.
Pilar Quezzaire
: Tribal socities, have inherently a belief in and respect for the
: living reality fo the sacred mother goddess....which is
: programmed/brainwashed out by the influence of the ritual racist child
: abusers. (a anti tribal, anti female goddess pyscopathy that calls
: itself christianity)...yes these abusive secret rituals really are the
: way this paradym is CONSTRUCTED.
Oh God, and here the nutcases come...
--
Pilar
Pilar Quezzaire
: And so what? Who is sugarcoating? *I* should be eyerolling here:
: - were native american cultures steamrolled? yes X no O
: - can *you* help feeling simpathy for them? yes X no O
: - is there room for them in the modern world? yes O no X
Why do you say there's nmo room for them in the modern world? NATIVE
AMERICANS ARE STILL HERE, and some of their culture is preserved and part
of modern consciousness. NO culture can stay "asi ti was", look at
Europeans, for God's sake. This is what I am talking about -- you've
bought into the "disappearing Indian" stereotype, and that's just as bad
as disliking them.
: That's all I have said. I know that they were belligerant. And feel
: simpathy all the same. So do you.
You may feel sympathy (thought I'd correct the spelling there) but you're
feeling it based on a misconcpetion of what the society then and now.
--
Pilar
Sigmund I.
Thank you for the spellcheck.
A misconception is to call a group of some '00.000 people living off
federal subventions "a culture": that's an open air museum.
>
> --
> Pilar
>
Sutek
change.
>
>
>
Sutek
>
> > You asked about racist Tibetans here. The first thing I would ask before
> > speaking to that is: racist in terms fo what? Against the Chinese? I'm
> > sure many of them are, but if there's a specific thing you want to
> > discuss...
>
> separatists forces in tibet are a tiny minority.
>
> > That's not how it works.
> >
> > :> That's smokescreening for what's going on in Tibet. The Chinese are
> fine
> > :> with keeping the parts of the culture that make it a good tourist
> > :> destination, and that's about it. Lhasa looks like every other
> industrial
> > :> city the Chinese have built recently, and they mighht as well make
> Potala
> > :> Palace into a day-spa. Parts of Tibet that offer no natural resources
> or
> > :> potential places to dump more Chinese are ignored. China is doing no
> > :> service to the vast majority of Tibet whatsoever.
> >
> > : you seem to make tibet look like Sangli-la. you think tibet is so
> special
> > : special? tibet will get similar treatment that most other parts of
> china
> > : get.
> >
> > That's too bad, because the Chinese government has run roughshod over
much
> > of the rest of China too.
>
> this is chinese history in the making. china underwent other more
turbulent
> times in past history.
>
> > Chinese and Tibetans are distinct from one another. They speak different
> > langauges, their practice of Buddhism is different, and are of different
> > cultures. Tibet /should/ be treated differently in regards to its
culture
> > -- that's true of any minority population in China. Why it's so sticky
to
> > give that regard in Tibet is probably stemmed in a lot of bitterness and
a
> > desire to take the material from Tibet without dealing with the culture.
>
> if canada can do it, china can do it.
>
> > :> It's proving a threat now, mostly because a good deal of Tibet is
tired
> of
> > :> being exploited. The same thing's happening in Xinjiang. China only
> cares
> > :> about keeping the natural resources in those regions, and has shown
> very
> > :> little interest in the religion and culture of its peoples. Part of
> it's
> > :> racism, part of it's the anti-religious stance of the government.
Sure,
> > :> that's softened since Mao, but not nearly enough to suggest true
> > :> tolerance. China will continue not to care about that callousness
until
> > :> something blows up and kills lots of Hans.
> >
> > : splittists and terrorists will always exist. developements in tibet
and
> > : xinjiang are the result of resources taken from other parts of china,
> > : including the use of han chinese. what has tibet and xinjian people
> > : contributed to china other than the so-called resources?
> >
> > How would you know if you make no effort to find out about them, don't
> > care about their language or culture, and treat them as second-class
>
> not true at all.
Sutek
>
>
>
> --
> Pilar
>
mongoose
> Pilar Quezzaire wrote:
> >
> > : It remembers me the native american cultures being steamrolled by the
> > : american expansion: you cannot help feeling simpathy for the native
> > : american way of life, even though it is clear that there is no room for
> > : that in the new world.
> >
> > *eyeroll* The Plains Indians in particular were some of the most
> > conflict-driven, violent groups in the world. Whites conquered them in
> > part because they were fighting amongst themselves. Let's not sugarcoat
>
> And so what? Who is sugarcoating? *I* should be eyerolling here:
> - were native american cultures steamrolled? yes X no O
> - can *you* help feeling simpathy for them? yes X no O
> - is there room for them in the modern world? yes O no X
If the reference is indirectly to the Tibetans, one might well ask if
there's room in the modern world for an ideology that's as reckless
and myopic
as that of the Chinese Communist Party. I know this must be hard to
see if you've been blinded by this ideology into thinking that
traditional cultures
have no value and don't deserve preservation. But that's not the
viewpoint of
the modern world, that's the viewpoint of myopic CCP ideologues who
think they
have an interest in destroying Tibetan culture.
The modern world is whatever we design it to be, and a world without
Tibetan
culture would be a much poorer world - just like a world without
Chinese culture. You should really ask yourself why it is that
something's preventing you from seeing this.
> That's all I have said. I know that they were belligerant. And feel
> simpathy all the sheame. So do you.
LT Lee
Her complaints which I had commented elsewhere are same as American
white supremists insisting that America is for the white people only.
May be you can persuade her why she or anyone to explain why such
racist point of view is desirable.
> I know a lot of Tibetans and all of them
> feel strongly that the CCP occupation of Tibet is doing little or
> nothing for Tibetans other than to destroy their traditional culture
> and extract their natural resources.
Please tell how many of them are currently working hard in tibet
trying to improve the lives of fellow Tibetans.
Sigmund I.
mongoose wrote:
> "Sigmund I." <sig...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<Llnzb.87833$361....@news.chello.at>...
...
>>And so what? Who is sugarcoating? *I* should be eyerolling here:
>>- were native american cultures steamrolled? yes X no O
>>- can *you* help feeling simpathy for them? yes X no O
>>- is there room for them in the modern world? yes O no X
>
>
> If the reference is indirectly to the Tibetans, one might well ask if
> there's room in the modern world for an ideology that's as reckless
> and myopic as that of the Chinese Communist Party. I know this must be hard to
> see if you've been blinded by this ideology into thinking that
> traditional cultures have no value and don't deserve preservation. But that's not the
> viewpoint of the modern world, that's the viewpoint of myopic CCP ideologues who
> think they have an interest in destroying Tibetan culture.
>
Hey, wake up, the PRC isnt communist anymore since at least 10 years..
No use to call a corpse names.
> The modern world is whatever we design it to be, and a world without
> Tibetan culture would be a much poorer world - just like a world without
> Chinese culture. You should really ask yourself why it is that
> something's preventing you from seeing this.
>
>
The world is poorer in many ways every time that a cultural tradition
goes. But they go all the same. The lifestyle embodied by the tibetan
tradition is not going to come back in any form or shape. Like it or
not, the force shaping Tibet will be the Han culture, however it chooses
to develop.
LT Lee
Don't really know what you mean by "absoulte proof."
The following is my understanding on activistic behavior for remote
causes.
A normal person who can acquire a feeling of social usefulness and
social status in the society finds it easier to form a positive
conception of himself. In contrast, many of the arem-chair activists
are probably alienated people. They are separated from their society,
they are separated from their immediate communities, and they are
separated from themselves.
The result, according to Willaim Kornhauser in his 1959 book, is:
"An individual who lacks opportunity for participation in society
fails
to receive support for a sense of his own worth and therefore finds it
more difficult to sustain favorable attitudes toward himself. Self-
estrangement, in turn, heightens the individual's readiness for
activistic "solutions" to the anxiety accompanying personal
alienation.
For the individual who lacks a firm conception of himself and
confidence in himself does not possess the basis for strong control
over himself, and therefore is highly suggestible to appeals emanating
from remote places."
Why remote places like Tibet where insufficient information is the
norm?
1) Ignorance allows the self-proclaimed activitists to believe the
cause.
2) Remoteness also shields the self-proclaimed activistists from
facing
the reality that their activitism is impotent.
3) Suits their racial and/or ethnic prejudice.
Pilar Quezzaire
:> Why don't you address her point that Tibetans should determine their
:> own way of modernization, rather than speculate about what she does or
:> doesn't know about Tibetans?
: Her complaints which I had commented elsewhere are same as American
: white supremists insisting that America is for the white people only.
: May be you can persuade her why she or anyone to explain why such
: racist point of view is desirable.
I don't have to explain this POV...because it's not my POV. Just ebcause I
recognize that Tibetan culture is different and the place was an
independent country at one point doesn't mean I think that all Han Chinese
or non-Tibetans should be kicked out. I find this leap of logic of yours
to be utterly disturbing -- some of us assume that multiculturalism and
tolerance should be part of any polity.
You...obviously don't. I think to some extent that illustrates my concern
about Chinese policy towards Tibet: the CCP advocates a monolithic
cultural and political point of view that doesn't take into account
culture, history, or religion.
: Please tell how many of them are currently working hard in tibet
: trying to improve the lives of fellow Tibetans.
Tell us how many of them would be able to if they went back. Most of the
Tibetans I know of in exile fear for their lives and livelihoods if they
return. They do their best to help from afar, as well as to help other
expatriate Tibetans in the same situation they are.
It's like you have understanding of what happened there and no sense of
moderation in terms of cultural views.
Is this was China taught you...?
--
Pilar
Pilar Quezzaire
: Hey, wake up, the PRC isnt communist anymore since at least 10 years..
: No use to call a corpse names.
The PRC has never been Communist: it was and is totalitarian.
:> The modern world is whatever we design it to be, and a world without
:> Tibetan culture would be a much poorer world - just like a world without
:> Chinese culture. You should really ask yourself why it is that
:> something's preventing you from seeing this.
: The world is poorer in many ways every time that a cultural tradition
: goes. But they go all the same. The lifestyle embodied by the tibetan
: tradition is not going to come back in any form or shape. Like it or
: not, the force shaping Tibet will be the Han culture, however it chooses
: to develop.
That's not written in stone, nor does it account for the preservation of
Tibetan culture in exile. I think a "modern Tibet" may just exist outsied
of it already, in India, Bhutan, maybe Nepal, and the United States.
Hopefully, these cultures in exile will be able to take the best out of
the culture they geographically left behind and the cultures they
encounter now.
Can you tell I watched a Khyentse Norbu flick recently?
--
Pilar
eggy
> In soc.culture.hongkong LT Lee <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :> Why don't you address her point that Tibetans should determine their
> :> own way of modernization, rather than speculate about what she does or
> :> doesn't know about Tibetans?
>
> : Her complaints which I had commented elsewhere are same as American
> : white supremists insisting that America is for the white people only.
> : May be you can persuade her why she or anyone to explain why such
> : racist point of view is desirable.
>
>
> I don't have to explain this POV...because it's not my POV. Just ebcause I
> recognize that Tibetan culture is different and the place was an
> independent country at one point doesn't mean I think that all Han Chinese
> or non-Tibetans should be kicked out. I find this leap of logic of yours
> to be utterly disturbing -- some of us assume that multiculturalism and
> tolerance should be part of any polity.
>
> You...obviously don't. I think to some extent that illustrates my concern
> about Chinese policy towards Tibet: the CCP advocates a monolithic
> cultural and political point of view that doesn't take into account
> culture, history, or religion.
>
The Borg Collective mentality goes back to the Three Kingdoms so it's not a
CCP thing. It is realpolitik-based which contributions to this thread have
not been.
> : Please tell how many of them are currently working hard in tibet
> : trying to improve the lives of fellow Tibetans.
>
> Tell us how many of them would be able to if they went back. Most of the
> Tibetans I know of in exile fear for their lives and livelihoods if they
> return. They do their best to help from afar, as well as to help other
> expatriate Tibetans in the same situation they are.
>
I know a wealth-amassing Tibetan family within the Chinese diaspora,
straddling both identities of being Chinese or the trendy Western-favored
Tibetan for the different advantages. Any way to win, right? They attend
the retreats/political confabs and know every other Tibetan out of China.
If they think you don't count as a real Chinese or that you are likely to be
anti-Chinese, they reveal their contempt for the Chinese. I find them
intelligent, cunning, manipulative and effectively ingratiating when they
get their audience right. Talk.politics.tibet is the only newsgroup cc'ed
on this thread with regulars who are likely to have some background and
training on discussing the Tibetan vs China situation. The regulars on these
"Chinese" newsgroups - the soc.culture ones aren't equipped to represent
China on this topic.
eggy
other than THE CUP?
> --
> Pilar
>
mongoose
> mongoose wrote:
>
> > "Sigmund I." <sig...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<Llnzb.87833$361....@news.chello.at>...
>
> ...
> >>And so what? Who is sugarcoating? *I* should be eyerolling here:
> >>- were native american cultures steamrolled? yes X no O
> >>- can *you* help feeling simpathy for them? yes X no O
> >>- is there room for them in the modern world? yes O no X
> >
> >
> > If the reference is indirectly to the Tibetans, one might well ask if
> > there's room in the modern world for an ideology that's as reckless
> > and myopic as that of the Chinese Communist Party. I know this must be hard to
> > see if you've been blinded by this ideology into thinking that
> > traditional cultures have no value and don't deserve preservation. But that's not the
> > viewpoint of the modern world, that's the viewpoint of myopic CCP ideologues who
> > think they have an interest in destroying Tibetan culture.
> >
>
>
> Hey, wake up, the PRC isnt communist anymore since at least 10 years..
Call it what you want, but it's still a totalitarian regime run by the
hand-picked successors of the hand-picked successors of the folks who
brought us the Cultural Revolution. As a result, they still cling to
most of the same old tiresome, outdated ideological baggage, which
only has the effect of alienating the rest of the world and generally
holding China back.
> No use to call a corpse names.
>
> > The modern world is whatever we design it to be, and a world without
> > Tibetan culture would be a much poorer world - just like a world without
> > Chinese culture. You should really ask yourself why it is that
> > something's preventing you from seeing this.
> >
> >
>
> The world is poorer in many ways every time that a cultural tradition
> goes. But they go all the same. The lifestyle embodied by the tibetan
> tradition is not going to come back in any form or shape. Like it or
> not, the force shaping Tibet will be the Han culture, however it chooses
> to develop.
Yes, there's a choice, but it's the CCP that's shaping events, not Han
culture. While Han culture has traditionally been fairly
well-disposed toward Tibetan culture, CCP culture is inimical to it
(and not all that friendly even to some aspects of Han culture). Han
culture has no perceived conflict of interest wrt the survival of
Tibetan culture, while, as I mentioned in another post, Tibetan
culture is proof of Tibet's independent development - proof that Tibet
wasn't always "part of China" as the CCP claims. And that gives them
a *major* conflict of interest wrt to protecting it.
LT Lee
> In soc.culture.hongkong LT Lee <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :> Why don't you address her point that Tibetans should determine their
> :> own way of modernization, rather than speculate about what she does or
> :> doesn't know about Tibetans?
>
> : Her complaints which I had commented elsewhere are same as American
> : white supremists insisting that America is for the white people only.
> : May be you can persuade her why she or anyone to explain why such
> : racist point of view is desirable.
>
>
> I don't have to explain this POV...because it's not my POV. Just ebcause I
> recognize that Tibetan culture is different and the place was an
> independent country at one point doesn't mean I think that all Han Chinese
> or non-Tibetans should be kicked out. I find this leap of logic of yours
> to be utterly disturbing -- some of us assume that multiculturalism and
> tolerance should be part of any polity.
Pilar Quezzaire, I can't read minds. Rather, I compare what Free
Tibeters, including you and ICT website said with what the white
supremists said. If you think I misunderstand your POV, please explain
the differences.
1. Both white supremists and free Tibet supporters, showcases and
encourages racist view from one ethnicty to the other ethnicity of the
same country.
2. Both express displeasure toward integration of different ethnic
groups of the same country.
3. Both express integration as not desirable because they are
ethnically different.
4. Both hold the view or attitude that a certain piece of land is
indeed given by god to one ethnic group only.
Thomas J Wheat
On your first point I would say that Tibetan Nationalism is not racist
though some aspects of Han nationalism may very well be. You are
saying that it is racist for a group of people that have inhabitated a
specific geographic region and one time an indepependant state to have
views or have people who support them by calling for a truly
autonomous Tibet and not a dumping ground for Han colonists. Would you
call the native americans racist for wanting only their ethnicity to
inhabit traditional tribal lands? I dont think so, since you and your
cohorts have mythologized and eulogized the Noble savage myth to
justify your exploitative treatment of Tibetans.
As to your second point the supposed integration of Han colonists in
Tibet has not had an equalizing effect on Tibetans. First of all all
of the best Jobs go to Han chinese. Also Han settlement has raised
prices, and with settlement the Han have also brought pollution to
Tibet's once pristine environment.
On your third point, Tibet was an independant country even during the
20th century. Now that China has annexed Tibet, Tibetan nationalism
has not disappeared. Your charge of racisim is a red herring that
seeks to obsfucate the discourse between Tibetan and Han. The Han's
are recent intruders to Tibetan territory. Tibetans have suffered
under chinese rule. Tibetan culture is being attacked by Han culture.
Your argument here seeks to deny the existance that there ever was an
independant Tibetan state, that possessed its own culture, and
language. Now Tibetans in Tibet are begining to stop teaching their
children Tibetan in favor of Chinese in order to compete with the Han.
This is a form of cultural genocide.
On your fourth point you may be accuratly describing manifest Destiny,
but you miss the point in regards to Tibetan nationalism. Tibet
belongs to Tibetans because they have lived there since early recorded
time. Unlike Han or white colonists they have a natural claim to their
land, since they have inhabitated that land from time immemorial. It
is the racist nature of Han nationalism that seeks to settle tibet,
and deprive tibetans of their livelyhood, while still claiming to
civilize them while making them a mionority in their own homeland.
This is a another example of How china is committing cultural genocide
against the tibetans.
Pilar Quezzaire
: Pilar Quezzaire, I can't read minds. Rather, I compare what Free
: Tibeters, including you and ICT website said with what the white
: supremists said. If you think I misunderstand your POV, please explain
: the differences.
I think I will make the attempt, though I do so with some pessimism, given
your history on most subjects Chinese.
The first thing I will do is take issue with the comparison you are using
of the Han Chinese in Tibet with African-Americans in the United States.
Being a woman of both Chinese and African extraction, I do feel I have
some personal knowledge of the matter, in addition to a good grasp on the
history of both groups in this country.
The Han Chinese (those who recently moved there for business incentives)
are not comparable to AAs here at all. AAs, most of them, are the
descendants of a class of people who were kidnapped, brought here in
chains, and appointed as a class of chatteled second-class citizens. They
remained second-class after they were freed, and have been largely
demonized as a minority in this country, even above other minorities who
arrived later, Asians included. I refer to the second immigration of
Asians, the recent one, not the first in the 19th century. The Chinese who
were here in the 19th experienced stunning discrimination and eventual
legal exclusion. Some, like my ancestors, labelled themselves as Black in
order to remain in this country.
The Han Chinese who have recently moved into Tibet are part of what many
consider to be an occupational power. I know you feel this point is
debatable -- please bear with me and consider a different point of view
for the sake of this comparison. They are a minority given financial
incentive to enter Tibet, are protected by the occupational military, and
are of the same culture as the occupying power, and are thus in a position
of privelege rather than discrimination. A minority is not necessarily an
oppressed or maligned one -- look at Europeans in colonial Hong Kong, or,
more aptly, Afrikaaners and Brits in apartheid South Africa.
The situation you are suggesting -- that the Tibetans are racist against
the Chinese -- is not really the same at all, now is it? What you are
reading from them is anger -- anger that they feel because they feel their
country has been taken from them, that it is being exploited, and that
their fellow countrymen and women are being exploited and maligned. It may
be ethnocentrism, something I don't agree with at all. But it's
ethnocentrism against an occupying power in their point of view.
I can blame them for being ethnocentric. I can't for being angry. The
Chinese recently in Tibet in general are not to be pitied or considered
maligned -- they /volunteered/ to move there, and they must deal with the
consequences of that. If they are invested in the Tibetan population whose
area they "offered" in your opinion (or was taken from them according to
others) then they will /find/ ways to make certain that anger is
misplaced. If not...they'll have to deal with the flak that comes with it.
The Chinese who moved there made a choice.
That being said, well...your points below don't hold much water for me.
: 1. Both white supremists and free Tibet supporters, showcases and
: encourages racist view from one ethnicty to the other ethnicity of the
: same country.
a1. Discover or consider the course of their anger.
: 2. Both express displeasure toward integration of different ethnic
: groups of the same country.
a2. I would too if I was experiencing what many Tibetans have.
"Integration" according to the CCP has been assimilation, and that's not
fair.
: 3. Both express integration as not desirable because they are
: ethnically different.
a3. There is a difference between being opposed to genetic mixing (re:
white supremacists) and fearing assimilation (Tibetans). I don't agree
with the general notion that interethnic mixing is bad, so I can't
advocate the POV of either group. I can say that Tibetans have a source of
that fear that's more palatable.
: 4. Both hold the view or attitude that a certain piece of land is
: indeed given by god to one ethnic group only.
Funny, that sounds like the Chinese...
When's the Mandate of Heaven up? Anybody counting?
--
Pilar
Pilar Quezzaire
: "Pilar Quezzaire" <quez...@ls04.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
:> Can you tell I watched a Khyentse Norbu flick recently?
:>
: other than THE CUP?
*laugh* Okay, I only saw the previews for "Travellers and Magicians".
Can't WAIT! I saw a documentary on him too.
--
Pilar
Harbinger
Your attention is best paid to the white spremacists.
These obnoxious, self-righteous and officious white supremacists think they
are sent by god to right the wrongs in this world not knowing that they are
lack of the moral authority.The best they can do to atone for their evil
deeds is to conduct a self criticism of the criminal past, return all their
lootings to their former subjects and own up that they suffer from moral
turpitude.
They still think they can their way by starting another Opium War,
unleashing another genocide like what they have done to the Incas and
natives of Africa and Australia.
mongoose
> mongo...@hotmail.com (mongoose) wrote in message news:<d91b7263.03120...@posting.google.com>...
> > ltl...@hotmail.com (LT Lee) wrote in message news:<5eb15984.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Pilar Quezzaire <quez...@ls04.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> > > Facts: You are not in Tibet and you are no Tibetan.
> > > It is also doubtful that you know any fundamental differences between
> > > Han Chinese and Tibetan Chinese besides racist bs similar to those
> > > posted in ICT.
> >
> > Why don't you address her point that Tibetans should determine their
> > own way of modernization, rather than speculate about what she does or
> > doesn't know about Tibetans?
>
> Her complaints which I had commented elsewhere are same as American
> white supremists insisting that America is for the white people only.
> May be you can persuade her why she or anyone to explain why such
This is an insanely self-serving piece of logic twisting. Look - the
PLA invaded Tibet and now the present government of China is flooding
Tibet with non-Tibetans - and you have the nerve to call people who
object to this racists??? Why is it suddenly necessary to do this for
the first time in the history of China and Tibet's long history of
co-existence, especially if "Tibet has always been a part of China"?
There's no doubt whatsoever that this would be completely intolerable
to you if the situation were reversed.
LT Lee
First of all, my complaints are not against the Tibetans in China
struggling for whatever they want. Rather, I am complaining against
outsiders who exploits the situation.
And yes. I am calling organizations such as ICT and "Free Tibet from
Han Chinese" who publicize and propagate racist view such as the
following racist.
http://www.savetibet.org/News/News.cfm?ID=1019&c=6
"...very, very Chinese. The inner feelings lack the human touch, the
human quality, the caring nature, the loving heart and every thing
that is gentle. They are like human robots with no human feelings.
..."
If anyone thinks the above is an accurate description of the Chinese
people, please say so.
> Would you
> call the native americans racist for wanting only their ethnicity to
> inhabit traditional tribal lands? I dont think so, since you and your
> cohorts have mythologized and eulogized the Noble savage myth to
> justify your exploitative treatment of Tibetans.
Where is your evidence that I "mythologized and eulogized the Noble
savage myth"?
> As to your second point the supposed integration of Han colonists in
> Tibet has not had an equalizing effect on Tibetans. First of all all
> of the best Jobs go to Han chinese.
What is the best jobs? In what way they all go to Han chinese? Show me
the statistics corrected for educational background and experiences.
In addition, you are changing the subject. Both racist groups (Free
Tibet from Hans and Free America from black) express displeasure
toward integration of different ethnic groups of the same country. The
subject is integration, not equal opportunity.
> Also Han settlement has raised
> prices, and with settlement the Han have also brought pollution to
> Tibet's once pristine environment.
Development and life itself is about trade offs. Only people currently
living Tibet can really judge whether the trade off is advantageour or
not.
> On your third point, Tibet was an independant country even during the
> 20th century. Now that China has annexed Tibet, Tibetan nationalism
> has not disappeared. Your charge of racisim is a red herring that
> seeks to obsfucate the discourse between Tibetan and Han. The Han's
> are recent intruders to Tibetan territory. Tibetans have suffered
> under chinese rule. Tibetan culture is being attacked by Han culture.
> Your argument here seeks to deny the existance that there ever was an
> independant Tibetan state, that possessed its own culture, and
> language. Now Tibetans in Tibet are begining to stop teaching their
> children Tibetan in favor of Chinese in order to compete with the Han.
> This is a form of cultural genocide.
They was no independent Tibet recognized by other contemproary powers
after Kublai Khan had integrated Tibet into China during the Yuan
Dynasty.
> On your fourth point you may be accuratly describing manifest Destiny,
> but you miss the point in regards to Tibetan nationalism. Tibet
> belongs to Tibetans because they have lived there since early recorded
> time. Unlike Han or white colonists they have a natural claim to their
> land, since they have inhabitated that land from time immemorial. It
> is the racist nature of Han nationalism that seeks to settle tibet,
> and deprive tibetans of their livelyhood, while still claiming to
> civilize them while making them a mionority in their own homeland.
> This is a another example of How china is committing cultural genocide
> against the tibetans.
Don't know what is "natural claim"?
LT Lee
A minority is not necessariy an oppressed or maligned one. I have no
problem with that.I would also add that of colonial Hong Kong showcase
western racism and injustice. But then the situation in Tibet is
different. In colonial Hong Kong, the Chinese majoirity was not
considered as British citizens, they are openly treated as second
class. In China's tibet, the tibetans are equal citizens. As a matter
of fact, Tibet governors are Tibetans. Who knows? Tibetans can be
China's president one day.
However, my post is comparing the racist attitude of Free Tibet from
Han supporters and Free America from black (aka white supremacy)
supporters. Let me be blunt. Do you consider the following racist?
http://www.savetibet.org/News/News.cfm?ID=1019&c=6
"...very, very Chinese. The inner feelings lack the human touch, the
human quality, the caring nature, the loving heart and every thing
that is gentle. They are like human robots with no human feelings.
..."
In addition, what can this kind of propagander agains the Chinese
people achieve?
> The situation you are suggesting -- that the Tibetans are racist against
> the Chinese -- is not really the same at all, now is it? What you are
> reading from them is anger -- anger that they feel because they feel their
> country has been taken from them, that it is being exploited, and that
> their fellow countrymen and women are being exploited and maligned. It may
> be ethnocentrism, something I don't agree with at all. But it's
> ethnocentrism against an occupying power in their point of view.
No. My complaint is not against the Tibetans especially they are
currently living in tibet. They have a stake in the well beings. The
problem is outsiders who may not have legitimate stake in the well
being of China and Chinese, including Tibet and tibetans.
>
> I can blame them for being ethnocentric. I can't for being angry. The
> Chinese recently in Tibet in general are not to be pitied or considered
> maligned -- they /volunteered/ to move there, and they must deal with the
> consequences of that. If they are invested in the Tibetan population whose
> area they "offered" in your opinion (or was taken from them according to
> others) then they will /find/ ways to make certain that anger is
> misplaced. If not...they'll have to deal with the flak that comes with it.
> The Chinese who moved there made a choice.
Don't understand your point.
1. Tibet is recognized and accepted by the international community as
part of China. What's wrong with Chinese moving from one part of China
to another part of China?
2. Those who maligned the Chinese are not real tibetans. This is
exactly why they have to resort to gross racist comments against all
Chinese people, rather than individuals who had wronged them.
> That being said, well...your points below don't hold much water for me.
>
> : 1. Both white supremists and free Tibet supporters, showcases and
> : encourages racist view from one ethnicty to the other ethnicity of the
> : same country.
>
> a1. Discover or consider the course of their anger.
What is the real cause of your anger? What is the real cause of ICT's
anger? If a small number of Chinese had wronged you, does this give
you the right to be racist toward all Chinese people?
Of course, white supremists have all kind of reason to be angry too.
Don't you think so?
>
> : 2. Both express displeasure toward integration of different ethnic
> : groups of the same country.
>
> a2. I would too if I was experiencing what many Tibetans have.
> "Integration" according to the CCP has been assimilation, and that's not
> fair.
So say the white supremists. Integration/assimiliation is bad because
it pollutes their superiority/spirituality.
>
> : 3. Both express integration as not desirable because they are
> : ethnically different.
>
> a3. There is a difference between being opposed to genetic mixing (re:
> white supremacists) and fearing assimilation (Tibetans). I don't agree
> with the general notion that interethnic mixing is bad, so I can't
> advocate the POV of either group. I can say that Tibetans have a source of
> that fear that's more palatable.
So are the white supremists. As a matter of fact, the encroachment of
the colored people in America as well as in some part of Europe is
real and undeniable.
>
> : 4. Both hold the view or attitude that a certain piece of land is
> : indeed given by god to one ethnic group only.
>
> Funny, that sounds like the Chinese...
You claim to be part Chinese. However, you don't think like one. The
common Chinese saying is this. "All under heaven have no master, only
the virtuous can have the post."
Pilar Quezzaire
:> On your first point I would say that Tibetan Nationalism is not racist
:> though some aspects of Han nationalism may very well be. You are
:> saying that it is racist for a group of people that have inhabitated a
:> specific geographic region and one time an indepependant state to have
:> views or have people who support them by calling for a truly
:> autonomous Tibet and not a dumping ground for Han colonists.
: First of all, my complaints are not against the Tibetans in China
: struggling for whatever they want. Rather, I am complaining against
: outsiders who exploits the situation.
First of all, you can't even use the word "Tibet" without twitching.
Tibetans are in China and in Tibet. Some of us get the Gansu/Tibet
difference.
Secondly, at NO POINT have you said that you are complaining about
"outsiders", you are complaining about people who view the Chinese as
outsiders in TIBET. That includes Tibetans still living in Tibet.
So...are you feeling pity for the Tibetans who live in Tibet? Is that it?
Or is this some way to try to save the sinking ship you created with your
arguments?
: "...very, very Chinese. The inner feelings lack the human touch, the
: human quality, the caring nature, the loving heart and every thing
: that is gentle. They are like human robots with no human feelings.
: ..."
: If anyone thinks the above is an accurate description of the Chinese
: people, please say so.
This was a tough one to answer, believe it or not.
I know better to say that on an individual level, Chinese people are not
at all like this. They're just as human as anyone else, with a myriad of
emotions and ranes of behavior just like everyone else. Certainly, this is
an inaccurate description of my grandfather.
That being said...the PRC's political and militaristic behavior towards
the Tibetans is painfully similar to the description you posited. That
needs to be addressed. If you can't manage to focus on the personal
situation and the attitudes generated as a result of the conflict, I can't
give you the same.
:> As to your second point the supposed integration of Han colonists in
:> Tibet has not had an equalizing effect on Tibetans. First of all all
:> of the best Jobs go to Han chinese.
: What is the best jobs? In what way they all go to Han chinese? Show me
: the statistics corrected for educational background and experiences.
Before we go there...let's see the statistics on Tibetan schools and
support of said schools from the Chinese government. I also want to see
how many ethnic Tibetans are represented in government, education,
entertainment, etc. I also want to see how many Tibetans are admitted to
Chinese universities.
Then we can talk.
: In addition, you are changing the subject. Both racist groups (Free
: Tibet from Hans and Free America from black) express displeasure
: toward integration of different ethnic groups of the same country. The
: subject is integration, not equal opportunity.
The subject is actually nationalism versus out-and-out racism. The
difference can be subtle, maybe too hard for you to grasp. It has to do
with being an oppressed versus a dominant majority. You'ev been so proud
of your knowledge of this subject -- where are the references on it you
usually drag out?
:> Also Han settlement has raised
:> prices, and with settlement the Han have also brought pollution to
:> Tibet's once pristine environment.
: Development and life itself is about trade offs. Only people currently
: living Tibet can really judge whether the trade off is advantageour or
: not.
Who's asking them? You?
: They was no independent Tibet recognized by other contemproary powers
: after Kublai Khan had integrated Tibet into China during the Yuan
: Dynasty.
"Recognized" by whom? By what political body? What political body
/existed/ to address that question when the PRC entered Tibet?
: Don't know what is "natural claim"?
Yeah, it's manifest destiny, which interesting enough is considered
outdated and a false justification for occupation of a territory. The CCP
uses it back and forth for a number of territories whose status is
somewhat in dispute.
==
Pilar
ircirc
>The Han Chinese who have recently moved into Tibet are part of what many
>consider to be an occupational power. I know you feel this point is
>debatable -- please bear with me and consider a different point of view
>for the sake of this comparison. They are a minority given financial
>incentive to enter Tibet, are protected by the occupational military, and
>are of the same culture as the occupying power, and are thus in a position
>of privelege rather than discrimination. A minority is not necessarily an
>oppressed or maligned one -- look at Europeans in colonial Hong Kong, or,
>more aptly, Afrikaaners and Brits in apartheid South Africa.
Occupational Power? Liberational Power? Unificational Power? You say
tomato, I say toMato. The problem with you is that you are so
whitewashed and brainwashed with the white point of view that maybe
you should use the mirror more often. Even in the all "equal" US, you
hear blacks, asians, latinoes complain all the time about
discrimination. For the whitewashed sellouts, of course they got more
favors for the act of ass kissing. Let me guess, if you are really a
girl, you are probably married to a white right?
>The situation you are suggesting -- that the Tibetans are racist against
>the Chinese -- is not really the same at all, now is it? What you are
>reading from them is anger -- anger that they feel because they feel their
>country has been taken from them, that it is being exploited, and that
>their fellow countrymen and women are being exploited and maligned. It may
>be ethnocentrism, something I don't agree with at all. But it's
>ethnocentrism against an occupying power in their point of view.
Anger, ha, they should be angered by the fact that Dalai Lama the 13th
sold part of their land to the British India for 5000 rifles which the
Han Chinese is still working for them to reclaim. Anger; for the Han
Chinese brought them basic education and infrastructure that their
theocracy never brought them. Again, has anyone really talk to those
Tibetans except for the reports those western reporters claim that
they had a sneak word with some unknown individuals.
>I can blame them for being ethnocentric. I can't for being angry. The
>Chinese recently in Tibet in general are not to be pitied or considered
>maligned -- they /volunteered/ to move there, and they must deal with the
>consequences of that. If they are invested in the Tibetan population whose
>area they "offered" in your opinion (or was taken from them according to
>others) then they will /find/ ways to make certain that anger is
>misplaced. If not...they'll have to deal with the flak that comes with it.
>The Chinese who moved there made a choice.
>That being said, well...your points below don't hold much water for me.
Of course, you have lost your race identity. Being ethnocentric with
one's own race is neither good or bad, depending on how one uses it.
The most despicable kind of people is the race whore who uses another
race's point to view to attack a place you've never been to and a
people you never tried to communicate with in order to curry favors
from you supposed masters. Maybe you should break all mirrors from
you home or do a Michael Jackson impersonation to show other how white
you are. A genetic makeover maybe even better.
Sutek
"Harbinger" <ape...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqre9i$81g$1...@nobel2.pacific.net.sg...
>
>
>
>
>
Sutek
"mongoose" <mongo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d91b7263.03120...@posting.google.com...
confronted by reason.
Pilar Quezzaire
: Occupational Power? Liberational Power? Unificational Power? You say
: tomato, I say toMato. The problem with you is that you are so
: whitewashed and brainwashed with the white point of view that maybe
: you should use the mirror more often. Even in the all "equal" US, you
: hear blacks, asians, latinoes complain all the time about
: discrimination. For the whitewashed sellouts, of course they got more
: favors for the act of ass kissing. Let me guess, if you are really a
: girl, you are probably married to a white right?
I don't exactly see how my points and yours mesh. I;m not sure what you're
driving at. I'll answer the one part of this rant that makes sense, even
if it's none of your business.
My husband is black.
: Anger, ha, they should be angered by the fact that Dalai Lama the 13th
: sold part of their land to the British India for 5000 rifles which the
: Han Chinese is still working for them to reclaim.
Working FOR them? You mean...that's not Tibet's job? They can't do it
themselves?
Why?
: Anger; for the Han
: Chinese brought them basic education and infrastructure that their
: theocracy never brought them. Again, has anyone really talk to those
: Tibetans except for the reports those western reporters claim that
: they had a sneak word with some unknown individuals.
This is kinda like Native Americans being thankful whites educated them?
Hong Kong Chinese who should be thankful for the British education system
set up there?
You mean that?
: Of course, you have lost your race identity. Being ethnocentric with
: one's own race is neither good or bad, depending on how one uses it.
You don't really even know what my "race identity" is.
Fortunately, I do, so I don't give a damn what you think.
: The most despicable kind of people is the race whore who uses another
: race's point to view to attack a place you've never been to and a
: people you never tried to communicate with in order to curry favors
: from you supposed masters. Maybe you should break all mirrors from
: you home or do a Michael Jackson impersonation to show other how white
: you are. A genetic makeover maybe even better.
I think you're a very angry, sad, and largely off-the-topic person. I feel
sorry for you, I really do.
I just don't get how what you're talking about has anything to do with
this conversation. This is much better suited for a therapist than a
newsgroup.
--
Pilar
ircirc
>: Anger, ha, they should be angered by the fact that Dalai Lama the 13th
>: sold part of their land to the British India for 5000 rifles which the
>: Han Chinese is still working for them to reclaim.
>
>Working FOR them? You mean...that's not Tibet's job? They can't do it
>themselves?
>
>Why?
Simply, Dalai Lama the 14th never raised the point with his Indian
masters. If he raises them, he would be homeless and kicked out of
Dharmalasa. The border war of 1962 was caused exactly by Dalai Lama's
clique selling out Tibet's interest in the hopes of retaining their
theocracy. Thankfully, that was crushed.
>: Anger; for the Han
>: Chinese brought them basic education and infrastructure that their
>: theocracy never brought them. Again, has anyone really talk to those
>: Tibetans except for the reports those western reporters claim that
>: they had a sneak word with some unknown individuals.
>
>This is kinda like Native Americans being thankful whites educated them?
That is again a typical western view point. Han never considered
Tibet as a colony. Same country, same people. The only difference is
no large than say a Beijing people vs Southern Chinese.
>Hong Kong Chinese who should be thankful for the British education system
>set up there?
Hong Kong Chinese never was thankful for British for anything except
that they are gone. The Brits stolen money from day 1 and never let
up until the last day.
>You mean that?
>
>: Of course, you have lost your race identity. Being ethnocentric with
>: one's own race is neither good or bad, depending on how one uses it.
>
>You don't really even know what my "race identity" is.
>
>Fortunately, I do, so I don't give a damn what you think.
>
>: The most despicable kind of people is the race whore who uses another
>: race's point to view to attack a place you've never been to and a
>: people you never tried to communicate with in order to curry favors
>: from you supposed masters. Maybe you should break all mirrors from
>: you home or do a Michael Jackson impersonation to show other how white
>: you are. A genetic makeover maybe even better.
Don't, I actually feel sorry for you. In your mind nothing is right
except for western imperialism. The unfair power and trade system
established by the west are all just. Unfortunately, except for
whitewashed people living in the west, none seemed to think like that.
Get out to other parts of the world and talk to other people and stop
taking the "unbiased" western news as facts.
Mak Lo
> In soc.culture.hongkong ircirc <ircirc> wrote:
> : Anger; for the Han
> : Chinese brought them basic education and infrastructure that their
> : theocracy never brought them. Again, has anyone really talk to those
> : Tibetans except for the reports those western reporters claim that
> : they had a sneak word with some unknown individuals.
>
> This is kinda like Native Americans being thankful whites educated them?
>
> Hong Kong Chinese who should be thankful for the British education system
> set up there?
>
> You mean that?
I'm not supporting the previous poster's comments by any means; however, I
would say that British rule in Hong Kong was much more benevolent than
American treatment of its real Natives. Sure, the British treated HK people
as second-class citizens -- but at least the brought *some* good (i.e.
developed legal system, economic development, etc.)
China's treatment of its minority Tibetans is far closer to the British rule
over Hong Kong than American Manifest Destiny. The central government has
invested a ton of money into Tibet, not only for what you would probably
deem only beneficial to Han emigrants, but also basic infrastructure, roads,
power plants, schools and other public works. The Free Tibet movement
glosses over the fact that pre-1949, Tibet was a feudal theocracy with 95%
of the population toiling in the field to serve the theocratic elite.
There certainly is a some romantic idealism wrapped up in the whole idea of
self-determination. In reality, the world doesn't work like that . While
native Tibetans are certainly doing a great marketing effort in the West, in
the end, I would posit that their most practical step forward would be to
stop expending energy on a largely ineffective independence movement,
improve their standard of living through education and basically join the
modern world. They can still celebrate their culture and have pride in
their unique background. But I would hope they aren't so fixated on
retaining their culture to ignore the environment around them.
I would go back to what a previous poster remarked about the relative
educational level of the average Tibetan vis-a-vis their ability to get the
"cushy" jobs and access investment. Is the central government not doing
enough? How much is enough?
ircirc
>China's treatment of its minority Tibetans is far closer to the British rule
>over Hong Kong than American Manifest Destiny. The central government has
>invested a ton of money into Tibet, not only for what you would probably
>deem only beneficial to Han emigrants, but also basic infrastructure, roads,
>power plants, schools and other public works. The Free Tibet movement
>glosses over the fact that pre-1949, Tibet was a feudal theocracy with 95%
>of the population toiling in the field to serve the theocratic elite.
That is the only reason, the theocracy was selling out Tibetan/Chinese
interest to British India under the most stupid terms. If not for the
Chinese, Tibet together with Nepal and Butan will fall under Indian
control like Sikkim. Sikkim was an independent country forced under
gun point to merge with India, no one seemed want to mention that. If
not for Chinese, I am sure Tibetans will happily toil in Hindu
extremism within India.
>There certainly is a some romantic idealism wrapped up in the whole idea of
>self-determination. In reality, the world doesn't work like that . While
>native Tibetans are certainly doing a great marketing effort in the West, in
>the end, I would posit that their most practical step forward would be to
>stop expending energy on a largely ineffective independence movement,
>improve their standard of living through education and basically join the
>modern world. They can still celebrate their culture and have pride in
>their unique background. But I would hope they aren't so fixated on
>retaining their culture to ignore the environment around them.
A great marketing effort by CIA funded organization. Made up numbers
and such. Thankfully, these efforts are becoming more and more in
vain and are dying down considerably. A few brainwashed fools can't
seem to concede defeat and kept on making dumb effort to raise an
otherwise dead issue.
>I would go back to what a previous poster remarked about the relative
>educational level of the average Tibetan vis-a-vis their ability to get the
>"cushy" jobs and access investment. Is the central government not doing
>enough? How much is enough?
Many promising Tibetans youths are given scholarships to the best
colleges of China and many are sent abroad to study. Of course some
losers who wants a hand out complain and complain. Western
"journalists" are ONLY interested in those losers.
zero2pirated
maybe he's pretending to be on the Chinese side to make the Chinese look bad
zero2pirated
"Pilar Quezzaire" <quez...@login1.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:bqsl54$jjl$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
so are either of you going to offer up some numbers?
zero2pirated
<ircirc> wrote in message news:0hp3tvcvvqvu5041p...@4ax.com...
>
> >The Han Chinese who have recently moved into Tibet are part of what many
> >consider to be an occupational power. I know you feel this point is
> >debatable -- please bear with me and consider a different point of view
> >for the sake of this comparison. They are a minority given financial
> >incentive to enter Tibet, are protected by the occupational military, and
> >are of the same culture as the occupying power, and are thus in a
position
> >of privelege rather than discrimination. A minority is not necessarily an
> >oppressed or maligned one -- look at Europeans in colonial Hong Kong, or,
> >more aptly, Afrikaaners and Brits in apartheid South Africa.
>
> Occupational Power? Liberational Power? Unificational Power? You say
> tomato, I say toMato. The problem with you is that you are so
> whitewashed and brainwashed with the white point of view that maybe
> you should use the mirror more often. Even in the all "equal" US, you
> hear blacks, asians, latinoes complain all the time about
> discrimination. For the whitewashed sellouts, of course they got more
> favors for the act of ass kissing. Let me guess, if you are really a
> girl, you are probably married to a white right?
>
"if you are a ... GIRL?"
I bet you're the first one to bend over, you mook
wah
> one's own race is neither good or bad, depending on how one uses it.
> The most despicable kind of people is the race whore who uses another
> race's point to view to attack a place you've never been to and a
> people you never tried to communicate with in order to curry favors
wah
you are such a loser
zero2pirated
so? Indian pop lit frequently contains far worse anti-Chinese jibes - just
casually slipped in. I have some prize-winners in my bookcase.
who are you to say? Is the Dalai Lama a real Tibetan in your opinion?
Who are you to say what constitutes Chinese thinking?
> common Chinese saying is this. "All under heaven have no master, only
> the virtuous can have the post."
>
stinking fish and stinking shrimp find one another gathering on the water's
surface
zero2pirated
You don't speak for the Mainland government.
Pilar Quezzaire
: I'm not supporting the previous poster's comments by any means; however, I
: would say that British rule in Hong Kong was much more benevolent than
: American treatment of its real Natives. Sure, the British treated HK people
: as second-class citizens -- but at least the brought *some* good (i.e.
: developed legal system, economic development, etc.)
I actually don't disagree here. I used the HK/Brit example partly because
it reflects *some* of the situation in Tibet as the Chinese see it. I
dont' think the Chinese are doing nearly as good a job, but that's not to
say I agree with what the British did.
: China's treatment of its minority Tibetans is far closer to the British rule
: over Hong Kong than American Manifest Destiny. The central government has
: invested a ton of money into Tibet, not only for what you would probably
: deem only beneficial to Han emigrants, but also basic infrastructure, roads,
: power plants, schools and other public works. The Free Tibet movement
: glosses over the fact that pre-1949, Tibet was a feudal theocracy with 95%
: of the population toiling in the field to serve the theocratic elite.
I'm perfectly aware of such, which is why in my first post I mentioned
strongly that at least at first, Tibet stood to benefit from Chinese
intervention. The problem is that like many colonialzation situations, the
benefits MAY be seen after the population has settled and a reasonable
amount of time has passed. MAY -- that depends on how things develop.
Sure, Mali, for example, benefitted some after the French arrived, but its
infrastructure was for French only -- the population was segregated to
insure this fact. The infrastructure remained after Malian independence,
but it hasn't been utilized to the same extent because the French didn't
train the local population to utilize it with the most efficency. It
wasnt' meant for them, and a lot of folks aren't convinced that the
infrastructure being created in Tibet will in the end benefit the original
population.
That being said, the question of Tibetan cultural and religious autonomy
hasn't been touched, and I think that's where the ugliest part of all this
lies. Is it worth the country getting a few mines and telephone lines at
the cost of much of its culture, even the good parts?
Did it work for Mongolia to have Buddhism stomped out by a pro-Soviet
government in the 20's and 30's? For the sake of "progress", hundreds of
monasteries were destroyed or coverted to government buildings, a good
third of the population was politically misplaced, and it ended up costing
the government dearly. They did get a certain amount of modernity and
social change, /which was needed there/. The theocracy that had developed
in Mongolia had a similar hold and influence over the people that Tibet's
theocracy did, and it wasn't benefiting people outside of the monastic
sphere. However, the spiritual center was killed along with the political
entity. In the end, that hurt Mongolian culture and expression more than
helped.
What I see at issue, then, is whether or not the cultural and political
aspects of this debate can be separated. The population's choices on
religion and culture, /all/ of the population's, need to be respected.
China is not doing that -- they are too concerned with the political
aspects of the debate, which is the same as what happened in Mongolia.
: There certainly is a some romantic idealism wrapped up in the whole idea of
: self-determination. In reality, the world doesn't work like that . While
: native Tibetans are certainly doing a great marketing effort in the West, in
: the end, I would posit that their most practical step forward would be to
: stop expending energy on a largely ineffective independence movement,
: improve their standard of living through education and basically join the
: modern world. They can still celebrate their culture and have pride in
: their unique background. But I would hope they aren't so fixated on
: retaining their culture to ignore the environment around them.
That's not been my impression of Tibetans in exile here at all. (Here is
the Boston area, where a signficant number of Tibetans have settled.) None
of them want to back to yak-butter sculptures and goat-herding. They want
to be able to worship the Dalai Lama as their spiritual leader, practice
their form of tantric Buddhism, speak Tibetan, wear Tibetan clothes, and
get all of the benefits of being part of the modern world at the same
time. They do that here, most younger Tibetans are also quite in step with
American culture, and have no problems with it.
Every last one of them who have relatives back in Tibet say that kind of
self-determination isn't accorded them. There's only one way to modernize,
and that's where the problem is.
: I would go back to what a previous poster remarked about the relative
: educational level of the average Tibetan vis-a-vis their ability to get the
: "cushy" jobs and access investment. Is the central government not doing
: enough? How much is enough?
It's hard to say. That's something we struggle with in the US with many
minorities, too. There is a great deal of cultural baggage that goes along
with "education", which has a cultural connotation. I'd imagine the same
struggles are happening all over the world.
--
Pilar
LT Lee
> In soc.culture.hongkong ircirc <ircirc> wrote:
>
> : Occupational Power? Liberational Power? Unificational Power? You say
> : tomato, I say toMato. The problem with you is that you are so
> : whitewashed and brainwashed with the white point of view that maybe
> : you should use the mirror more often. Even in the all "equal" US, you
> : hear blacks, asians, latinoes complain all the time about
> : discrimination. For the whitewashed sellouts, of course they got more
> : favors for the act of ass kissing. Let me guess, if you are really a
> : girl, you are probably married to a white right?
>
> I don't exactly see how my points and yours mesh. I;m not sure what you're
> driving at. I'll answer the one part of this rant that makes sense, even
> if it's none of your business.
>
> My husband is black.
Congradulations.
>
> : Anger, ha, they should be angered by the fact that Dalai Lama the 13th
> : sold part of their land to the British India for 5000 rifles which the
> : Han Chinese is still working for them to reclaim.
>
> Working FOR them? You mean...that's not Tibet's job? They can't do it
> themselves?
Don't know whether they can do it themselves. As is, Tibet is part of
China, it is natural that Han Chinese work for them to reclaim lost
land.
>
> Why?
Why what? Membership has advantages. Too bad native Americans are not
member of the Chinese family.
>
> : Anger; for the Han
> : Chinese brought them basic education and infrastructure that their
> : theocracy never brought them. Again, has anyone really talk to those
> : Tibetans except for the reports those western reporters claim that
> : they had a sneak word with some unknown individuals.
>
> This is kinda like Native Americans being thankful whites educated them?
>
> Hong Kong Chinese who should be thankful for the British education system
> set up there?
>
> You mean that?
Why compare apples with oranges?
In case you haven't learnt about the fact, Tibetans are chinese
citizens. In contrast, Hong Kong Chinese under the British were
colonial subjects. Needless to say, America had worse record against
the native Americans.
>
> : Of course, you have lost your race identity. Being ethnocentric with
> : one's own race is neither good or bad, depending on how one uses it.
>
> You don't really even know what my "race identity" is.
>
> Fortunately, I do, so I don't give a damn what you think.
>
> : The most despicable kind of people is the race whore who uses another
> : race's point to view to attack a place you've never been to and a
> : people you never tried to communicate with in order to curry favors
> : from you supposed masters. Maybe you should break all mirrors from
> : you home or do a Michael Jackson impersonation to show other how white
> : you are. A genetic makeover maybe even better.
>
> I think you're a very angry, sad, and largely off-the-topic person. I feel
> sorry for you, I really do.
You come off as angry too. If you are really concerned about Tibet, do
something. Ask yourself what can be done, don't ask what the other
people should do to make you happy. Different people have different
priorities.
>
> I just don't get how what you're talking about has anything to do with
> this conversation. This is much better suited for a therapist than a
> newsgroup.
I believe the poster is Chinese. It is natural for him to defend
against Chinese demonizing. How about you? If you consider yourself
black, may be you can do something about racism against black.
LT Lee
> >: Anger, ha, they should be angered by the fact that Dalai Lama the 13th
> >: sold part of their land to the British India for 5000 rifles which the
> >: Han Chinese is still working for them to reclaim.
> >
> >Working FOR them? You mean...that's not Tibet's job? They can't do it
> >themselves?
> >
> >Why?
>
> Simply, Dalai Lama the 14th never raised the point with his Indian
> masters. If he raises them, he would be homeless and kicked out of
> Dharmalasa. The border war of 1962 was caused exactly by Dalai Lama's
> clique selling out Tibet's interest in the hopes of retaining their
> theocracy. Thankfully, that was crushed.
>
> >: Anger; for the Han
> >: Chinese brought them basic education and infrastructure that their
> >: theocracy never brought them. Again, has anyone really talk to those
> >: Tibetans except for the reports those western reporters claim that
> >: they had a sneak word with some unknown individuals.
> >
> >This is kinda like Native Americans being thankful whites educated them?
>
> That is again a typical western view point. Han never considered
> Tibet as a colony. Same country, same people. The only difference is
> no large than say a Beijing people vs Southern Chinese.
Even today, some southerners in the U.S. still consider the north invaders.
LT Lee
> : thoma...@hotmail.com (Thomas J Wheat) wrote in message news:<57cf3dba.03120...@posting.google.com>...
>
> :> On your first point I would say that Tibetan Nationalism is not racist
> :> though some aspects of Han nationalism may very well be. You are
> :> saying that it is racist for a group of people that have inhabitated a
> :> specific geographic region and one time an indepependant state to have
> :> views or have people who support them by calling for a truly
> :> autonomous Tibet and not a dumping ground for Han colonists.
>
> : First of all, my complaints are not against the Tibetans in China
> : struggling for whatever they want. Rather, I am complaining against
> : outsiders who exploits the situation.
>
> First of all, you can't even use the word "Tibet" without twitching.
> Tibetans are in China and in Tibet. Some of us get the Gansu/Tibet
> difference.
I don't really know what you mean.
I specific "Tibetans in China" because some Tibetans are never in
Tibet and they are likely to have interest different from those living
in Tibet.
>
> Secondly, at NO POINT have you said that you are complaining about
> "outsiders", you are complaining about people who view the Chinese as
> outsiders in TIBET. That includes Tibetans still living in Tibet.
My original post of this thread is comparing people like you with the
white supremists. As a matter of fact, TPC never have any Tibetans
who are grown up under the PRC rule AFAIK. Are you one?
> So...are you feeling pity for the Tibetans who live in Tibet? Is that it?
> Or is this some way to try to save the sinking ship you created with your
> arguments?
Not at all.
I don't feel pity for the Tibetans who live in Tibet at all. However,
it is my long held position that all citizens have the right to
struggle and to fight for what they want. They have the insider
information and they have the stake. Rightly or wrongly, they will be
there to suffer or enjoy the consequences. Their insider information
as well as their stake in the well being of the society contributes to
make their criticism contructive. On the contrary, outsiders
frequently criticize for ulterior motives. Their so called concerns
are, more often than not, lightly veiled demonizing. (Check out my
older post "Demonizing and constructive criticizism" if you wish.)
>
> : "...very, very Chinese. The inner feelings lack the human touch, the
> : human quality, the caring nature, the loving heart and every thing
> : that is gentle. They are like human robots with no human feelings.
> : ..."
>
> : If anyone thinks the above is an accurate description of the Chinese
> : people, please say so.
>
> This was a tough one to answer, believe it or not.
>
> I know better to say that on an individual level, Chinese people are not
> at all like this. They're just as human as anyone else, with a myriad of
> emotions and ranes of behavior just like everyone else. Certainly, this is
> an inaccurate description of my grandfather.
>
> That being said...the PRC's political and militaristic behavior towards
> the Tibetans is painfully similar to the description you posited. That
> needs to be addressed. If you can't manage to focus on the personal
> situation and the attitudes generated as a result of the conflict, I can't
> give you the same.
Talk about monolithic thinking.
Given the continental scale genocides committed by the westerners,
will you than agree that "... very very western. The inner feelings
lack the human touch, the human quality, the caring nature, the loving
heart and every thing
that is gentle. They are like human robots with no human feelings.
..." May be you will. I won't. I know that westerners of yesterday are
different from westerners of today and tomorrow.
In addition, I don't see how can such blanket racism achieve anything.
No, they only make hating Chinese fashionable.
>
> :> As to your second point the supposed integration of Han colonists in
> :> Tibet has not had an equalizing effect on Tibetans. First of all all
> :> of the best Jobs go to Han chinese.
>
> : What is the best jobs? In what way they all go to Han chinese? Show me
> : the statistics corrected for educational background and experiences.
>
> Before we go there...let's see the statistics on Tibetan schools and
> support of said schools from the Chinese government. I also want to see
> how many ethnic Tibetans are represented in government, education,
> entertainment, etc. I also want to see how many Tibetans are admitted to
> Chinese universities.
>
> Then we can talk.
I don't have complaints on equal opportunity issue. If you do, and if
your complaints are based on real evidences, please share.
>
> : In addition, you are changing the subject. Both racist groups (Free
> : Tibet from Hans and Free America from black) express displeasure
> : toward integration of different ethnic groups of the same country. The
> : subject is integration, not equal opportunity.
>
> The subject is actually nationalism versus out-and-out racism. The
> difference can be subtle, maybe too hard for you to grasp.
Yes. It is too hard.
1. I think and think and cannot quite understand how one can begin
with nationalism and end up with the above quoted racist remark.
2. Should one really care the distinction between nationalism and
out-and-out racism? Let us say a Singaporean Chinese read the above
quoted racist remark and felt that he was wronged, should your
explanation of nationalism make him feel better? Would one then expect
him to say something like, "Oh yes. It is nationalism. And it must be
accurate."
> It has to do
> with being an oppressed versus a dominant majority. You'ev been so proud
> of your knowledge of this subject -- where are the references on it you
> usually drag out?
You wrote, "What is at issue is how the Chinese government is
encouraging
businesspeople to move their in droves to drive out certain elements
of the Tibetan population..."
Are you talking about segregation? How does the above compare to "Free
America (from non-white)" movement's complaints like the following?
"What is at issue is how the American government is encouraging negros
to move in droves to cause white flight in many white communities."
You wrote, "Chinese and Tibetans are distinct from one another. They
speak
different langauges, their practice of Buddhism is different, and are
of
different cultures."
WAre you talking about segregation? What would you say if a white
supremist tell you the following on why segregation is necessary?
"White and black in America are distinct from one another. They speak
different languages, their pracitice of [whatever] is different, and
are of different cultures."
> :> Also Han settlement has raised
> :> prices, and with settlement the Han have also brought pollution to
> :> Tibet's once pristine environment.
>
> : Development and life itself is about trade offs. Only people currently
> : living Tibet can really judge whether the trade off is advantageour or
> : not.
>
> Who's asking them? You?
The relevant question is: "Who is complaining?" Both you and me are
irrelevant unless we are living in Tibet.
>
> : They was no independent Tibet recognized by other contemproary powers
> : after Kublai Khan had integrated Tibet into China during the Yuan
> : Dynasty.
>
> "Recognized" by whom? By what political body?
There were a whole host of political bodies around Tibet including
Britain and Russia. (Read The Great Game for details.)
> What political body /existed/ to address that question when the PRC entered Tibet?
There were many political bodies which were in posiiton to address
that question.