China Return Tibet like Britain Returned Hong Kong ??
in...@hotmail.com
Now China is very happy about ending the 150+ years of colonial rule in
Hong Kong and getting re-united with its main land. China has even
bigger ambitions of re uniting Taiwan before 1999. But,it still remains
a question whether the people of Hong Kong will have the democracy,
free speech and Press. Well let us wish they will..
The aspirations of Chinese is fulfilled with the reunification of Hong
Kong. Similarly will the Chinese respect the aspirations of others like
Tibetans ? Can Chinese answer these questions please..
1. As Britain gave up its rights on Hong Kong, will the china also give
up its rights on forcefully occupied TIBET ?
2. Will China allow the rule of law, human rights and free speech to
prevail in Tibet. ?
3. Will China allow hundreds of thousands of Tibetan refugees lingering
in different parts of the world to return to their ancient home
land ?
4. Will China recognize H.H. Dalai Lama as the leader and aspirations
of the lakhs if people of Tibet. ?
5. Will China recognize TAIWAN as an independent sovereign nation ?
6. Will Chinese apologize for the "Betraying attack" in 1962 on India
immediately after shaking hands shouting " Chine-Hindi Bhai Bahi"
(Chinese and Indians are brothers !)?
7. Of Course, Tinaman Square is still regarded as an "internal" affair
of china. !!
If chinese can not answer these questions, Only the History will answer
these questions. If past is any indication of the future, we can as
well conclude that Chinese NEVER believe in two way traffic..
Gangadhar Sharma
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Wing C Ng
In article <5puu5b$1m...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
Tingli Pan <tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu> wrote:
>In article <868399...@dejanews.com>, <in...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>|Now China is very happy about ending the 150+ years of colonial rule in
>|Hong Kong and getting re-united with its main land. China has even
>|7. Of Course, Tinaman Square is still regarded as an "internal"
affair
>| of china. !!
>|
I am solidly against the TAMS Massacre. And yet there is
no doubt that it is an internal affair of China: the struggle
was between pro-democracy Chinese people and a repressive
Chinese govt. Neither one invaded any foreign country. It
is clearly an internal affair, like any political reform
and/or revolution.
Wing
>|If chinese can not answer these questions, Only the History will answer
>|these questions. If past is any indication of the future, we can as
>|well conclude that Chinese NEVER believe in two way traffic..
>--
>Marquess of Chu 潘廷礼
Tingli Pan
In article <868399...@dejanews.com>, <in...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|Now China is very happy about ending the 150+ years of colonial rule in
|Hong Kong and getting re-united with its main land. China has even
|a question whether the people of Hong Kong will have the democracy,
|free speech and Press. Well let us wish they will..
|
|The aspirations of Chinese is fulfilled with the reunification of Hong
|Kong. Similarly will the Chinese respect the aspirations of others like
|Tibetans ? Can Chinese answer these questions please..
|
Indian government.
|1. As Britain gave up its rights on Hong Kong, will the china also give
| up its rights on forcefully occupied TIBET ?
|
Seems you don't know there is 17 points peace agreement between China
and Tibet for the unification of them. It has the approval of Dalai Lama
himself.
|2. Will China allow the rule of law, human rights and free speech to
| prevail in Tibet. ?
|
Tibetan has as much rights as other parts of China, since it is part of
China. Not like in other colonies, the coloniest is superior.
|3. Will China allow hundreds of thousands of Tibetan refugees lingering
| in different parts of the world to return to their ancient home
| land ?
Certainly they can. And there have been many already have.
|
|4. Will China recognize H.H. Dalai Lama as the leader and aspirations
| of the lakhs if people of Tibet. ?
|
As far as Dalai Lama recognized that Tibet is part of China.
|5. Will China recognize TAIWAN as an independent sovereign nation ?
|
So far, no chance.
|6. Will Chinese apologize for the "Betraying attack" in 1962 on India
| immediately after shaking hands shouting " Chine-Hindi Bhai Bahi"
| (Chinese and Indians are brothers !)?
|
According to many reports, the war was not started from Chinese side. And
I think India and China are going to improve their relations continuesly
in last few years.
|7. Of Course, Tinaman Square is still regarded as an "internal" affair
| of china. !!
|
Ryan Bergman
On 9 Jul 1997 02:48:11 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
wrote:
>In article <868399...@dejanews.com>, <in...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>|Now China is very happy about ending the 150+ years of colonial rule in
>|Hong Kong and getting re-united with its main land. China has even
>|bigger ambitions of re uniting Taiwan before 1999. But,it still remains
>|a question whether the people of Hong Kong will have the democracy,
>|free speech and Press. Well let us wish they will..
>|
>|The aspirations of Chinese is fulfilled with the reunification of Hong
>|Kong. Similarly will the Chinese respect the aspirations of others like
>|Tibetans ? Can Chinese answer these questions please..
>|
>I think considerering Tibet is part of China is always the policy of
>Indian government.
>
>|1. As Britain gave up its rights on Hong Kong, will the china also give
>| up its rights on forcefully occupied TIBET ?
>|
>Seems you don't know there is 17 points peace agreement between China
>and Tibet for the unification of them. It has the approval of Dalai Lama
>himself.
>
But China has not held up its part of the 17 point agreement so it
doesnt mean squat. maybe if Tibet had autonomy within China it would
be a different story.
Ryber
*****************************************************************************
Major flaws in government arise from a fear of making radical internal changes
even though a need is clearly seen.
-Darwi Odrade
(CD 182)
******************************************************************************
Tingli Pan
In article <33c425d1...@news.iastate.edu>,
Ryan Bergman <ry...@iastate.edu> wrote:
|On 9 Jul 1997 02:48:11 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
|wrote:
|
|>In article <868399...@dejanews.com>, <in...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|>|Now China is very happy about ending the 150+ years of colonial rule in
|>|Hong Kong and getting re-united with its main land. China has even
|>|bigger ambitions of re uniting Taiwan before 1999. But,it still remains
|>|a question whether the people of Hong Kong will have the democracy,
|>|free speech and Press. Well let us wish they will..
|>|
|>|The aspirations of Chinese is fulfilled with the reunification of Hong
|>|Kong. Similarly will the Chinese respect the aspirations of others like
|>|Tibetans ? Can Chinese answer these questions please..
|>|
|>I think considerering Tibet is part of China is always the policy of
|>Indian government.
|>
|>|1. As Britain gave up its rights on Hong Kong, will the china also give
|>| up its rights on forcefully occupied TIBET ?
|>|
|>Seems you don't know there is 17 points peace agreement between China
|>and Tibet for the unification of them. It has the approval of Dalai Lama
|>himself.
|>
|
|But China has not held up its part of the 17 point agreement so it
|doesnt mean squat. maybe if Tibet had autonomy within China it would
|be a different story.
|
How the whole thing (the 1959 rebellion) started in the first place?
It was because of the rebellion of Kamba, which was not covered by
17-point Agreement, and with the support of CIA. After it, there was a
large number of Kamba refuge in Lahsha, with the fanning of officials of
Tibetan government, they started to attack the PLA garrison in Lahsha.
The PLA had lost contact with Beijing due to the break down of radio
equipment and didn't do anything for several days. Only until they
thought they were in danger due to the attack by the riot the troops
started to responde without the approval of Beijing government. So it is
more likely that the Tibetan side broke the agreement first.
JeReMy
> 1. As Britain gave up its rights on Hong Kong, will the china also
> give
> up its rights on forcefully occupied TIBET ?
not entirely accurate, Hongkongers are not British(though holding UK
passport) but Tibetans are one of the branches of the Chinese
Nationalities(Zhong Hua Min Zu)*.These are two different cases. Tibet
has never been an independent state,even the Dala Lamas were appointed
by the Chinese Central Government. It's wrong to use the word
"occupied".
*five main ethnic groups of the Chinese Nationalities are Han, Manzhu,
Mongolian, Hui(Muslim) and Tibetan.
> 2. Will China allow the rule of law, human rights and free speech to
> prevail in Tibet. ?
I think China will do it. The Tibetan Policy under the administration of
(former) premier Hu Yiao Bang was good, as Dalai Lama said.
That's why I am faithful on the future of Tibet, especially after the
democratic reform(will be approved by the 15th CCP meeting).
> 3. Will China allow hundreds of thousands of Tibetan refugees
> lingering
> in different parts of the world to return to their ancient home
> land ?
All are welcome, if they do not support the Separatist movement.
> 4. Will China recognize H.H. Dalai Lama as the leader and aspirations
> of the lakhs if people of Tibet. ?
what kind of leader do u mention???the successive dynasties of
China(including PRC) do recognize him as the spiritual leader of
Tibet.<<In 1653, Qing Emperor Chen Lung crowned the 5th Dalai Lama and
appointed him as the General Buddhist Leader of Mongolia and Tibet, that
was the formal beginning of the Lama system with the Chinese
Government>>
> 5. Will China recognize TAIWAN as an independent sovereign nation ?
Never, if anyone in the government recognize TI, he/she will be the
SINNER of the Chinese Nationalities.
> 6. Will Chinese apologize for the "Betraying attack" in 1962 on
> India
> immediately after shaking hands shouting " Chine-Hindi Bhai Bahi"
> (Chinese and Indians are brothers !)?
China did nothing wrong! She was only defending the border which has
been approved LONG TIME AGO!
the so-called "border" said by the IndianGov was just "created" by the
British Colonists.We can say that the British is guilty of driving a
wedge between us(China and India), just like what she did to the Muslim
and the Hindus before being driven out from a united HINDUSTAN, u
know!!!
Unfortunately, the Indian Government was used and misled by the British
at that time.
> 7. Of Course, Tinaman Square is still regarded as an "internal"
> affair
> of china. !!
Agreed, but all constructive opinions are also welcome.
JeReMy :)
in...@hotmail.com
>>Seems you don't know there is 17 points peace agreement between China
>>and Tibet for the unification of them. It has the approval of Dalai >>Lama
himself.
The Very fact that you talk about a "peace agreement" speaks for itself.
There is no concept of a "Peace Agreement" between two parts of a same
nation!. It can be only between two independent sovereign Nations! You
are tactically trying to avoid the fact that Chinese FORCEFULLY occupied
Tibet in 1956. H.H. Dalai Lama is still NOT the leader of Tibetans but
only a leader in "EXILE". I have personally heard H.H. Dalai Lama's
words when he was in Boulder, Colorado about the Chinese aggressions on
Tibet.
It seems Chinese burnt in anger and vengeance when H.H Dalai Lama got
Nobel Prize in recognition for his continued fight against the Chinese
aggressors.
> 2. Will China allow the rule of law, human rights and free speech
> to prevail in Tibet. ?
>>Tibetan has as much rights as other parts of China, since it is part
>>of China. Not like in other colonies, the colonist is superior.
This seems to be ridiculous. Even the people of main land china have no
such rights. Do you remember Tinamin Square, Den Xiapong's brutality?
brutal political executions during the times of Mao ?
>Will China allow hundreds of thousands of Tibetan refugees
>lingering in different parts of the world to return to their
>ancient home land ?
>>Certainly they can. And there have been many already have.
Then why they call themselves as "Refugees" ?. Why are they not proud of
Chinese Rule in Tibet ???
Ryan Bergman
On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 21:54:01 +0800, JeReMy <dy...@hkstar.com> wrote:
>> 1. As Britain gave up its rights on Hong Kong, will the china also
>> give
>> up its rights on forcefully occupied TIBET ?
>
>not entirely accurate, Hongkongers are not British(though holding UK
>passport) but Tibetans are one of the branches of the Chinese
>Nationalities(Zhong Hua Min Zu)*.These are two different cases. Tibet
>has never been an independent state,even the Dala Lamas were appointed
>by the Chinese Central Government. It's wrong to use the word
>"occupied".
>
>*five main ethnic groups of the Chinese Nationalities are Han, Manzhu,
>Mongolian, Hui(Muslim) and Tibetan.
NO Dalai Lama was EVER appointed by any Chinese government, period.
You are commpleetly and uterly wrong on that account.
>
>> 2. Will China allow the rule of law, human rights and free speech to
>> prevail in Tibet. ?
>
>I think China will do it. The Tibetan Policy under the administration of
>(former) premier Hu Yiao Bang was good, as Dalai Lama said.
>
>That's why I am faithful on the future of Tibet, especially after the
>democratic reform(will be approved by the 15th CCP meeting).
>
>> 3. Will China allow hundreds of thousands of Tibetan refugees
>> lingering
>> in different parts of the world to return to their ancient home
>> land ?
>
>All are welcome, if they do not support the Separatist movement.
>
>> 4. Will China recognize H.H. Dalai Lama as the leader and aspirations
>> of the lakhs if people of Tibet. ?
>
>what kind of leader do u mention???the successive dynasties of
>China(including PRC) do recognize him as the spiritual leader of
>Tibet.<<In 1653, Qing Emperor Chen Lung crowned the 5th Dalai Lama and
>appointed him as the General Buddhist Leader of Mongolia and Tibet, that
>was the formal beginning of the Lama system with the Chinese
>Government>>
>
The Tibetan religious scholar and sage, Tsongkhapa, founded the Gelug
school of Tibetan Buddhism. It became the fourth major school of
Tibetan Buddhism, the others being the Nyingma, the Sakya and the
Kagyu. Panchen Gedun Drup was Tsongkhapa's principal disciple.
Panchen Gedun Drup's third reincarnation, Sonam Gyatso, was invited to
the Mongol Court of Altan Khan who first conferred the title of "Talai
(Dalai) Lama" on him. The title was applied retrospectively to his two
previous incarnations, making him the Third Dalai Lama. Thus began the
line of the Dalai Lamas. It is, therefore, not true, as Chinese
propaganda claims, that the title "Dalai Lama" was first established
by a Manchu emperor a century later.
The relationship established by the Third Dalai Lama with Altan Khan
was a spiritual one, but it would have political repercussions two
centuries later, in 1642, when the Mongol prince, Gushri Khan, helped
the Fifth Dalai Lama (Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso 1617-1682) to become the
supreme political and spiritual ruler of Tibet. The Fifth Dalai Lama,
in his turn, conferred the title of "Chokyi Gyalpo" (Dharma Raja) to
his Mongol Patron. From that time on, successive Dalai Lamas ruled
Tibet as sovereign heads of state. The political position of the Dalai
Lamas was, therefore, not established by a Manchu emperor of the Qing
Dynasty, but by the Fifth Dalai Lama with the help of his Mongol
patron, two years before the Qing Dynasty was even established.
>> 5. Will China recognize TAIWAN as an independent sovereign nation ?
>
>Never, if anyone in the government recognize TI, he/she will be the
>SINNER of the Chinese Nationalities.
>
>> 6. Will Chinese apologize for the "Betraying attack" in 1962 on
>> India
>> immediately after shaking hands shouting " Chine-Hindi Bhai Bahi"
>> (Chinese and Indians are brothers !)?
>
>China did nothing wrong! She was only defending the border which has
>been approved LONG TIME AGO!
>
>the so-called "border" said by the IndianGov was just "created" by the
>British Colonists.We can say that the British is guilty of driving a
>wedge between us(China and India), just like what she did to the Muslim
>and the Hindus before being driven out from a united HINDUSTAN, u
>know!!!
>
>Unfortunately, the Indian Government was used and misled by the British
>at that time.
>
>> 7. Of Course, Tinaman Square is still regarded as an "internal"
>> affair
>> of china. !!
>
>Agreed, but all constructive opinions are also welcome.
>
>JeReMy :)
>
>
*****************************************************************************
Wing C Ng
In article <tcyangED...@netcom.com>,
Tung-chiang Yang <tcy...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Hope you have the same view for internal affairs of Republic of China.
ROC and PRC matters are of course also the internal affair
of China.
Wing
>
>===============================
>Wing C Ng wrote after zapping the scum of the universe:
>
>: I am solidly against the TAMS Massacre. And yet there is
>: no doubt that it is an internal affair of China: the struggle
>: was between pro-democracy Chinese people and a repressive
>: Chinese govt. Neither one invaded any foreign country. It
>: is clearly an internal affair, like any political reform
>: and/or revolution.
>
>--
>========= Try the low-crossposting robomoderated 'alt.culture.taiwan' ===
>
>soc.culture.taiwan, soc.culture.china (by SCC FAQ Team) FAQ's:
> http://www.iglou.com/tcyang/Taiwan_faq.shtml, China_faq.shtml
Wing C Ng
In article <8684611...@dejanews.com>, <in...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Seems you don't know there is 17 points peace agreement between China
>>>and Tibet for the unification of them. It has the approval of Dalai >>Lama
>himself.
>
>The Very fact that you talk about a "peace agreement" speaks for itself.
>There is no concept of a "Peace Agreement" between two parts of a same
>nation!. It can be only between two independent sovereign Nations! You
The American South did reach an agreement with the U.S.A. last
century; it surrendered.
Wing
Tingli Pan
In article <8684611...@dejanews.com>, <in...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
|>>Seems you don't know there is 17 points peace agreement between China
|>>and Tibet for the unification of them. It has the approval of Dalai >>Lama
|himself.
|
|The Very fact that you talk about a "peace agreement" speaks for itself.
|There is no concept of a "Peace Agreement" between two parts of a same
|nation!. It can be only between two independent sovereign Nations! You
|Tibet in 1956. H.H. Dalai Lama is still NOT the leader of Tibetans but
|only a leader in "EXILE". I have personally heard H.H. Dalai Lama's
|words when he was in Boulder, Colorado about the Chinese aggressions on
|Tibet.
|
sovereign nations? Anything to support your argument?
First, the agreement was signed in 1951 not 1956.
In his telegram to Mao, Dalai Lama said clearly that he was happy that
Tibet is back to the motherland. Even in a recent interview Dalai Lama
said he agreed that Tibet is part of China.
|It seems Chinese burnt in anger and vengeance when H.H Dalai Lama got
|Nobel Prize in recognition for his continued fight against the Chinese
|aggressors.
|
Are you sure about this? That he got his PEACE Prize because of his
fighting of Chinese instead of his work for peace. Should we change the
Prize as Nobel Fight Prize?
|> 2. Will China allow the rule of law, human rights and free speech
|> to prevail in Tibet. ?
|
|>>Tibetan has as much rights as other parts of China, since it is part
|>>of China. Not like in other colonies, the colonist is superior.
|
|This seems to be ridiculous. Even the people of main land china have no
|such rights. Do you remember Tinamin Square, Den Xiapong's brutality?
|brutal political executions during the times of Mao ?
|
So, what is wrong with my statement. At least they are not second class
citizens.
|>>Certainly they can. And there have been many already have.
|
|Then why they call themselves as "Refugees" ?. Why are they not proud of
|Chinese Rule in Tibet ???
|
Well, it is common for people coming from one country to another. The
reason can vary. For example, the Mexicans in America still feel proud
of Mexica, yet they are in America.
houl...@sprynet.com
> in...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> 1. As Britain gave up its rights on Hong Kong, will the china also give
> up its rights on forcefully occupied TIBET ?
Forcefully occupied Tibet? Tibet is as forcefully occupied as Wales and Scotland are forcefully
occupied by Britain, Sulawesi and Kalimantan is occupied by Indonesia, and Texas and California are
occupied by the United States. Tibet (or properly XiZang) is a PART of China. Has been for hundreds
of years, save for the decades from 1912-1950 where Britain tore it away and made it a puppet state of
the British Empire.
>
> 2. Will China allow the rule of law, human rights and free speech to
> prevail in Tibet. ?
So far as I know, the Xi enjoy the same (and often more) rights than those enjoyed by the Han majority.
>
> 3. Will China allow hundreds of thousands of Tibetan refugees lingering
> in different parts of the world to return to their ancient home
> land ?
They ARE allowed to return to XiZang should they choose.
>
> 4. Will China recognize H.H. Dalai Lama as the leader and aspirations
> of the lakhs if people of Tibet. ?
What IS the will of the people of Xizang. Are you proposing to speak for them? And before you cite
the will of the Dalai Lama, remember that under the Dalai Lama, Xizang's people were in a virtual state
of slavery.
>
> 5. Will China recognize TAIWAN as an independent sovereign nation ?
Why should Taiwan be recognized as an independent nation? It is a part of China and has been since
1683.
>
> 6. Will Chinese apologize for the "Betraying attack" in 1962 on India
> immediately after shaking hands shouting " Chine-Hindi Bhai Bahi"
> (Chinese and Indians are brothers !)?
CHina has a VERY strong claim on the territories in Arunachal Pradesh that it claims. It NEVER
recognized the unilaterally imposed McMahon Line of the British.
>
> 7. Of Course, Tinaman Square is still regarded as an "internal" affair
> of china. !!
Gee, it IS China's internal matter... Just as the near-expermination of indegenous peoples in the U.S. is
the internal affair of the United States.
>
JeReMy
Ryan Bergman wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 21:54:01 +0800, JeReMy <dy...@hkstar.com> wrote:
>
> >> 1. As Britain gave up its rights on Hong Kong, will the china also
>
> >> give
> >> up its rights on forcefully occupied TIBET ?
> >
> >not entirely accurate, Hongkongers are not British(though holding UK
> >passport) but Tibetans are one of the branches of the Chinese
> >Nationalities(Zhong Hua Min Zu)*.These are two different cases. Tibet
>
> >has never been an independent state,even the Dala Lamas were
> appointed
> >by the Chinese Central Government. It's wrong to use the word
> >"occupied".
> >
> >*five main ethnic groups of the Chinese Nationalities are Han,
> Manzhu,
> >Mongolian, Hui(Muslim) and Tibetan.
>
> NO Dalai Lama was EVER appointed by any Chinese government, period.
> You are commpleetly and uterly wrong on that account.
yeah, u are right, they were not government officials, so I better say
that they were crowned and approved the status by the central
government.
The Chiness propaganda didn't say that, they only talked about the
system of Lama Transmigration
>
>
> The relationship established by the Third Dalai Lama with Altan Khan
> was a spiritual one, but it would have political repercussions two
> centuries later, in 1642, when the Mongol prince, Gushri Khan, helped
> the Fifth Dalai Lama (Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso 1617-1682) to become the
> supreme political and spiritual ruler of Tibet. The Fifth Dalai Lama,
> in his turn, conferred the title of "Chokyi Gyalpo" (Dharma Raja) to
> his Mongol Patron. From that time on, successive Dalai Lamas ruled
> Tibet as sovereign heads of state. The political position of the Dalai
>
> Lamas was, therefore, not established by a Manchu emperor of the Qing
> Dynasty, but by the Fifth Dalai Lama with the help of his Mongol
> patron, two years before the Qing Dynasty was even established.
then....? are u "shirking" the truth?
let me continue......in 1652, the 5th Dalai Lama went to Beijing to ask
for an approvement, one year later, he was awarded the status of the
General Buddhist Leader of Mongolia and Tibet by Emperor Shun Zhi. In
1713, the 5th Penchen Lama was crowned by Emperor Kang Xi. Since then,
all Dalai Lamas and Penchen Lamas MUST be crowned by the emperor in
person, it became a "fixed form". That was also the beginning of the
system of Lamas' Transmigration(later transformed into the Golden-Vase
system in 1792 under Emperor Chen Lung's administration).
Even when the Nationalist China was being invaded by Japan in WWII, the
Tibetans still send delegation to the capital to ask for an
approvement.<<many westerners do not know this historical fact>>
JeReMy :)
in...@hotmail.com
> In his telegram to Mao, Dalai Lama said clearly that he was happy that
> Tibet is back to the motherland. Even in a recent interview Dalai Lama
> said he agreed that Tibet is part of China.
This is some what contradictory to what appears in the press..
> |It seems Chinese burnt in anger and vengeance when H.H Dalai Lama got
> |Nobel Prize in recognition for his continued fight against the Chinese
> |aggressors.
> Are you sure about this? That he got his PEACE Prize because of his
> fighting of Chinese instead of his work for peace. Should we change the
> Prize as Nobel Fight Prize?
I did not mean The Noble prize was Just for "Fighting". But Fighting to
establish Peace, Fighting against oppression, Fighting against
totalitarian rule, Fighting against injustice..etc., through non-violent
methods.. Fighting not necessarily mean with weapons. Even Mahatma Gandhi
"Fought" against the British Rule, through non-violent means. Dr. Nelson
Mandela earned Nobel Prize for his successful "fight" against the
Apartheid.
> |> 2. Will China allow the rule of law, human rights and free speech
> |> to prevail in Tibet. ?
> |
> |>>Tibetan has as much rights as other parts of China, since it is part
> |>>of China. Not like in other colonies, the colonist is superior.
> |
> |This seems to be ridiculous. Even the people of main land china have no
> |such rights. Do you remember Tinamin Square, Den Xiapong's brutality?
> |brutal political executions during the times of Mao ?
> |
> So, what is wrong with my statement. At least they are not second class
> citizens.
Oh! great, First Class citizens with "First Class" oppressions, "First
class massacres", First class executions, Every thing First Class...
People must FIRST learn to shutup...
Ryan Bergman
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 15:13:11 +0800, JeReMy <dy...@hkstar.com> wrote:
>
>
>then....? are u "shirking" the truth?
>
>let me continue......in 1652, the 5th Dalai Lama went to Beijing to ask
>for an approvement, one year later, he was awarded the status of the
>General Buddhist Leader of Mongolia and Tibet by Emperor Shun Zhi. In
>1713, the 5th Penchen Lama was crowned by Emperor Kang Xi. Since then,
>all Dalai Lamas and Penchen Lamas MUST be crowned by the emperor in
>person, it became a "fixed form". That was also the beginning of the
>system of Lamas' Transmigration(later transformed into the Golden-Vase
>system in 1792 under Emperor Chen Lung's administration).
>
First of all the "golden urn" method was never used! No Dalai Llama or
Panchen Llama was ever chosen by that method. Its suggestion was part
of the 29-point edic that was mostly ignored by the Tibetans so on the
next occation when the ritual should have been used (the 9th DL in
1808) The Tibetans disregarded it and chose a DL bassed upon religious
traditions.
No Dalai Llama ever needed the appointment of the emperor nor did the
Tibetans ever seek one.
Emperor Shunzi
invited the Fifth Dalai Lama in 1653 for a state visit to the Imperial
capital. In an unprecedented sign of respect, the Manchu Emperor made
a four-day journey outside his capital (Beijing) to receive the
Tibetan sovereign and foremost spiritual leader of Central Asian
Buddhists. Commenting on the Dalai Lama's visit, W.W. Rockhill, an
American scholar and diplomat in China, wrote:
(The Dalai Lama) had been treated with all the ceremony which
could have been accorded to any independent sovereign, and
nothing can be found in Chinese works to indicate that he was
looked upon in any other light; at this period of China's
relations with Tibet, the temporal power of the Lama, backed by
the arms of Gusri Khan and the devotion of all Mongolia, was not
a thing for the Emperor of China to question. [The Dalai Lamas of
Lhasa and Their Relations With Emperors of China, 1644-1908,
T'oung Pao 11, 1910, p.37]
On this occasion, the Fifth Dalai Lama and the Manchu Emperor bestowed
unprecedented high complimentary titles upon each other and the
cho-yon relationship was reaffirmed. In the White Paper, the Chinese
Government refers only to the honorific title given by the Emperor to
the Dalai Lama, but conveniently leaves out any mention of the similar
honorific title granted by the Dalai Lama to the Emperor. Chinese
propaganda infers that it was this deed by the Manchu Emperor which
conferred the legal right to the Dalai Lama to rule Tibet. This
interpretation intentionally misses the point of the event, namely
that titles were exchanged by two sovereign leaders. If the Dalai Lama
was dependent on his imperial title for the exercise of his authority,
then so was the Manchu Emperor dependent on the title granted by the
Dalai Lama for the exercise of his authority.
>Even when the Nationalist China was being invaded by Japan in WWII, the
>Tibetans still send delegation to the capital to ask for an
>approvement.<<many westerners do not know this historical fact>>
>
>JeReMy :)
>
The Chinese Government claims in the White Paper, as did past
Guomindang Governments, that it played a decisive role, through its
envoy Wu Zhong-xin, in the selection and installation of the 14th
Dalai Lama in 1940, and states, "... the simple reality that the
installation of the 14th Dalai Lama needed the approval of the
(Chinese) national government is sufficient proof that Tibet did not
possess any independent power during that period (1911-1949)."
In reality, the Dalai Lama was selected according to the age-old
religious beliefs and traditions of the Tibetans and no approval of
the Chinese Government was needed or sought. As a matter of fact, it
was in 1939, before Wu's arrival in Lhasa, that the Regent Rading
announced the name of the present Dalai Lama in the Tibetan National
Assembly, which unanimously confirmed the candidate.
When the enthronment ceremony took place on 22 February 1940, Wu, like
envoys from Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal and British India, had no special
role. Sir Basil Gould, the British Political Officer who represented
British India, explains that the official Chinese version of events
was a fiction which had been prepared and published before the
enthronement. That fictitious account by Wu Zhong-xin, which China
today relies on, reflected what the Chinese had intended to happen,
but what did not in fact occur. Chinese propaganda has also used a
Chinese news report featuring a photograph of the Dalai Lama with Wu
Zhong-xin, captioned as having been taken during the enthronement
ceremony. But, according to Ngabo Ngawang Jigme, Vice-Chairman of the
Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, this photo was
taken a few days after the ceremony, when Wu had a private audience
with the Dalai Lama.
Ryber
*****************************************************************************
Some never participate. Life happens to them. They get by on little more than
dumb persistance and resist with anger or violence all things that might
lift them out of resentment filled illusions of security.
-Alma Mavis Taraza
(CD 159)
******************************************************************************
Tingli Pan
In article <8685501...@dejanews.com>, <in...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
|> In his telegram to Mao, Dalai Lama said clearly that he was happy that
|> Tibet is back to the motherland. Even in a recent interview Dalai Lama
|> said he agreed that Tibet is part of China.
|
|This is some what contradictory to what appears in the press..
|
|> Are you sure about this? That he got his PEACE Prize because of his
|> fighting of Chinese instead of his work for peace. Should we change the
|> Prize as Nobel Fight Prize?
|
|I did not mean The Noble prize was Just for "Fighting". But Fighting to
|establish Peace, Fighting against oppression, Fighting against
|totalitarian rule, Fighting against injustice..etc., through non-violent
|methods.. Fighting not necessarily mean with weapons. Even Mahatma Gandhi
|"Fought" against the British Rule, through non-violent means. Dr. Nelson
|Mandela earned Nobel Prize for his successful "fight" against the
|Apartheid.
|
Hmm... It explaines why Arafat gets the Prize as well. It is consistant.
|> So, what is wrong with my statement. At least they are not second class
|> citizens.
|
|Oh! great, First Class citizens with "First Class" oppressions, "First
|class massacres", First class executions, Every thing First Class...
|People must FIRST learn to shutup...
|
Right. As to the seconde class, they need to learn to shutup before the
first class.
Wing C Ng
In article <33c60c20...@news.iastate.edu>,
Ryan Bergman <ry...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 15:13:11 +0800, JeReMy <dy...@hkstar.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>then....? are u "shirking" the truth?
>>
>>let me continue......in 1652, the 5th Dalai Lama went to Beijing to ask
>>for an approvement, one year later, he was awarded the status of the
>>General Buddhist Leader of Mongolia and Tibet by Emperor Shun Zhi. In
>>1713, the 5th Penchen Lama was crowned by Emperor Kang Xi. Since then,
>>all Dalai Lamas and Penchen Lamas MUST be crowned by the emperor in
>>person, it became a "fixed form". That was also the beginning of the
>>system of Lamas' Transmigration(later transformed into the Golden-Vase
>>system in 1792 under Emperor Chen Lung's administration).
>>
>
>First of all the "golden urn" method was never used! No Dalai Llama or
>Panchen Llama was ever chosen by that method. Its suggestion was part
That was something that some jerks on Tibet-L advocated. They
can believe whatever they want, but it doesn't change history,
and it is the first time that such falsification of history is
even being raised on the neutral forum of TPT. Not even a single
Western scholar of Tibetology believes this lie or even dares to
raise it as a hypothesis.
>of the 29-point edic that was mostly ignored by the Tibetans so on the
>next occation when the ritual should have been used (the 9th DL in
>1808) The Tibetans disregarded it and chose a DL bassed upon religious
>traditions.
>
>No Dalai Llama ever needed the appointment of the emperor nor did the
>Tibetans ever seek one.
Ditto here.
Wing
Tingli Pan
|
|>
|>
|>then....? are u "shirking" the truth?
|>
|>let me continue......in 1652, the 5th Dalai Lama went to Beijing to ask
|>for an approvement, one year later, he was awarded the status of the
|>General Buddhist Leader of Mongolia and Tibet by Emperor Shun Zhi. In
|>1713, the 5th Penchen Lama was crowned by Emperor Kang Xi. Since then,
|>all Dalai Lamas and Penchen Lamas MUST be crowned by the emperor in
|>person, it became a "fixed form". That was also the beginning of the
|>system of Lamas' Transmigration(later transformed into the Golden-Vase
|>system in 1792 under Emperor Chen Lung's administration).
|>
|
|First of all the "golden urn" method was never used! No Dalai Llama or
|Panchen Llama was ever chosen by that method. Its suggestion was part
|of the 29-point edic that was mostly ignored by the Tibetans so on the
|next occation when the ritual should have been used (the 9th DL in
|1808) The Tibetans disregarded it and chose a DL bassed upon religious
|traditions.
|
memory serves me right, there have been quiet a few Dalai Lamas and
Panchen Lameas are chose by this method.
|No Dalai Llama ever needed the appointment of the emperor nor did the
|Tibetans ever seek one.
|
|Emperor Shunzi
|invited the Fifth Dalai Lama in 1653 for a state visit to the Imperial
|capital. In an unprecedented sign of respect, the Manchu Emperor made
|a four-day journey outside his capital (Beijing) to receive the
|Tibetan sovereign and foremost spiritual leader of Central Asian
|Buddhists. Commenting on the Dalai Lama's visit, W.W. Rockhill, an
|American scholar and diplomat in China, wrote:
|
As I said before, to make a comprimise between those in favoring going
out of town and those not, the Emperor went out hunting and met Dalai
Lama during the trip.
| (The Dalai Lama) had been treated with all the ceremony which
| could have been accorded to any independent sovereign, and
| nothing can be found in Chinese works to indicate that he was
| looked upon in any other light; at this period of China's
| relations with Tibet, the temporal power of the Lama, backed by
| the arms of Gusri Khan and the devotion of all Mongolia, was not
| a thing for the Emperor of China to question. [The Dalai Lamas of
| Lhasa and Their Relations With Emperors of China, 1644-1908,
| T'oung Pao 11, 1910, p.37]
|
|On this occasion, the Fifth Dalai Lama and the Manchu Emperor bestowed
|unprecedented high complimentary titles upon each other and the
|cho-yon relationship was reaffirmed. In the White Paper, the Chinese
|Government refers only to the honorific title given by the Emperor to
|the Dalai Lama, but conveniently leaves out any mention of the similar
|honorific title granted by the Dalai Lama to the Emperor. Chinese
|propaganda infers that it was this deed by the Manchu Emperor which
|conferred the legal right to the Dalai Lama to rule Tibet. This
|interpretation intentionally misses the point of the event, namely
|that titles were exchanged by two sovereign leaders. If the Dalai Lama
|was dependent on his imperial title for the exercise of his authority,
|then so was the Manchu Emperor dependent on the title granted by the
|Dalai Lama for the exercise of his authority.
|
Maybe the emperor and Dalai Lama slapped each others backs that time,
but it had been changed since the eary 18th centery.
|>Even when the Nationalist China was being invaded by Japan in WWII, the
|>Tibetans still send delegation to the capital to ask for an
|>approvement.<<many westerners do not know this historical fact>>
|>
|The Chinese Government claims in the White Paper, as did past
|Guomindang Governments, that it played a decisive role, through its
|envoy Wu Zhong-xin, in the selection and installation of the 14th
|Dalai Lama in 1940, and states, "... the simple reality that the
|installation of the 14th Dalai Lama needed the approval of the
|(Chinese) national government is sufficient proof that Tibet did not
|possess any independent power during that period (1911-1949)."
|
Because the government was in trouble, and it had to comprimise.
|In reality, the Dalai Lama was selected according to the age-old
|religious beliefs and traditions of the Tibetans and no approval of
|the Chinese Government was needed or sought. As a matter of fact, it
|was in 1939, before Wu's arrival in Lhasa, that the Regent Rading
|announced the name of the present Dalai Lama in the Tibetan National
|Assembly, which unanimously confirmed the candidate.
|
It was a trick played by the Regent as he tried hard to show that Dalai
Lama was not decided by China but by Tibet. Therefor the decision was
made even before the arrival of Dalai Lama.
|When the enthronment ceremony took place on 22 February 1940, Wu, like
|envoys from Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal and British India, had no special
|role. Sir Basil Gould, the British Political Officer who represented
|British India, explains that the official Chinese version of events
|was a fiction which had been prepared and published before the
|enthronement. That fictitious account by Wu Zhong-xin, which China
|today relies on, reflected what the Chinese had intended to happen,
|but what did not in fact occur. Chinese propaganda has also used a
|Chinese news report featuring a photograph of the Dalai Lama with Wu
|Zhong-xin, captioned as having been taken during the enthronement
|ceremony. But, according to Ngabo Ngawang Jigme, Vice-Chairman of the
|Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, this photo was
|taken a few days after the ceremony, when Wu had a private audience
|with the Dalai Lama.
|
All those shows that a weak country can hardly keep anything. Since
today PRC can and will do all those selection without much challenge,
does that prove China does have the authority?
Tingli Pan
In article <5q3die$k...@malasada.lava.net>, Wing C Ng <wi...@lava.net> wrote:
|In article <33c60c20...@news.iastate.edu>,
|Ryan Bergman <ry...@iastate.edu> wrote:
|>
|>First of all the "golden urn" method was never used! No Dalai Llama or
|>Panchen Llama was ever chosen by that method. Its suggestion was part
|
|can believe whatever they want, but it doesn't change history,
|and it is the first time that such falsification of history is
|even being raised on the neutral forum of TPT. Not even a single
|Western scholar of Tibetology believes this lie or even dares to
|raise it as a hypothesis.
|
Urn".
Panchen Lama 8th, 9th were chosen by "Golden Urn".
Ryan Bergman
On 11 Jul 1997 00:39:48 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
wrote:
>In article <5q3die$k...@malasada.lava.net>, Wing C Ng <wi...@lava.net> wrote:
>|In article <33c60c20...@news.iastate.edu>,
>|Ryan Bergman <ry...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>|>On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 15:13:11 +0800, JeReMy <dy...@hkstar.com> wrote:
>|>
>|>First of all the "golden urn" method was never used! No Dalai Llama or
>|>Panchen Llama was ever chosen by that method. Its suggestion was part
>|
>|That was something that some jerks on Tibet-L advocated. They
>|can believe whatever they want, but it doesn't change history,
>|and it is the first time that such falsification of history is
>|even being raised on the neutral forum of TPT. Not even a single
>|Western scholar of Tibetology believes this lie or even dares to
>|raise it as a hypothesis.
>|
>I think Dalai Lama 10th, 11th, 12th were chosen according to "Golden
>Urn".
>
Ok lets assume the 10th 11th & 12th were chosen acording to the golden
urn. why wasent the 8th 9th 13th &14th chosen that way? If Tibet was
under emperial mandate to do it that way then everyone from the 8th on
should have been chosen as such. Ill tell you why because the Tibetan
people felt no need to do what the Emperor told them to do because it
was their buissness and their was no real Emperial control over the
matter.
Lets look at the real issue. It doesnt matter at all who kissed whos
butt when where and how. What matters in my mind is who controled the
lives of the Tibetans and their culture. Did the Emperor of china have
any control over the people of Tibet or their leaders...the answer is
a diffenitive NO (even if you claim that the emperor chose the DL what
is the real difference between two 5 year old kids? Their still raised
in the same monistary by the same monks and taught the same politics.)
The Tibetan people always controlled their own internal affairs. They
didnt have to ask permission to do anything. As such China has no
right interfering in the lives of Tibetans today. No matter what,
China has absolutly no historical bassis for internal control of
Tibet...NONE.
The Tibetan people have the right to self determination and they dont
need China telling them how to live. Personaly I dont even understand
why China wants Tibet, its not like theres anything there. Is it some
kind of Imperial penis envy that makes the PRC behave like little
children?
You know, as soon as China becomes a democracy Tibets going to be out
of there so fast your head will spin five differnent ways till
tuesday. so why not just let them go now? It seemes like its a much
bigger headach than its worth.
Asia Link.
tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan) wrote:
>In article <868399...@dejanews.com>, <in...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>|Now China is very happy about ending the 150+ years of colonial rule in
>|Hong Kong and getting re-united with its main land. China has even
>|bigger ambitions of re uniting Taiwan before 1999. But,it still remains
>|a question whether the people of Hong Kong will have the democracy,
>|free speech and Press. Well let us wish they will..
>|
>|The aspirations of Chinese is fulfilled with the reunification of Hong
>|Kong. Similarly will the Chinese respect the aspirations of others like
>|Tibetans ? Can Chinese answer these questions please..
>|
>I think considerering Tibet is part of China is always the policy of
>Indian government.
>|1. As Britain gave up its rights on Hong Kong, will the china also give
>| up its rights on forcefully occupied TIBET ?
>|
>Seems you don't know there is 17 points peace agreement between China
>and Tibet for the unification of them. It has the approval of Dalai Lama
>himself.
Seems to me Britain and China signed a peace treaty granting Hong Kong
to the British in perpetuity. Seems to me the Chinese were not to
happy about doing so, but were forced to. Seems to me China still
wanted Hong Kong island back even though they had signed a treaty.
Seems to me this 17 point treaty between Tibet and China could be a
similar situation, No?
Asia Link.
JeReMy <dy...@hkstar.com> wrote:
>> 1. As Britain gave up its rights on Hong Kong, will the china also
>> give
>> up its rights on forcefully occupied TIBET ?
>not entirely accurate, Hongkongers are not British(though holding UK
>passport) but Tibetans are one of the branches of the Chinese
>Nationalities(Zhong Hua Min Zu)*.These are two different cases. Tibet
>has never been an independent state,even the Dala Lamas were appointed
>by the Chinese Central Government. It's wrong to use the word
>"occupied".
So you are saying that if the British had made the Hong Kong people
British citizens and declared the Han as one of the races of Britain,
then they would have every right to Hong Kong?
>*five main ethnic groups of the Chinese Nationalities are Han, Manzhu,
>Mongolian, Hui(Muslim) and Tibetan.
>> 2. Will China allow the rule of law, human rights and free speech to
>> prevail in Tibet. ?
>I think China will do it. The Tibetan Policy under the administration of
>(former) premier Hu Yiao Bang was good, as Dalai Lama said.
>That's why I am faithful on the future of Tibet, especially after the
>democratic reform(will be approved by the 15th CCP meeting).
>> 3. Will China allow hundreds of thousands of Tibetan refugees
>> lingering
>> in different parts of the world to return to their ancient home
>> land ?
>All are welcome, if they do not support the Separatist movement.
>> 4. Will China recognize H.H. Dalai Lama as the leader and aspirations
>> of the lakhs if people of Tibet. ?
>what kind of leader do u mention???the successive dynasties of
>China(including PRC) do recognize him as the spiritual leader of
>Tibet.<<In 1653, Qing Emperor Chen Lung crowned the 5th Dalai Lama and
>appointed him as the General Buddhist Leader of Mongolia and Tibet, that
>was the formal beginning of the Lama system with the Chinese
>Government>>
>> 5. Will China recognize TAIWAN as an independent sovereign nation ?
>Never, if anyone in the government recognize TI, he/she will be the
>SINNER of the Chinese Nationalities.
>> 6. Will Chinese apologize for the "Betraying attack" in 1962 on
>> India
>> immediately after shaking hands shouting " Chine-Hindi Bhai Bahi"
>> (Chinese and Indians are brothers !)?
>China did nothing wrong! She was only defending the border which has
>been approved LONG TIME AGO!
>the so-called "border" said by the IndianGov was just "created" by the
>British Colonists.We can say that the British is guilty of driving a
>wedge between us(China and India), just like what she did to the Muslim
>and the Hindus before being driven out from a united HINDUSTAN, u
>know!!!
>Unfortunately, the Indian Government was used and misled by the British
>at that time.
>> 7. Of Course, Tinaman Square is still regarded as an "internal"
>> affair
>> of china. !!
>Agreed, but all constructive opinions are also welcome.
>JeReMy :)
Wing C Ng
In article <5q55lq$a...@netnews.hinet.net>,
Asia Link. <asia...@ms9.hinet.net> wrote:
>tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan) wrote:
>
>>In article <868399...@dejanews.com>, <in...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>|
>>Seems you don't know there is 17 points peace agreement between China
>>and Tibet for the unification of them. It has the approval of Dalai Lama
>>himself.
>
>Seems to me Britain and China signed a peace treaty granting Hong Kong
>to the British in perpetuity. Seems to me the Chinese were not to
>happy about doing so, but were forced to. Seems to me China still
>wanted Hong Kong island back even though they had signed a treaty.
>
>Seems to me this 17 point treaty between Tibet and China could be a
>similar situation, No?
>
If they want to return Tibet to pre-1950, just come and get
it.
Wing
Kunal Singh
In article <5q5brg$a...@malasada.lava.net> wi...@lava.net (Wing C Ng) writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
>Seems to me this 17 point treaty between Tibet and China could be a
>similar situation, No?
>
If they want to return Tibet to pre-1950, just come and get
it.
Right! An important point is being missed by the poster of the
original thread and that is that Britain did not return Hong Kong due
to philanthropic concerns. It returned Hong Kong because it could
not hope to militarily protect it from Chinese might.
So, I don't see the point of this thread which seems to base the
argument for the return of Tibet on some sort of moral high ground.
Get in touch with reality! When was the last time you saw a country
leave someone alone based on moral high ground! "Oh you're so right
and I'm so wrong, of course you can become independent!"
Tingli Pan
In article <5q55lq$a...@netnews.hinet.net>,
Asia Link. <asia...@ms9.hinet.net> wrote:
|tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan) wrote:
|
|>In article <868399...@dejanews.com>, <in...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|>|Hong Kong and getting re-united with its main land. China has even
|>|bigger ambitions of re uniting Taiwan before 1999. But,it still remains
|>|a question whether the people of Hong Kong will have the democracy,
|>|free speech and Press. Well let us wish they will..
|>|
|>|The aspirations of Chinese is fulfilled with the reunification of Hong
|>|Kong. Similarly will the Chinese respect the aspirations of others like
|>|Tibetans ? Can Chinese answer these questions please..
|>|
|>I think considerering Tibet is part of China is always the policy of
|>Indian government.
|
|>| up its rights on forcefully occupied TIBET ?
|>|
|>and Tibet for the unification of them. It has the approval of Dalai Lama
|>himself.
|
|Seems to me Britain and China signed a peace treaty granting Hong Kong
|to the British in perpetuity. Seems to me the Chinese were not to
|happy about doing so, but were forced to. Seems to me China still
|wanted Hong Kong island back even though they had signed a treaty.
|
was the 97 deadline.
|Seems to me this 17 point treaty between Tibet and China could be a
|similar situation, No?
|
Before signing the treaty with the British for HK, HK had been part of
China.
OTOH, Tibet has been part of China all the time, (or at least since
1716) The period between 1913 to 1950 was due to the weakness of China,
like the war lords (can we say Tibet was one of those war lords) the
invasion of Japan, the civil wars between KMT and CCP. But never Chinese
government had recognized the independence of Tibet, nor other
governments in the world.
The 17 points only shows that some in the Tibetan governments had tried
to leave China but failed. And shall we say that the peace agreement is
an announcement of Tibet coming back to China, just like the combing
back of HK on July 1.
Now, can you see there is a similar situation?
Tingli Pan
In article <33c6b9c...@news.iastate.edu>,
Ryan Bergman <ry...@iastate.edu> wrote:
|On 11 Jul 1997 00:39:48 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
|wrote:
|
|>In article <5q3die$k...@malasada.lava.net>, Wing C Ng <wi...@lava.net> wrote:
|>|In article <33c60c20...@news.iastate.edu>,
|>|Ryan Bergman <ry...@iastate.edu> wrote:
|>|>On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 15:13:11 +0800, JeReMy <dy...@hkstar.com> wrote:
|>|>
|>|>First of all the "golden urn" method was never used! No Dalai Llama or
|>|>Panchen Llama was ever chosen by that method. Its suggestion was part
|>|
|>|That was something that some jerks on Tibet-L advocated. They
|>|can believe whatever they want, but it doesn't change history,
|>|and it is the first time that such falsification of history is
|>|even being raised on the neutral forum of TPT. Not even a single
|>|Western scholar of Tibetology believes this lie or even dares to
|>|raise it as a hypothesis.
|>|
|>I think Dalai Lama 10th, 11th, 12th were chosen according to "Golden
|>Urn".
|>
|Ok lets assume the 10th 11th & 12th were chosen acording to the golden
|urn. why wasent the 8th 9th 13th &14th chosen that way? If Tibet was
|under emperial mandate to do it that way then everyone from the 8th on
|should have been chosen as such. Ill tell you why because the Tibetan
|people felt no need to do what the Emperor told them to do because it
|was their buissness and their was no real Emperial control over the
|matter.
First, we all agree that the statement "First of all the "golden urn"
method was never used!" is wrong.
The reason is various. If I remember it correctly, 8th, 9th, and 13th
were due to that the Tibetans told that the Chinese court that they were
sure those real Dalai Lama's therefor they could skip the "Golden Urn"
process, and the request was approved. The 14th was the time that
those in Tibetan government considered it as not China and tried
everything to avoid the involvment of Chinese goverment. They decided it
even before Dali Lama reached Lahsha, not to say anything about "Golder
Urn"
Well the time of error is over, the next time....
|
|Lets look at the real issue. It doesnt matter at all who kissed whos
|butt when where and how. What matters in my mind is who controled the
|lives of the Tibetans and their culture. Did the Emperor of china have
|any control over the people of Tibet or their leaders...the answer is
|a diffenitive NO (even if you claim that the emperor chose the DL what
|is the real difference between two 5 year old kids? Their still raised
|in the same monistary by the same monks and taught the same politics.)
|The Tibetan people always controlled their own internal affairs. They
|didnt have to ask permission to do anything. As such China has no
|right interfering in the lives of Tibetans today. No matter what,
|China has absolutly no historical bassis for internal control of
|Tibet...NONE.
|
So, we reach another agreement, that according to the relation between
China and Tibet, that Chinese does have a role in chosing the Dalai
Lama, whether he is a 5 years boy or not. (then what is the big deal to
everyone?)
I think that an ideal relation between China and Tibet should be
something like between 18th century and 19th century. In this sense, I
partially agree with you that China shouldn't interfere the internal
affair of Tibet unless something unprecievable happens. Unfortunately,
time can not go back and such relations can never be back any more. But
I still prefer a similar relation between those two.
|The Tibetan people have the right to self determination and they dont
|need China telling them how to live. Personaly I dont even understand
|why China wants Tibet, its not like theres anything there. Is it some
|kind of Imperial penis envy that makes the PRC behave like little
|children?
|
I think if a country is big enough they do like to tell others what to
do. The recent event of Britain and US involvment in HK is one example.
And it shouldn't be suprised China doing something about Tibet since
Tibet is part of China while HK is part of China too.
Also, can we say your interest in China and Tibet is the very reason in
against the self determination of Chinese?
|You know, as soon as China becomes a democracy Tibets going to be out
|of there so fast your head will spin five differnent ways till
|tuesday. so why not just let them go now? It seemes like its a much
|bigger headach than its worth.
|
You've wrong over here again now. Democracy won't change much of the
relation between China and Tibet.
Actually, the mojarity of violence of dispute is happened in the
democratic countries, like Northern Island, Israel, Bosnia, just name a
few.
Kunal Singh
In article <8685501...@dejanews.com> in...@hotmail.com writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
I did not mean The Noble prize was Just for "Fighting". But Fighting to
establish Peace, Fighting against oppression, Fighting against
totalitarian rule, Fighting against injustice..etc., through non-violent
methods.. Fighting not necessarily mean with weapons. Even Mahatma Gandhi
"Fought" against the British Rule, through non-violent means. Dr. Nelson
Mandela earned Nobel Prize for his successful "fight" against the
Apartheid.
The British did not leave India because of Mahatma Gandhi's speeches
about non-violence and morality. They left India because they were
afraid of severe rebellions in the army and the navy most of which
consisted of Indians. They could see the desire for independence
finding their way into the higher echelons of the army, the navy had
already rebelled and fought a pitched battle against the British until
Mahatma Gandhi asked them to stop. The "non-violent" movement had
already turned ugly with religious clashes between Hindus and Muslims
on a large scale. Even Mahatma Gandhi realized that he had no
control left on the nation!
The British made a wise move in the case of India, in that they left
before it got really ugly. They simply retained India as a
commonwealth nation for business purposes and handed over the
administrative responsibilities to Indians. They've also made a wise
decision in the case of Hong Kong! What would or could they have done
if China had decided to adopt a military stance against them in Asia ?
I only wish that Nehru, the Prime Minister of India after
independence, had been as wise in allowing Tibet to either have become
independent or arranged some sort of special treaty with China rather
than try his infantile diplomatic attempts to keep Tibet a part of
India. This idiot was neither successful diplomatically nor was he
successful in militarily defending Tibet -- actually the Indian army
practically starved in the region due to lack of supplies and
reinforcements which Nehru never sent them. For them, it was like
committing suicide! In the long run, Nehru ended up hurting the
interests of both the Tibetan people and the Indian soldiers!
In short, people become independent when their oppressors have no
other choice left! Not because they have obtained a high moral
ground! I don't know if Nehru ever had the moral high ground and
frankly I don't care! Moral high ground can be bombed pretty
successfully by a good air force!
Ryan Bergman
On 11 Jul 1997 14:28:54 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
wrote:
>
>|Ok lets assume the 10th 11th & 12th were chosen acording to the golden
>|urn. why wasent the 8th 9th 13th &14th chosen that way? If Tibet was
>|under emperial mandate to do it that way then everyone from the 8th on
>|should have been chosen as such. Ill tell you why because the Tibetan
>|people felt no need to do what the Emperor told them to do because it
>|was their buissness and their was no real Emperial control over the
>|matter.
>
>First, we all agree that the statement "First of all the "golden urn"
>method was never used!" is wrong.
>
>The reason is various. If I remember it correctly, 8th, 9th, and 13th
>were due to that the Tibetans told that the Chinese court that they were
>sure those real Dalai Lama's therefor they could skip the "Golden Urn"
>process, and the request was approved. The 14th was the time that
>those in Tibetan government considered it as not China and tried
>everything to avoid the involvment of Chinese goverment. They decided it
>even before Dali Lama reached Lahsha, not to say anything about "Golder
>Urn"
>
>Well the time of error is over, the next time....
Wrong, The 8th was chosen by the old ways because the Tibetans didnt
like the Golden Urn method and dissregarded that suggestion.
>|
>|Lets look at the real issue. It doesnt matter at all who kissed whos
>|butt when where and how. What matters in my mind is who controled the
>|lives of the Tibetans and their culture. Did the Emperor of china have
>|any control over the people of Tibet or their leaders...the answer is
>|a diffenitive NO (even if you claim that the emperor chose the DL what
>|is the real difference between two 5 year old kids? Their still raised
>|in the same monistary by the same monks and taught the same politics.)
>|The Tibetan people always controlled their own internal affairs. They
>|didnt have to ask permission to do anything. As such China has no
>|right interfering in the lives of Tibetans today. No matter what,
>|China has absolutly no historical bassis for internal control of
>|Tibet...NONE.
>|
>So, we reach another agreement, that according to the relation between
>China and Tibet, that Chinese does have a role in chosing the Dalai
>Lama, whether he is a 5 years boy or not. (then what is the big deal to
>everyone?)
Actualy I never agreed to that I was just making a theoretical point
to support the next argument.
>
>I think that an ideal relation between China and Tibet should be
>something like between 18th century and 19th century. In this sense, I
>partially agree with you that China shouldn't interfere the internal
>affair of Tibet unless something unprecievable happens. Unfortunately,
>time can not go back and such relations can never be back any more. But
>I still prefer a similar relation between those two.
Oh I see, their screwed now so why give them any rights? that doesnt
make and sence.
>
>|The Tibetan people have the right to self determination and they dont
>|need China telling them how to live. Personaly I dont even understand
>|why China wants Tibet, its not like theres anything there. Is it some
>|kind of Imperial penis envy that makes the PRC behave like little
>|children?
>|
>I think if a country is big enough they do like to tell others what to
>do. The recent event of Britain and US involvment in HK is one example.
>And it shouldn't be suprised China doing something about Tibet since
>Tibet is part of China while HK is part of China too.
The US and the UK just griped they didnt actualy do anything. Its one
thing to express your opinion. Its another to put a gun to someones
head and tell them to do something.
thats the difference between a leader and a tyrant.
>
>Also, can we say your interest in China and Tibet is the very reason in
>against the self determination of Chinese?
no everyone in China has the right to self determination!
>
>|You know, as soon as China becomes a democracy Tibets going to be out
>|of there so fast your head will spin five differnent ways till
>|tuesday. so why not just let them go now? It seemes like its a much
>|bigger headach than its worth.
>|
>You've wrong over here again now. Democracy won't change much of the
>relation between China and Tibet.
thats what the USSR thought about the baltic states too.
>
>Actually, the mojarity of violence of dispute is happened in the
>democratic countries, like Northern Island, Israel, Bosnia, just name a
>few.
>--
so, how many "communist" countries are even left to compare that too?
three? And I would much rather be a citizen of Ireland or Isriel
before I was a citizen of China or North Korea
>Marquess of Chu 潘廷礼
Tingli Pan
In article <33c68b3e...@news.iastate.edu>,
Ryan Bergman <ry...@iastate.edu> wrote:
|On 11 Jul 1997 14:28:54 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
|wrote:
|
|>
|>|Ok lets assume the 10th 11th & 12th were chosen acording to the golden
|>|urn. why wasent the 8th 9th 13th &14th chosen that way? If Tibet was
|>|under emperial mandate to do it that way then everyone from the 8th on
|>|should have been chosen as such. Ill tell you why because the Tibetan
|>|people felt no need to do what the Emperor told them to do because it
|>|was their buissness and their was no real Emperial control over the
|>|matter.
|>
|>First, we all agree that the statement "First of all the "golden urn"
|>method was never used!" is wrong.
|>
|>The reason is various. If I remember it correctly, 8th, 9th, and 13th
|>were due to that the Tibetans told that the Chinese court that they were
|>sure those real Dalai Lama's therefor they could skip the "Golden Urn"
|>process, and the request was approved. The 14th was the time that
|>those in Tibetan government considered it as not China and tried
|>everything to avoid the involvment of Chinese goverment. They decided it
|>even before Dali Lama reached Lahsha, not to say anything about "Golder
|>Urn"
|>
|>Well the time of error is over, the next time....
|
|Wrong, The 8th was chosen by the old ways because the Tibetans didnt
|like the Golden Urn method and dissregarded that suggestion.
|
selection of 9th?
|>|
|>So, we reach another agreement, that according to the relation between
|>China and Tibet, that Chinese does have a role in chosing the Dalai
|>Lama, whether he is a 5 years boy or not. (then what is the big deal to
|>everyone?)
|
|Actualy I never agreed to that I was just making a theoretical point
|to support the next argument.
|>
|>I think that an ideal relation between China and Tibet should be
|>something like between 18th century and 19th century. In this sense, I
|>partially agree with you that China shouldn't interfere the internal
|>affair of Tibet unless something unprecievable happens. Unfortunately,
|>time can not go back and such relations can never be back any more. But
|>I still prefer a similar relation between those two.
|
|Oh I see, their screwed now so why give them any rights? that doesnt
|make and sence.
|
|>
|>I think if a country is big enough they do like to tell others what to
|>do. The recent event of Britain and US involvment in HK is one example.
|>And it shouldn't be suprised China doing something about Tibet since
|>Tibet is part of China while HK is part of China too.
|
|The US and the UK just griped they didnt actualy do anything. Its one
|thing to express your opinion. Its another to put a gun to someones
|head and tell them to do something.
|
|thats the difference between a leader and a tyrant.
|
And this means...?
|>
|>Also, can we say your interest in China and Tibet is the very reason in
|>against the self determination of Chinese?
|
|no everyone in China has the right to self determination!
|
That is what is China doning now.
|>
|>|You know, as soon as China becomes a democracy Tibets going to be out
|>|of there so fast your head will spin five differnent ways till
|>|tuesday. so why not just let them go now? It seemes like its a much
|>|bigger headach than its worth.
|>|
|>You've wrong over here again now. Democracy won't change much of the
|>relation between China and Tibet.
|
|thats what the USSR thought about the baltic states too.
|>
Chechen as well.
|>Actually, the mojarity of violence of dispute is happened in the
|>democratic countries, like Northern Island, Israel, Bosnia, just name a
|>few.
|
|so, how many "communist" countries are even left to compare that too?
|three? And I would much rather be a citizen of Ireland or Isriel
|before I was a citizen of China or North Korea
|
You choice, glad you made one.
Wing C Ng
In article <5q55ts$a...@netnews.hinet.net>,
Asia Link. <asia...@ms9.hinet.net> wrote:
>JeReMy <dy...@hkstar.com> wrote:
>
>>> 1. As Britain gave up its rights on Hong Kong, will the china also
>>> give
>>> up its rights on forcefully occupied TIBET ?
>
>>passport) but Tibetans are one of the branches of the Chinese
>>Nationalities(Zhong Hua Min Zu)*.These are two different cases. Tibet
>>has never been an independent state,even the Dala Lamas were appointed
>>by the Chinese Central Government. It's wrong to use the word
>>"occupied".
>
>So you are saying that if the British had made the Hong Kong people
>British citizens and declared the Han as one of the races of Britain,
>then they would have every right to Hong Kong?
>
Would help.
Land beyond the Heilong and Wusuli rivers are still occupied
by Russia today.
Wing
Ryan Bergman
On 11 Jul 1997 22:08:28 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
wrote:
>|>I think if a country is big enough they do like to tell others what to
>|>do. The recent event of Britain and US involvment in HK is one example.
>|>And it shouldn't be suprised China doing something about Tibet since
>|>Tibet is part of China while HK is part of China too.
>|
>|The US and the UK just griped they didnt actualy do anything. Its one
>|thing to express your opinion. Its another to put a gun to someones
>|head and tell them to do something.
>|
>They didn't, do you mean they are bluffing only?
and what exactly did they threaten? Not anything physical I assure
you. As for economic sanctions those would be totaly appropriate
>
>|thats the difference between a leader and a tyrant.
>|
>And this means...?
The PRC is a bunch of Tyrants duh.
>|>
>|>Also, can we say your interest in China and Tibet is the very reason in
>|>against the self determination of Chinese?
>|
>|no everyone in China has the right to self determination!
>|
>That is what is China doning now.
No the CCP is still deciding the fate of China. I dont see the people
with any input at all
>|>
>|>|You know, as soon as China becomes a democracy Tibets going to be out
>|>|of there so fast your head will spin five differnent ways till
>|>|tuesday. so why not just let them go now? It seemes like its a much
>|>|bigger headach than its worth.
>|>|
>|>You've wrong over here again now. Democracy won't change much of the
>|>relation between China and Tibet.
>|
>|thats what the USSR thought about the baltic states too.
>|>
>Chechen as well.
>
>|>Actually, the mojarity of violence of dispute is happened in the
>|>democratic countries, like Northern Island, Israel, Bosnia, just name a
>|>few.
>|
>|so, how many "communist" countries are even left to compare that too?
>
>|three? And I would much rather be a citizen of Ireland or Isriel
>|before I was a citizen of China or North Korea
>|
>You choice, glad you made one.
GO IRISH!!! ;-)
Asia Link.
nny...@ny.ubs.com (Kunal Singh) wrote:
>In article <5q5brg$a...@malasada.lava.net> wi...@lava.net (Wing C Ng) writes:
>.. stuff deleted ..
> >Seems to me this 17 point treaty between Tibet and China could be a
> >similar situation, No?
> >
> If they want to return Tibet to pre-1950, just come and get
> it.
>Right! An important point is being missed by the poster of the
>original thread and that is that Britain did not return Hong Kong due
>to philanthropic concerns. It returned Hong Kong because it could
>not hope to militarily protect it from Chinese might.
>So, I don't see the point of this thread which seems to base the
>argument for the return of Tibet on some sort of moral high ground.
>Get in touch with reality! When was the last time you saw a country
>leave someone alone based on moral high ground! "Oh you're so right
>and I'm so wrong, of course you can become independent!"
Basically I agree with you here. The only exception would have to be
the break-up of the Soviet Union. Obviously the Russian could have
used force to try to keep it togther.
Of course they lost in Chechenya when opposing only a very small
country.
So, really, if Tibet wants independence should begin armed rebellion.
Interestingly, Turkestan speratists have been doing just this, so
should we say their chances are better than Tibets?
Tingli Pan
In article <33c6f51d...@news.iastate.edu>,
Ryan Bergman <ry...@iastate.edu> wrote:
|On 11 Jul 1997 22:08:28 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
|wrote:
|
|>|The US and the UK just griped they didnt actualy do anything. Its one
|>|thing to express your opinion. Its another to put a gun to someones
|>|head and tell them to do something.
|>|
|
|and what exactly did they threaten? Not anything physical I assure
|you. As for economic sanctions those would be totaly appropriate
|
because it is going the ban the fox hunting, which will cause many lose
jobs?
|>|thats the difference between a leader and a tyrant.
|>|
|
|The PRC is a bunch of Tyrants duh.
|
|>|>
|>|no everyone in China has the right to self determination!
|>|
|
|No the CCP is still deciding the fate of China. I dont see the people
|with any input at all
|
nation, shall we give the credit to CCP or to Chinese?
|>|>
|>You choice, glad you made one.
|
|GO IRISH!!! ;-)
In reality, there are much more foreigners in China than in Ireland. You
are the minority.
Ryan Bergman
On 12 Jul 1997 13:26:06 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
wrote:
>In article <33c6f51d...@news.iastate.edu>,
>Ryan Bergman <ry...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>|On 11 Jul 1997 22:08:28 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
>|wrote:
>|
>|>|The US and the UK just griped they didnt actualy do anything. Its one
>|>|thing to express your opinion. Its another to put a gun to someones
>|>|head and tell them to do something.
>|>|
>|>They didn't, do you mean they are bluffing only?
>|
>|and what exactly did they threaten? Not anything physical I assure
>|you. As for economic sanctions those would be totaly appropriate
>|
>Now, we have it. The economic sanction. Shall we sanction Britain
>because it is going the ban the fox hunting, which will cause many lose
>jobs?
go ahead, its a free world (or it should be) you can boycott whatever
you want. but I doubt youll find many supporters (except among english
fox hunters), unlike Europe and the US when we boycott on human rights
grounds.
>|>
>|>|thats the difference between a leader and a tyrant.
>|>|
>|>And this means...?
>|
>|The PRC is a bunch of Tyrants duh.
>|
>Well, I think this the only time you feel good when in the net.
>|>|>
>|>|no everyone in China has the right to self determination!
>|>|
>|>That is what is China doning now.
>|
>|No the CCP is still deciding the fate of China. I dont see the people
>|with any input at all
>|
>Since China is working and gaining success for a more prosperous
>nation, shall we give the credit to CCP or to Chinese?
>|>|>
>|>You choice, glad you made one.
>|
>|GO IRISH!!! ;-)
>
>In reality, there are much more foreigners in China than in Ireland. You
>are the minority.
yea, but a million Notre Dame fans cant be wrong! :)
Ryber
*****************************************************************************
Give me the judgment of balanced minds in preference to laws every time.
Codes and manuals create patterned behavior. All patterned behavior tends to
go unquestioned, gathering destructive momentum.
-Darwi Odrade
(CD 235)
******************************************************************************
Bill Hechler
tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan) wrote:
>In article <33c6b9c...@news.iastate.edu>,
>Ryan Bergman <ry...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>|On 11 Jul 1997 00:39:48 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
>|wrote:
>|
>|You know, as soon as China becomes a democracy Tibets going to be out
>|of there so fast your head will spin five differnent ways till
>|tuesday. so why not just let them go now? It seemes like its a much
>|bigger headach than its worth.
>|
>You've wrong over here again now. Democracy won't change much of the
>relation between China and Tibet.
>
On the subject of China, Tibet and democracy:
I was listening to Radio Free China (Taiwan) on the shortwave a
couple of weeks ago, and the announcer happened to mention that it is
Taiwan's policy that Tibet is part of China. I think that many
westerners have exaggerated fantasies of the meaning of democracy in the
Chinese context. Democracy in China will no more lead to Tibetan
independence than democracy in the US led to Hawaiian independence.
A lot of the China-Tibet conflict is more cultural than political. I
was talking with some Tibetan ladies in Nepal about three years ago when
a few Chinese people walked by. The Tibetan ladies scowled and said
something derogatory about the Chinese. I told them, "That's nasty. You
should say 'ni hao' to them!" One of the Tibetan ladies replied, "We
don't say 'ni hao.' We say 'meow' (she curled her fingers into claws),
like we cats and they mice!" "But they're not from communist China!
They're from Hong Kong, or Taiwan!" I protested. The Tibetan lady
replied, "Hong Kong, China, what difference does it make? They're all
the same." If Tibetans don't perceive democracy as a likely source of
spiritual transformation for the Chinese, neither should we.
Wing C Ng
In article <5qbfif$g8n$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Bill Hechler <hechNO...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan) wrote:
>>In article <33c6b9c...@news.iastate.edu>,
>>Ryan Bergman <ry...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>>|On 11 Jul 1997 00:39:48 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
>>|wrote:
>>|
> A lot of the China-Tibet conflict is more cultural than
political. I
>was talking with some Tibetan ladies in Nepal about three years ago when
>a few Chinese people walked by. The Tibetan ladies scowled and said
>something derogatory about the Chinese. I told them, "That's nasty. You
>should say 'ni hao' to them!" One of the Tibetan ladies replied, "We
>don't say 'ni hao.' We say 'meow' (she curled her fingers into claws),
>like we cats and they mice!" "But they're not from communist China!
>They're from Hong Kong, or Taiwan!" I protested. The Tibetan lady
>replied, "Hong Kong, China, what difference does it make? They're all
>the same." If Tibetans don't perceive democracy as a likely source of
>spiritual transformation for the Chinese, neither should we.
>
Interesting observation.
I've read that HKers and TWers visiting Tibet were not given
the normal hostile treatment if they identify the places they
are from.
Although after July 1, maybe the HKer ruse may not work any
more.
Wing
Tingli Pan
In article <5qcade$g...@malasada.lava.net>, Wing C Ng <wi...@lava.net> wrote:
|In article <5qbfif$g8n$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
|Bill Hechler <hechNO...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
|>tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan) wrote:
|>>In article <33c6b9c...@news.iastate.edu>,
|>>Ryan Bergman <ry...@iastate.edu> wrote:
|>>|On 11 Jul 1997 00:39:48 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
|>>|wrote:
|>>|
|[...]
|
|
|
|I've read that HKers and TWers visiting Tibet were not given
|the normal hostile treatment if they identify the places they
|are from.
|
visit Taiwan.
Wing C Ng
In article <tcyangED...@netcom.com>,
Tung-chiang Yang <tcy...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Interesting. Apparantly His Holiness Dalai Lama himself visited Taiwan
>in March and he himself is an exception.
Accroding to Nima Dorjee, writing on Tibet-L, (is _he_ a
flunky, Koren?), the exiled govt. only objects to Tibetans
going to TW and liaisoning with the Mongolian and Tibetan
Affairs Commission, which is said to pay Tibetans to destabilize
the exiled govt. The D.L. himself, being enlightened and all
that, is of course above this kind of shenanigans, so he says.
Moreover, D.L. never liaisoned with the MTAC, only with
Lee Teng-hui, who is the boss of MTAC, but whatever.
Wing
>
>===========================================
>Tingli Pan wrote after zapping the scum of the universe:
>
>: |I've read that HKers and TWers visiting Tibet were not given
>: |the normal hostile treatment if they identify the places they
>: |are from.
>
>: Interesting. But Tibetan exile-government won't allow its people to
>: visit Taiwan.
>
>--
>====== Try the low-crossposting robomoderated 'alt.culture.taiwan' ======
>
>soc.culture.taiwan, soc.culture.china (by SCC FAQ Team) FAQ's:
> http://www.iglou.com/tcyang/Taiwan_faq.shtml, China_faq.shtml
Mike Cleven
In article <33c810de...@news.iastate.edu>, ry...@iastate.edu wrote:
> On 12 Jul 1997 13:26:06 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <33c6f51d...@news.iastate.edu>,
> >Ryan Bergman <ry...@iastate.edu> wrote:
> >|On 11 Jul 1997 22:08:28 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
> >|wrote:
> >> >|and what exactly did they threaten? Not anything physical I assure
> >|you. As for economic sanctions those would be totaly appropriate
> >|
> >Now, we have it. The economic sanction. Shall we sanction Britain
> >because it is going the ban the fox hunting, which will cause many lose
> >jobs?
>
> go ahead, its a free world (or it should be) you can boycott whatever
> you want. but I doubt youll find many supporters (except among english
> fox hunters), unlike Europe and the US when we boycott on human rights
> grounds.
Good grief! A Chinese presuming to support the boycott over fox-hunting
in England when the wholesale slaughter of world wildlife to bolster the
sexual potency of Chinese males goes unchecked and uncriticized. How many
bears were killed today for gall-bladder tea or bear-paw soup, how many
tigers were slaughtered this month to Tiger Musk or Tiger Bone Pills? A
lot more than the foxes killed in England, that's for sure.......The
second-largest trade after narcotics in contraband in the world -
medicinal animal parts - a trade even larger than international arms
dealing, based in and supported not just by the Chinese state but by
"traditional Chinese culture" wherever it has spread. And he presumes to
criticize the British for their treatment of foxes!!!!?????
--
Mike Cleven
Iron Mountain Creative Systems
Remove anti-spam "#" character from to respond via e-mail
http://www.direct.ca/ironmtn/
"Even damnation is poisoned with rainbows" - graffito on Vancouver bus stop, 1980
Nihar Kirtidev Bhatt
in...@hotmail.com wrote:
: Now China is very happy about ending the 150+ years of colonial rule in
: Hong Kong and getting re-united with its main land. China has even
: bigger ambitions of re uniting Taiwan before 1999. But,it still remains
: a question whether the people of Hong Kong will have the democracy,
: free speech and Press. Well let us wish they will..
: Gangadhar Sharma
These questions are written up as if Tibet and Taiwan were accepted by
China as separate and sovereign nations. The Chinese Govt. does not
accept either proposition. Therefore these questins do not arise at all.
Even the US has given up on pretending that either tibet or taiwan have
any chance of being free and separate nations.
Kirtidev Bhatt
John Goodwin
On 14 Jul 1997 16:39:37 GMT, sto...@wam.umd.edu (Nihar Kirtidev Bhatt)
wrote:
Well of course, why would the US risk all that lovely lucrative trade
with China just for the sake of a couple of tiny nations who cannot
trade in the same league.
I seem to remember the US recognised Taiwan until they realised that
the money they could make from China was worth more to them than the
political capital they could make out of Taiwan.
Pass the sick bag Alice.
Tingli Pan
In article <iron#mtn-140797...@vic-as-02c16.direct.ca>,
Mike Cleven <iron#m...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
|
|> On 12 Jul 1997 13:26:06 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
|> wrote:
|>
|Good grief! A Chinese presuming to support the boycott over fox-hunting
|in England when the wholesale slaughter of world wildlife to bolster the
|sexual potency of Chinese males goes unchecked and uncriticized. How many
|bears were killed today for gall-bladder tea or bear-paw soup, how many
|tigers were slaughtered this month to Tiger Musk or Tiger Bone Pills? A
|lot more than the foxes killed in England, that's for sure.......The
|second-largest trade after narcotics in contraband in the world -
|medicinal animal parts - a trade even larger than international arms
|dealing, based in and supported not just by the Chinese state but by
|"traditional Chinese culture" wherever it has spread. And he presumes to
|criticize the British for their treatment of foxes!!!!?????
|
pay a little more attention to your reading. My whole paragraph is in
supporting the fox hunting. I've seen people misunderstanding, I've seen
people distort writing, but rarely see people turn the whole meaning
upside down. Is the ng becomesing more colorful than the Hollywood?
Btw, the largest hunting event is far from China, whether it is bear,
deer, whale, seal and etc. Actually, many bear-gall-bladders or paws
are imported, guess where are they from?
Finally, your word about a Chinese can not come out to protect a fox
(although I didn't) is a rude, stereotyped, and more or less racist
opinion. Maybe it is not to me, but it is an insult to those Chinese,
whether they are inside or outside China working hard for protecting the
animals. It is also an insult to the Chinese who are working hard for
the the protection of natureal source. And it is also an insult to those
non-Chinese, who work hard with Chinese inside China for the same
purpose.
Maybe you think you are the only people in the world who are kind to
come out to the rescue of fox or other animals. But I strongly urge
you that:
You should apology for what you said about Chinese.
rich
>|1. As Britain gave up its rights on Hong Kong, will the china also give
>| up its rights on forcefully occupied TIBET ?
>Seems you don't know there is 17 points peace agreement between China
>and Tibet for the unification of them. It has the approval of Dalai Lama
>himself.
Was that agreed before or after it was forcefully annexed??
>|2. Will China allow the rule of law, human rights and free speech to prevail in Tibet. ?
>Tibetan has as much rights as other parts of China, since it is part of
>China. Not like in other colonies, the coloniest is superior.
In other words, yes, Tibetans have the right to shut up or be thrown in jail.
>
>|3. Will China allow hundreds of thousands of Tibetan refugees lingering
>| in different parts of the world to return to their ancient homeland ?
>Certainly they can. And there have been many already have.
And then harassed/put in jail.
>|
>|4. Will China recognize H.H. Dalai Lama as the leader and aspirations
>| of the lakhs if people of Tibet. ?
>|
>As far as Dalai Lama recognized that Tibet is part of China.
I thought you just said Dalai Lama approves of that unification peace
agreement. You contradict yourself.
>
>|5. Will China recognize TAIWAN as an independent sovereign nation ?
>|
>So far, no chance.
Taiwanese, like Tibetans, can and should be able to choose their own
destinies, without fear of having a missile lobbed on their heads.
>
>|6. Will Chinese apologize for the "Betraying attack" in 1962 on India
>| immediately after shaking hands shouting " Chine-Hindi Bhai Bahi"
>| (Chinese and Indians are brothers !)?
>According to many reports, the war was not started from Chinese side. And
>I think India and China are going to improve their relations continuesly
>in last few years.
Yes, CCP reports. And no, relations will not improve until China pokes their
nose out of Indo-Pakistan affairs.
>|If chinese can not answer these questions, Only the History will answer
>|these questions. If past is any indication of the future, we can as
>|well conclude that Chinese NEVER believe in two way traffic..
The problerm with China is people are too ready to use the past as a stick to
beat the present/future with. Nationalism is an ugly beast.
A Ptr
On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 16:48:32 -0800, iron#m...@bigfoot.com (Mike Cleven)
wrote:
>In article <33c810de...@news.iastate.edu>, ry...@iastate.edu wrote:
>> >Now, we have it. The economic sanction. Shall we sanction Britain
>> >because it is going the ban the fox hunting, which will cause many lose
>> >jobs?
>>
>> go ahead, its a free world (or it should be) you can boycott whatever
>> you want. but I doubt youll find many supporters (except among english
>> fox hunters), unlike Europe and the US when we boycott on human rights
>> grounds.
>
>in England when the wholesale slaughter of world wildlife to bolster the
>sexual potency of Chinese males goes unchecked and uncriticized. How many
>bears were killed today for gall-bladder tea or bear-paw soup, how many
>tigers were slaughtered this month to Tiger Musk or Tiger Bone Pills? A
>lot more than the foxes killed in England, that's for sure.......The
>second-largest trade after narcotics in contraband in the world -
>medicinal animal parts - a trade even larger than international arms
>dealing, based in and supported not just by the Chinese state but by
>"traditional Chinese culture" wherever it has spread. And he presumes to
>criticize the British for their treatment of foxes!!!!?????
Good grief!!! Utter rubbish posted by white racist Mike Cleven.
British killing of foxes is totally intolerable. European killing of
whales is intolerable. Just ask Green Peace, they will tell you the
brutal acts of Europeans on trees and animals. Actually the extinction
of many animals and in fact many native Indians and aboriginals, are
the direct result of European push of development. Africans and Asians
did their killings of wild animals too. But your garbage post showed
clearly that you are a racist who like to use the wrong doings of
Asians to cover up the even more evil act of Europeans.
David Young Smith
Asia Link. wrote:
>
> JeReMy <dy...@hkstar.com> wrote:
>
> >> 1. As Britain gave up its rights on Hong Kong, will the china also
> >> give
> >> up its rights on forcefully occupied TIBET ?
>
> >passport) but Tibetans are one of the branches of the Chinese
> >Nationalities(Zhong Hua Min Zu)*.These are two different cases. Tibet
> >has never been an independent state,even the Dala Lamas were appointed
> >by the Chinese Central Government. It's wrong to use the word
> >"occupied".
>
> So you are saying that if the British had made the Hong Kong people
> British citizens and declared the Han as one of the races of Britain,
> then they would have every right to Hong Kong?
>
>
i think the poeple of hk might not mind as long as their have access to the
rest of the british empires. the poeple of china would and rightly so since
hk belong to them too.
dys
Bullets
As one who has never met Mike Cleven, but has been reading his posts on
other NGs for some time, I think "lay yau mo gau cho ah". Mike is no
racist. He is very forthright, and some people may find their egos
bruised when he demolishes their weak arguments. But he's no racist.
--
Bullets
*****************************************
Reject spin and partisan sophistry. Seek to understand and discover the
truth.
Correct E-mail Address: remove the "t" (ric...@direct.ca)
Tingli Pan
In article <5qfapp$2...@reader.seed.net.tw>,
rich <//spe...@asiaonline.net.tw> wrote:
|In article <5puu5b$1m...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan) wrote:
|
|>|1. As Britain gave up its rights on Hong Kong, will the china also give
|>| up its rights on forcefully occupied TIBET ?
|>Seems you don't know there is 17 points peace agreement between China
|>and Tibet for the unification of them. It has the approval of Dalai Lama
|>himself.
|
|Was that agreed before or after it was forcefully annexed??
|
My suggestion is go and read some books first.
|>|2. Will China allow the rule of law, human rights and free speech to prevail in Tibet. ?
|>Tibetan has as much rights as other parts of China, since it is part of
|>China. Not like in other colonies, the coloniest is superior.
|
|In other words, yes, Tibetans have the right to shut up or be thrown in jail.
|>
I know, I know. In a place in the world, no one goes to jail, therefor
all those murderes, naval officer's muderer, parliment member's
murderer, a whole family of county sheriff's murderers, none of them are
in jail.
|>|3. Will China allow hundreds of thousands of Tibetan refugees lingering
|>| in different parts of the world to return to their ancient homeland ?
|>Certainly they can. And there have been many already have.
|
|And then harassed/put in jail.
|
Sure, there is a safe place in the world. (see above)
|>|4. Will China recognize H.H. Dalai Lama as the leader and aspirations
|>| of the lakhs if people of Tibet. ?
|>|
|>As far as Dalai Lama recognized that Tibet is part of China.
|
|I thought you just said Dalai Lama approves of that unification peace
|agreement. You contradict yourself.
|
Then ask Dalai Lama directly, since he changed his mind.
|>|5. Will China recognize TAIWAN as an independent sovereign nation ?
|>|
|>So far, no chance.
|
|Taiwanese, like Tibetans, can and should be able to choose their own
|destinies, without fear of having a missile lobbed on their heads.
|>
And Taiwan, like Tibet, is part of China, without question about it.
|>|6. Will Chinese apologize for the "Betraying attack" in 1962 on India
|>| immediately after shaking hands shouting " Chine-Hindi Bhai Bahi"
|>| (Chinese and Indians are brothers !)?
|
|>According to many reports, the war was not started from Chinese side. And
|>I think India and China are going to improve their relations continuesly
|>in last few years.
|
|Yes, CCP reports. And no, relations will not improve until China pokes their
|nose out of Indo-Pakistan affairs.
|
You mean the New York Tims is the CCP report?
|>|If chinese can not answer these questions, Only the History will answer
|>|these questions. If past is any indication of the future, we can as
|>|well conclude that Chinese NEVER believe in two way traffic..
|
|The problerm with China is people are too ready to use the past as a stick to
|beat the present/future with. Nationalism is an ugly beast.
|
While tribulism is uglier.
A Ptr
On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 23:42:52 -0700, Bullets <tric...@mail.direct.ca>
wrote:
>A Ptr wrote:
>>
>> Good grief!!! Utter rubbish posted by white racist Mike Cleven.
>> British killing of foxes is totally intolerable. European killing of
>> whales is intolerable. Just ask Green Peace, they will tell you the
>> brutal acts of Europeans on trees and animals. Actually the extinction
>> of many animals and in fact many native Indians and aboriginals, are
>> the direct result of European push of development. Africans and Asians
>> did their killings of wild animals too. But your garbage post showed
>> clearly that you are a racist who like to use the wrong doings of
>> Asians to cover up the even more evil act of Europeans.
>
>
>As one who has never met Mike Cleven, but has been reading his posts on
>other NGs for some time,
>I think "lay yau mo gau cho ah".
What garbage are you talking about? Please use English here and
respect yourself.
>Mike is no racist. He is very forthright, and some people may find their egos
>bruised when he demolishes their weak arguments. But he's no racist.
Mike found his weak arguments and lies blasted away. so he resorted to
racist comments against Chinese, to cure his damaged egos. But he does
have a bunch of asskissers licking his asshole as well.
Wing C Ng
In article <5qetk2$1m...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
Tingli Pan <tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu> wrote:
>In article <iron#mtn-140797...@vic-as-02c16.direct.ca>,
>Mike Cleven <iron#m...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>|
>|> On 12 Jul 1997 13:26:06 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
>|> wrote:
>|>
>|in England when the wholesale slaughter of world wildlife to bolster the
>|sexual potency of Chinese males goes unchecked and uncriticized. How many
>|bears were killed today for gall-bladder tea or bear-paw soup, how many
>|tigers were slaughtered this month to Tiger Musk or Tiger Bone Pills? A
>|lot more than the foxes killed in England, that's for sure.......The
>|second-largest trade after narcotics in contraband in the world -
>|medicinal animal parts - a trade even larger than international arms
>|dealing, based in and supported not just by the Chinese state but by
>|"traditional Chinese culture" wherever it has spread. And he presumes to
>|criticize the British for their treatment of foxes!!!!?????
>Btw, the largest hunting event is far from China, whether it is
bear,
>deer, whale, seal and etc. Actually, many bear-gall-bladders or paws
>are imported, guess where are they from?
>
>Finally, your word about a Chinese can not come out to protect a fox
>(although I didn't) is a rude, stereotyped, and more or less racist
>opinion. Maybe it is not to me, but it is an insult to those Chinese,
>whether they are inside or outside China working hard for protecting the
>animals. It is also an insult to the Chinese who are working hard for
>the the protection of natureal source. And it is also an insult to those
>non-Chinese, who work hard with Chinese inside China for the same
>purpose.
>
>Maybe you think you are the only people in the world who are kind to
>come out to the rescue of fox or other animals. But I strongly urge
>you that:
>
>You should apology for what you said about Chinese.
He apparently lives in Vancouver. If he were to apologize to
those Chinese living in his immediate neighborhood that he insults
all the time and despises so much, he would take the rest of his
natural life to do so.
Wing
Mike Cleven
> A Ptr wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 16:48:32 -0800, iron#m...@bigfoot.com (Mike Cleven)
> > wrote:
> > >In article <33c810de...@news.iastate.edu>, ry...@iastate.edu wrote:
> > >> >Now, we have it. The economic sanction. Shall we sanction Britain
> > >> >because it is going the ban the fox hunting, which will cause many lose
> > >> >jobs?
> > >>
> > >> go ahead, its a free world (or it should be) you can boycott whatever
> > >> you want. but I doubt youll find many supporters (except among english
> > >> fox hunters), unlike Europe and the US when we boycott on human rights
> > >> grounds.
> > >
> > >Good grief! A Chinese presuming to support the boycott over fox-hunting
> > >in England when the wholesale slaughter of world wildlife to bolster the
> > >sexual potency of Chinese males goes unchecked and uncriticized. How many
> > >bears were killed today for gall-bladder tea or bear-paw soup, how many
> > >tigers were slaughtered this month to Tiger Musk or Tiger Bone Pills? A
> > >lot more than the foxes killed in England, that's for sure.......The
> > >second-largest trade after narcotics in contraband in the world -
> > >medicinal animal parts - a trade even larger than international arms
> > >dealing, based in and supported not just by the Chinese state but by
> > >"traditional Chinese culture" wherever it has spread. And he presumes to
> > >criticize the British for their treatment of foxes!!!!?????
> >
> >
> > Good grief!!! Utter rubbish posted by white racist Mike Cleven.
> > British killing of foxes is totally intolerable. European killing of
> > whales is intolerable. Just ask Green Peace, they will tell you the
> > brutal acts of Europeans on trees and animals. Actually the extinction
> > of many animals and in fact many native Indians and aboriginals, are
> > the direct result of European push of development. Africans and Asians
> > did their killings of wild animals too. But your garbage post showed
> > clearly that you are a racist who like to use the wrong doings of
> > Asians to cover up the even more evil act of Europeans.
>
>
> As one who has never met Mike Cleven, but has been reading his posts on
> other NGs for some time, I think "lay yau mo gau cho ah". Mike is no
> racist. He is very forthright, and some people may find their egos
> bruised when he demolishes their weak arguments. But he's no racist.
Thanks Bullets (er, Rick?) - it's nice to get some moral support for a
change. Well, maybe not moral but at least half-complimentary.....
--
Mike Cleven
Iron Mountain Creative Systems
Mike Cleven
In article <5qetk2$1m...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu
(Tingli Pan) wrote:
> In article <iron#mtn-140797...@vic-as-02c16.direct.ca>,
> Mike Cleven <iron#m...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> |
> |> On 12 Jul 1997 13:26:06 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
> |> wrote:
> |>
> |Good grief! A Chinese presuming to support the boycott over fox-hunting
> |in England when the wholesale slaughter of world wildlife to bolster the
> |sexual potency of Chinese males goes unchecked and uncriticized. How many
> |bears were killed today for gall-bladder tea or bear-paw soup, how many
> |tigers were slaughtered this month to Tiger Musk or Tiger Bone Pills? A
> |lot more than the foxes killed in England, that's for sure.......The
> |second-largest trade after narcotics in contraband in the world -
> |medicinal animal parts - a trade even larger than international arms
> |dealing, based in and supported not just by the Chinese state but by
> |"traditional Chinese culture" wherever it has spread. And he presumes to
> |criticize the British for their treatment of foxes!!!!?????
> |
> Are you a person with English as your original language? If so, then you
> pay a little more attention to your reading. My whole paragraph is in
> supporting the fox hunting. I've seen people misunderstanding, I've seen
> people distort writing, but rarely see people turn the whole meaning
> upside down. Is the ng becomesing more colorful than the Hollywood?
Marquess, English is much more assuredly my original language than it is
yours - which is why the context of your post about fox-hunting was not
recognizably intelligible at all, except apparently as some kind of
retaliatory taunt. Because of the tone of your post (and its
unintelligible meaning), it seemed that you were dumping on fox-hunting,
rather than supporting it. It's not a question of turning your meanings
upside down - it's a question of figuring out what your posts mean,
because your English is SO bad. You yourself apparently do not understand
many of the posts you are responding to, and so your replies are even more
unintelligible than they would be on a grammatical basis alone.
>
> Btw, the largest hunting event is far from China, whether it is bear,
> deer, whale, seal and etc. Actually, many bear-gall-bladders or paws
> are imported, guess where are they from?
From Canada, where Chinese gangs and businessmen control the poaching
trade and Chinese community leaders denounced as "racist" efforts to
police the sale of animal parts in Chinese pharmacies and the "singling
out" of Chinese who partake in the poaching trade, whether they be
"pharmacists" or smugglers. The reason there's no big hunting event in
China is because all the wildlife was killed off long ago so Chinese men
could have hard-ons and feel more virile.
> Finally, your word about a Chinese can not come out to protect a fox
> (although I didn't) is a rude, stereotyped, and more or less racist
> opinion. Maybe it is not to me, but it is an insult to those Chinese,
> whether they are inside or outside China working hard for protecting the
> animals. It is also an insult to the Chinese who are working hard for
> the the protection of natureal source. And it is also an insult to those
> non-Chinese, who work hard with Chinese inside China for the same
> purpose.
The one Chinese I know of who (he works for the Western Canada Wilderness
Committee) has been working hard to protect animals from "medicinal parts"
poachers has been ostracized and vilified in the Vancouver Chinese press
for his "anti-Chinese" campaign. And _he's_ Chinese. Having the truth
pointed out about such hypocrisy and deliberate criminality is NOT an
insult, it is a straightforward fact. The inability of (Chinese) people
such as yourself to deal objectively with such criticism without claiming
you're being "insulted as a Chinese" is a demonstration of the insecurity
and hypocrisy that underlies the need to find "medicinal" substances to
enhance virility and orgasm. Don't blame other people for your own
culture's foibles; no one else gives a shit about "protecting face". I
can't see how _anything_ I've said is an "insult" to those "non-Chinese
who work hard with Chinese inside China for the same purpose"; the problem
is, I think, that you don't fully understand the tone and content of
English-language posts and so superimpose your own prejudices and
insecurities on what you THINK you're reading. If the Chinese government
weren't busily farming bears in small cages with funny little catheters
and taps draining their bile, I'd be more sympathetic to your claim that
there are Chinese working to stop the trade in animal medicinals. But all
objective press reports are that the Chinese government and Chinese
communities worldwide are hostile to attempts to stop the trade in rhino
horn, tiger bone, bear parts, etc.
>
> Maybe you think you are the only people in the world who are kind to
> come out to the rescue of fox or other animals. But I strongly urge
> you that:
>
> You should apology for what you said about Chinese.
I didn't say anything worth apologizing for. There's no need to apologize
for obvious truths, or to cater to someone's insecurities and obsessive
need to find "insult" in objective criticism......
Mike Cleven
In article <33caf12a...@news.infomatch.com>,
P...@speedlight.tol.focusa (A Ptr ) wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 16:48:32 -0800, iron#m...@bigfoot.com (Mike Cleven)
> wrote:
> >In article <33c810de...@news.iastate.edu>, ry...@iastate.edu wrote:
> >> >Now, we have it. The economic sanction. Shall we sanction Britain
> >> >because it is going the ban the fox hunting, which will cause many lose
> >> >jobs?
> >>
> >> go ahead, its a free world (or it should be) you can boycott whatever
> >> you want. but I doubt youll find many supporters (except among english
> >> fox hunters), unlike Europe and the US when we boycott on human rights
> >> grounds.
> >
> >Good grief! A Chinese presuming to support the boycott over fox-hunting
> >in England when the wholesale slaughter of world wildlife to bolster the
> >sexual potency of Chinese males goes unchecked and uncriticized. How many
> >bears were killed today for gall-bladder tea or bear-paw soup, how many
> >tigers were slaughtered this month to Tiger Musk or Tiger Bone Pills? A
> >lot more than the foxes killed in England, that's for sure.......The
> >second-largest trade after narcotics in contraband in the world -
> >medicinal animal parts - a trade even larger than international arms
> >dealing, based in and supported not just by the Chinese state but by
> >"traditional Chinese culture" wherever it has spread. And he presumes to
> >criticize the British for their treatment of foxes!!!!?????
>
>
> Good grief!!! Utter rubbish posted by white racist Mike Cleven.
> British killing of foxes is totally intolerable. European killing of
> whales is intolerable. Just ask Green Peace, they will tell you the
> brutal acts of Europeans on trees and animals. Actually the extinction
> of many animals and in fact many native Indians and aboriginals, are
> the direct result of European push of development. Africans and Asians
> did their killings of wild animals too. But your garbage post showed
> clearly that you are a racist who like to use the wrong doings of
> Asians to cover up the even more evil act of Europeans.
Who said I was in support of fox hunting? I was under the impression that
the Marquess' post was vilifying the British, as the Chinese are so wont
to do according to their own racist agenda. It just seemed incongruous
that somebody is such a dedicated apologist for Chinese policies and
attitudes would so cavalierly criticize someone else for animal cruelty
when it's well-known that the Chinese are the very worst world-wide for
abuse and exploitation of animals for spurious purposes. And your
bringing in of the old red herring about "what the Europeans did to the
natives" demonstrates your own myopic view of the world; Africans and
Asians not only did their killings of wild animals too (which is why China
has to get bear parts from Canada and Russia), they also enthusiastically
killed each other to the same degree (if not moreso) than the native and
aboriginals were by European (or more precisely and accurately, American)
colonization. The fact is that in most of the lands of the former
European colonial empires, the native populations still predominate and
have regained sovereignty - whereas the aboriginal populations of China
(including the Xinjiang Caucasians) have been completely overwhelmed if
not completely wiped out. Pointing the finger at the "evil acts of
Europeans" as a way to divert from the iniquities of Chinese civilization
is becoming a very tiresome gambit, and it's always been faulty. Find
another apologism, puh-leeze!!
Tingli Pan
In article <ironmtn-1807...@vic-as-01a04.direct.ca>,
Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
|In article <33CC6D...@mail.direct.ca>, tric...@mail.direct.ca wrote:
|
|> A Ptr wrote:
|> > >in England when the wholesale slaughter of world wildlife to bolster the
|> > >sexual potency of Chinese males goes unchecked and uncriticized. How many
|> > >bears were killed today for gall-bladder tea or bear-paw soup, how many
|> > >tigers were slaughtered this month to Tiger Musk or Tiger Bone Pills? A
|> > >lot more than the foxes killed in England, that's for sure.......The
|> > >second-largest trade after narcotics in contraband in the world -
|> > >medicinal animal parts - a trade even larger than international arms
|> > >dealing, based in and supported not just by the Chinese state but by
|> > >"traditional Chinese culture" wherever it has spread. And he presumes to
|> > >criticize the British for their treatment of foxes!!!!?????
|> >
|> > Good grief!!! Utter rubbish posted by white racist Mike Cleven.
|> > British killing of foxes is totally intolerable. European killing of
|> > whales is intolerable. Just ask Green Peace, they will tell you the
|> > brutal acts of Europeans on trees and animals. Actually the extinction
|> > of many animals and in fact many native Indians and aboriginals, are
|> > the direct result of European push of development. Africans and Asians
|> > did their killings of wild animals too. But your garbage post showed
|> > clearly that you are a racist who like to use the wrong doings of
|> > Asians to cover up the even more evil act of Europeans.
|>
|>
|> other NGs for some time, I think "lay yau mo gau cho ah". Mike is no
|> racist. He is very forthright, and some people may find their egos
|> bruised when he demolishes their weak arguments. But he's no racist.
|
|Thanks Bullets (er, Rick?) - it's nice to get some moral support for a
|change. Well, maybe not moral but at least half-complimentary.....
|
sure whehter you are a racist or not, but you language is improper at
least.
Yuk Chan
Ryan Bergman (ry...@iastate.edu) wrote:
: The Tibetan people have the right to self determination and they dont
: need China telling them how to live. Personaly I dont even understand
: why China wants Tibet, its not like theres anything there. Is it some
: kind of Imperial penis envy that makes the PRC behave like little
: children?
I understand all of your arguments are valid and ideal. But self
determination is a very touchy word these days. If Tibet is let
go, how about Xing Giang, the western China? How about southern
China which has many different minority groups? It is a domino
effect. Of course it is easy for you to just say let them go.
China is a real melting pot over the last five thousand years.
The fact is, almost all Han Chinese today are not the direct
descendants of the original Hans from the yellow river basin.
I am not arguing for the legitimacy of Han China over Tibet,
even though it has a more legitimacy than Europeans over
North America. What I am trying to say is that Tibet
has always been considered as an integal part of China,
at least for over three hundred years. So do you think
that there is a possibility for the central government to
just let go of Tibet, for the ideal of self determination?
: You know, as soon as China becomes a democracy Tibets going to be out
: of there so fast your head will spin five differnent ways till
: tuesday. so why not just let them go now? It seemes like its a much
: bigger headach than its worth.
How did you come up with such a conclusion? Canada is a
democracy yet Quebect, with a overly French speaking majority,
still can not make up their own mind about independence,
let alone fighting it in the national level. After all,
economic speaks louder than a feel good self determination.
Quebect simply can not survive as an inland country surrounded
by another one. Likewise, Tibet simply can not survive without
the economic assistance of China these days. (if you talk about
going back to the slave system before 1950, that is another
story. :) I am not making this up. Just couple days ago,
Dalai Lama maked a statement wishing for the success of
the "One Country, Two Systems" in HK, noting that the
success of HK will give rise for an automomy of Tibet. He
rejected the idea of independence for it is impractical
economically.
p.s. US is composed with vastly different ethnic groups.
According to your logic, should all these groups have the
right for self determination? Forgive me, the US constitution
explicitly prohibits such an act.
Bullets
Wing C Ng wrote:
>
> In article <5r7t9v$5...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>,
> Yuk Chan <jas...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> >Ryan Bergman (ry...@iastate.edu) wrote:
> >
> [...]
>
> >How did you come up with such a conclusion? Canada is a
> >democracy yet Quebect, with a overly French speaking majority,
> >still can not make up their own mind about independence,
> >let alone fighting it in the national level. After all,
> >economic speaks louder than a feel good self determination.
> >Quebect simply can not survive as an inland country surrounded
> >by another one. Likewise, Tibet simply can not survive without
>
>
> Shapewise, Quebec is fine; it's Canada that is in bad "shape",
> for indep. Quebec separates the rest of Canada into two disjoint
> parts.
>
> Don't think there would be any economic disasters befalling
> Quebec if it separates; it's a smokescreen thrown up by the
> pro-union side.
>
> Wing
I suppose that explains why businesses have been steadily pulling out or
Quebec for the past 15 years, eh Wing? I suspect they can see past the
rhetoric on both sides in the Quebec/Canada question. Would you bet
against them? I would of you'll lend me the money.:-)
--
Bullets
*****************************************
Fact corrections welcomed.
Opinions changed on convincing evidence.
Apologies offered for unprovoked rudeness.
Hey, nobody's perfect!
Wing C Ng
In article <5r7t9v$5...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>,
Yuk Chan <jas...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>Ryan Bergman (ry...@iastate.edu) wrote:
>
[...]
>How did you come up with such a conclusion? Canada is a
>democracy yet Quebect, with a overly French speaking majority,
>still can not make up their own mind about independence,
>let alone fighting it in the national level. After all,
>economic speaks louder than a feel good self determination.
>Quebect simply can not survive as an inland country surrounded
>by another one. Likewise, Tibet simply can not survive without
Quebec has access to the Atlantic as well as the Hudson Bay.
Shapewise, Quebec is fine; it's Canada that is in bad "shape",
for indep. Quebec separates the rest of Canada into two disjoint
parts.
Don't think there would be any economic disasters befalling
Quebec if it separates; it's a smokescreen thrown up by the
pro-union side.
Wing
>the economic assistance of China these days. (if you talk about
Wing C Ng
In article <tcyangE...@netcom.com>,
Tung-chiang Yang <tcy...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I believe you are wrong. Do not forget that while the French-speaking
>people in Quebec want an independence from Canada (as I said, too bad
>Gui lives among these separatists which drove him crazy), some native
>American tribes in Northern Quebec also want to go independent of Quebec.
>Whether they want to be really independent or join the Canada system is
>not clear.
>
>If these Indian people do go independent, Quebec is nothing but a small
>land, and its Atlantic connection is cut off. If these Indian people
>join the Canada system, Quebec is surrounded.
Mao accused Lin Biao: you don't read books and you don't
read newspapers, and you don't read the CCP Central's documents.
Mr. Young does not know how to read maps. Gui's Concordia
home is located in the city of Montreal, which leads directly
into the Atlantic via the St. Laurent/St. Lawrence. There
is such a thing called St. Lawrence Seaway which even bypasses
the Niagara Falls. It will be difficult indeed for native
Indians to claim the city of Montreal from any future Quebec
indep. country.
Wing
>
>==============================================
>Wing C Ng wrote after zapping the scum of the universe:
>: In article <5r7t9v$5...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>,
>: Yuk Chan <jas...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>: >How did you come up with such a conclusion? Canada is a
>: >democracy yet Quebect, with a overly French speaking majority,
>: >still can not make up their own mind about independence,
>: >let alone fighting it in the national level. After all,
>: >economic speaks louder than a feel good self determination.
>: >Quebect simply can not survive as an inland country surrounded
>: >by another one. Likewise, Tibet simply can not survive without
>
>: Quebec has access to the Atlantic as well as the Hudson Bay.
>
>: Shapewise, Quebec is fine; it's Canada that is in bad "shape",
>: for indep. Quebec separates the rest of Canada into two disjoint
>: parts.
>
>: Don't think there would be any economic disasters befalling
>: Quebec if it separates; it's a smokescreen thrown up by the
>: pro-union side.
>
at...@are.berkeley.eud
In soc.culture.indian Tung-chiang Yang <tcy...@netcom.com> wrote:
: If these Indian people do go independent, Quebec is nothing but a small
^^^^^^
: land, and its Atlantic connection is cut off. If these Indian people
^^^^^^
: join the Canada system, Quebec is surrounded.
You misspelled "native American" twice. And the group you posted to,
soc.culture.indian is not appropriate for the issues relating to people who
are native to the Americas.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Atanu
houl...@sprynet.com
> wi...@lava.net (Wing C Ng) writes:
>
> Quebec has access to the Atlantic as well as the Hudson Bay.
>
> Shapewise, Quebec is fine; it's Canada that is in bad "shape",
> for indep. Quebec separates the rest of Canada into two disjoint
> parts.
>
> Don't think there would be any economic disasters befalling
> Quebec if it separates; it's a smokescreen thrown up by the
> pro-union side.
Thank you. As I have tried to understand China, there is someone here who has some understanding
of my native country of Quebec.
>
> Wing
>
houl...@sprynet.com
> tcy...@netcom.com (Tung-chiang Yang) writes:
Actually, in Canada and Quebec, they are known as "First Nations", not Native Americans and not
Indians.
John Savard
jas...@wam.umd.edu (Yuk Chan) wrote:
>So do you think
>that there is a possibility for the central government to
>just let go of Tibet, for the ideal of self determination?
I care not at all what the Communist Party of China wishes, although I
am often dismayed at what it does.
Its domination of Tibet, like its actions there, merely add to the
evidence of its depravity. Whoever can be rescued from its grasp
should be.
John Savard
CHINA
In article <5r7t9v$5...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>, jas...@wam.umd.edu says...
>
>Ryan Bergman (ry...@iastate.edu) wrote:
>
>: The Tibetan people have the right to self determination and they dont
>: need China telling them how to live. Personaly I dont even understand
>: why China wants Tibet, its not like theres anything there. Is it some
>: kind of Imperial penis envy that makes the PRC behave like little
>: children?
Is RUSSAIA A democratic COuntry? Do the Chechen people have the right to vote
for independence?
How about other countries?
houl...@sprynet.com
> tcy...@netcom.com (Tung-chiang Yang) writes:
> Thank you for correcting me. Do you support them to build their own
> nations out of Quebec if Quebec is independent of Ottawa?
>
No problem on the corrections. I think the Canadian terminology is more enlightened. As for
independnet nations? There is no evidence that the majority of people in the tribal areas are
pro-independence from Quebec. The leadership certainly is, but I have talked with few people from
the tribal areas who do not want to have a dialogue with an independent Quebec government first. Let
us not forget that many of the fears of the First Nation peoples are as a result of propoganda from the
state owned Canadian media.
James Yang
In article <5r94nr$f...@malasada.lava.net>, Wing C Ng <wi...@lava.net> wrote:
>Mao accused Lin Biao: you don't read books and you don't
>read newspapers, and you don't read the CCP Central's documents.
And marshal Lin Piao followed Mao Tse-tung's accusation for a coup.
>Mr. Young does not know how to read maps. Gui's Concordia
>home is located in the city of Montreal, which leads directly
>into the Atlantic via the St. Laurent/St. Lawrence.
Are you referring David Young or TC Yang? Are you intentinally to spell
Yang as Young for pronunciation purpose?
James
--
My employer and I work together in the office. Nevertheless,
we never speak on each other's behalf in term of political issues.
Wing C Ng
In article <tcyangED...@netcom.com>,
Tung-chiang Yang <tcy...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Who is Mr. Young? Dr. No, could you answer my question?
>
>(Evil Dr. No was killed by James Bond, though)
>
>Do you mean Montreal can go to the Atlantic without going through
>any rivers controlled by Canada, the US, and the new independent country
>formed by the people from 'the First Nation' in Northern Quebec?
I told you about the St. Lawrence Seaway, didn't I?
Try look up the word "sea" and "way" in a dictionary.
I used to know the name in French, but forgot it already, so
folks in soc.culture.quebec can help me.
Wing
>
>========================================
>Wing C Ng wrote after zapping the scum of the universe:
>
>: Mao accused Lin Biao: you don't read books and you don't
>: read newspapers, and you don't read the CCP Central's documents.
>
>: Mr. Young does not know how to read maps. Gui's Concordia
>: home is located in the city of Montreal, which leads directly
>: into the Atlantic via the St. Laurent/St. Lawrence. There
>: is such a thing called St. Lawrence Seaway which even bypasses
>: the Niagara Falls. It will be difficult indeed for native
>: Indians to claim the city of Montreal from any future Quebec
>: indep. country.
>
Brian Allardice
>Try look up the word "sea" and "way" in a dictionary.
>
>I used to know the name in French, but forgot it already, so
>folks in soc.culture.quebec can help me.
Voie Maritime, but it is not necessary for access to Montreal, but rather
to proceed upstream from Montreal.
Cheers,
dba
James Yang
>was talking to me. Vermont (where David Young Smith is) is close to
>Quebec, and I suppose Vermont people do not need maps to know things
>about Montreal :)
Hey, you are not the ONLY Yang (Young) in there.
duke
houl...@sprynet.com wrote in article <5r92ct$2mu$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>...
The understanding is incorrect as well as the assertion that Quebec is a
country. Nice try.
duke
Wing C Ng <wi...@lava.net> wrote in article
<5r94nr$f...@malasada.lava.net>...
> In article <tcyangE...@netcom.com>,
> Tung-chiang Yang <tcy...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >I believe you are wrong. Do not forget that while the French-speaking
> >people in Quebec want an independence from Canada (as I said, too bad
> >Gui lives among these separatists which drove him crazy), some native
> >American tribes in Northern Quebec also want to go independent of
Quebec.
> >Whether they want to be really independent or join the Canada system is
> >not clear.
> >
>
> read newspapers, and you don't read the CCP Central's documents.
>
> Mr. Young does not know how to read maps. Gui's Concordia
> home is located in the city of Montreal, which leads directly
> into the Atlantic via the St. Laurent/St. Lawrence. There
> is such a thing called St. Lawrence Seaway which even bypasses
> the Niagara Falls. It will be difficult indeed for native
> Indians to claim the city of Montreal from any future Quebec
> indep. country.
>
independant Quebec.
Patrick Desjardins
The "voie maritime" of the St-laurent river, is necessary to access
montréal from quebec city to it end (don't know where, you know?). To
protect boat from any "haut fond" (where the bottom of the river is close
to the surface of water).
Brian Allardice <dba@*spamnix*.uniserve.com> wrote in article
<5rbnek$ieu$1...@neptune.uniserve.com>...
Wing C Ng
In article <5rpadb$2ej$1...@neptune.uniserve.com>,
Brian Allardice <d...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>In article <01bc9cfc$a6bc9640$dcf8...@Riker.odyssee.net>, "Patrick Desjardins" <Pic...@odyssee.net> says:
>>
>>The "voie maritime" of the St-laurent river, is necessary to access
>>montréal from quebec city to it end (don't know where, you know?). To
>>protect boat from any "haut fond" (where the bottom of the river is close
>>to the surface of water).
I lived in Montreal. As I recall, there is a canal for ships,
right beside the St. Laurent itself, and I forget the name of
the canal. It is supposed to be part of the voie maritime.
Wing
Gravity's Rainbow Computer Cafe
On 30 Jul 1997 15:24:31 GMT, "Patrick Desjardins" <Pic...@odyssee.net>
wrote:
>The "voie maritime" of the St-laurent river, is necessary to access
>montréal from quebec city to it end (don't know where, you know?). To
>protect boat from any "haut fond" (where the bottom of the river is close
>to the surface of water).
>
>Brian Allardice <dba@*spamnix*.uniserve.com> wrote in article
><5rbnek$ieu$1...@neptune.uniserve.com>...
>> In article <5rbe1v$1...@malasada.lava.net>, wi...@lava.net (Wing C Ng)
>says:
>>
>> >Try look up the word "sea" and "way" in a dictionary.
More dictionary crap from Wing, who never has understood English
word-formation rules and seems to like to make them up as he goes
along. The meaning of the word "seaway" in the context of the St.
Lawrence is the "way" from the Great Lakes to the "sea", and needn't
mean that it's a "way" IN the "sea". Voie maritime is the French
equivalent, obviously......
Brian Allardice
In article <01bc9cfc$a6bc9640$dcf8...@Riker.odyssee.net>, "Patrick Desjardins" <Pic...@odyssee.net> says:
>
>montréal from quebec city to it end (don't know where, you know?). To
>protect boat from any "haut fond" (where the bottom of the river is close
>to the surface of water).
>
>Brian Allardice <dba@*spamnix*.uniserve.com> wrote in article
><5rbnek$ieu$1...@neptune.uniserve.com>...
>> In article <5rbe1v$1...@malasada.lava.net>, wi...@lava.net (Wing C Ng)
>says:
>>
>> >Try look up the word "sea" and "way" in a dictionary.
>> >
Brian Allardice
In article <01bc9cfc$a6bc9640$dcf8...@Riker.odyssee.net>, "Patrick Desjardins" <Pic...@odyssee.net> says:
oops, wrong button last time......
>The "voie maritime" of the St-laurent river, is necessary to access
>montréal from quebec city to it end (don't know where, you know?).
Pilots are taken on at les Escoumains (?????), so you could say that that
is where it starts, but although there have been works to enhance
navigation (particularly in the notorious Lac St. Pierre) the actual
seaway starts with the St. Lambert locks and is used (really) to go
upstream from Montreal, replacing, in this instance, the Lachine and
Soulange canals.....
Where does it end? The Snell and Eisenhower locks in the 1000 Islands.
Cheers,
dba
Wing C Ng
In article <tcyangEE...@netcom.com>,
Tung-chiang Yang <tcy...@netcom.com> wrote:
>That must be the reason why you supported Gui without regret.
Yeah, us Montre'alais stick together.
I have even been to Concordia University. Gasp, co-conspirators
visiting each other separated by more than 10 years of time-travel.
Wing
>
>====================================
>wi...@lava.net wrote after kicking bad guys out of Air Force One:
>
>: I lived in Montreal. As I recall, there is a canal for ships,
Wing C Ng
>Marshall (Harrison Ford) in the movie 'Air Force One', are both US
>citizens :)
>
>This will remain in your file :)
the following tidbit of info. is also in Zhongshan's file:
he got into trouble in Thailand; and then he claimed that he
was native born in Hawaii, which then just became U.S. territory;
therefore he was a U.S. citizen, and he also carried a U.S.
passport to prove that.
Immaculately documented historical fact.
Make it three.
Wing
>
>==================================
>wi...@lava.net wrote after kicking bad guys out of Air Force One:
>
>: Try read newspaper, like Mao told Lin Biao: look for the keyword
>: "Autumn Jackson".
>
>: The President of the Federal Republic of China, like President
>: Harrison Ford of the U.S. in Air Force One, does not give in to
>: terrorists' demands!
>
>: This will remain in your files :-)
Wing C Ng
In article <01bc9cfc$a6bc9640$dcf8...@Riker.odyssee.net>,
Patrick Desjardins <Pic...@odyssee.net> wrote:
>The "voie maritime" of the St-laurent river, is necessary to access
Doesn't it go all the way to Thunder Bay, or at least Sault
Ste. Marie.
Wing
Brian Allardice
>Doesn't it go all the way to Thunder Bay, or at least Sault
>Ste. Marie.
Without being entirely sure what this has to do with, for instance,
Tibet politics, the answer is that it is possible to navigate to the
Lakehead, using the Welland Canal (Niagara) and the various canals
at Sault St. Marie. From a construction point of view these are quite
separate from the Seaway, I do not know if they administered by the
Seaway Authority... Someone here probably knows......
Cheers,
dba
Wing C Ng
In article <5s35go$g7m$1...@neptune.uniserve.com>,
Brian Allardice <d...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>In article <5runvr$4...@malasada.lava.net>, wi...@lava.net (Wing C Ng) says:
>
>>Doesn't it go all the way to Thunder Bay, or at least Sault
>>Ste. Marie.
>
>Without being entirely sure what this has to do with, for instance,
>Tibet politics, the answer is that it is possible to navigate to the
Well, someone claims that Quebec is landlocked like Tibet, and
therefore will have trouble becoming indep. I pointed out that
Montreal is a seaport.
Wing
Wing C Ng
>by a bunch of separatists?
What separatists? They were valiant citizens of France who
lost their Opium War and became a British Colony. They should
be returned to their Motherland, like de Gaulle advocated in
'67.
I had good friends who were Quebecois francophones; their
female gender is especially beautiful.
Wing
>
>===============================
>wi...@lava.net wrote after kicking bad guys out of Air Force One:
>: In article <tcyangEE...@netcom.com>,
>: Tung-chiang Yang <tcy...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: >That must be the reason why you supported Gui without regret.
Wing C Ng
>citizen or not in 'soc.culture.taiwan'. Too bad you did not provide what
>you know back then.
>
>Was the US passport Sun presented a real one?
He claimed to the U.S. authorities in Hawaii that he was born
in Hawaii, and then they gave him a passport. Is that a "real"
passport?
Wing
>
>===================================
>wi...@lava.net wrote after kicking bad guys out of Air Force One:
>
>: the following tidbit of info. is also in Zhongshan's file:
Brian Allardice
In article <tcyangEE...@netcom.com>, tcy...@netcom.com (Tung-chiang Yang) says:
>
>I believe people in 'talk.politics.tibet' only pointed out that Montreal
>cannot go to the Atlantic Ocean if
>
> (1) the native tribes in Northern Quebec went for independence, and
> (2) the other Canadian Atlantic provinces do not allow Quebec boats
> to pass by the waterways they control.
1) is a possibility, but 2) would be contrary to international law.
And here I thought you guys were contemplating a canal up the
Brahmaputra or some such......
Cheers,
dba
Jean-Martin Lapointe
On 4 Aug 1997, Brian Allardice wrote:
> >I believe people in 'talk.politics.tibet' only pointed out that Montreal
> >cannot go to the Atlantic Ocean if
> > (1) the native tribes in Northern Quebec went for independence, and
> > (2) the other Canadian Atlantic provinces do not allow Quebec boats
> > to pass by the waterways they control.
> 1) is a possibility,
how in the fuck so ?
> but 2) would be contrary to international law.
how 'bout the bleedin' laws of physics ? It's not like the goddamn
gulf of the St-Lawrence is 50 friggin' feet wide, fer chrissakes.
(I luv cussing in english, it's so easy and free of consequences...)
Wing C Ng
In article <5s44ol$ji4$1...@neptune.uniserve.com>,
Brian Allardice <d...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>In article <tcyangEE...@netcom.com>, tcy...@netcom.com (Tung-chiang Yang) says:
>>
>>cannot go to the Atlantic Ocean if
>>
>> (1) the native tribes in Northern Quebec went for independence, and
>> (2) the other Canadian Atlantic provinces do not allow Quebec boats
>> to pass by the waterways they control.
>
Indeed the Voie Maritime goes through Quebec territory. Ontario
and the U.S. States Great Lakes ship traffic would have to go
through Quebec territory, just the other way round.
Wing
Brian Allardice
In article <5scdbf$q...@malasada.lava.net>, wi...@lava.net (Wing C Ng) says:
>Oh yeah, there is a Rainbow Falls on the Zangbo/Brahmaputra,
>just like the Niagara Falls on St. Laurent.
>
>But the Zangbo at the Great Bend forms the deepest canyon in
>the world, some 15,000 feet deep, and digging a Zangbo Seaway
>would be out of the question with present technology.
Time to get down to some serious tourism promotion....
Cheers,
dba
Wing C Ng
>supports separatism or not' instead of asking why. Therefore, they
>are separatists.
Mon Dieu! You are really even dumber, a _lot_ dumber, than everyone
thought.
Read it again, lip-reading if you need to.
Is HK being returned to China an act of "separatism" from the
U.K.?
Wing
>
>===============================
>wi...@lava.net wrote after kicking bad guys out of Air Force One:
>: In article <tcyangEE...@netcom.com>,
>: Tung-chiang Yang <tcy...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: >What do you feel when you walk in Montreal streets and get surrounded
Wing C Ng
>cannot go to the Atlantic Ocean if
>
> (1) the native tribes in Northern Quebec went for independence, and
> (2) the other Canadian Atlantic provinces do not allow Quebec boats
> to pass by the waterways they control.
>
Your idiocy knows no bounds: Quebec owns both banks of the St. Laurent
all the way to the mouth, Trois Rivieres, Gaspe Peninsula and so forth.
That is not in northern Quebec. The other provinces do not control the
St. Laurent river.
Wing
>
>(I am sorry for posting this English post in SCQuebec)
>
>=================================
>wi...@lava.net wrote after kicking bad guys out of Air Force One:
>
>: >Without being entirely sure what this has to do with, for instance,
Wing C Ng
>in soc.culture.china for 18 minutes:
>
>: In article <tcyangEE...@netcom.com>,
>: Tung-chiang Yang <tcy...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: >They are still separatists. You and Gui seemed to ask 'whether someone
>: >supports separatism or not' instead of asking why. Therefore, they
>: >are separatists.
>
>: Mon Dieu! You are really even dumber, a _lot_ dumber, than everyone
>: thought.
>
>: Read it again, lip-reading if you need to.
>
>: Is HK being returned to China an act of "separatism" from the
>: U.K.?
>
>and you can extend it to Hongkong and UK. For those defending for ROC's
>right to survive, you gave them a 'Taidu' title.
James Yang is for ROC, and Jim B. Young is for ROT Taidu. Took
me a while to figure out it's two separate persons, but I can tell
the political distinction well enough, thank you, dummy, who can't
even read with his lips moving.
Wing
>
>O.K. Let's replace Jeff Daniels and Jim Carrey for the movie "Dumb and
>Dumber". Let me play 'Dumb', and you play 'Dumber'. I admit you should
>actually play 'Dumbest', but that is a sequel. We can work it out later.
>
>Thanks, but no thanks. Lip-reading you ...... It is (1) yuk and (2)
>you are not Poison Ivy.
Mike Cleven
Wing C Ng wrote:
>
> In article <5s44ol$ji4$1...@neptune.uniserve.com>,
> Brian Allardice <d...@uniserve.com> wrote:
> >In article <tcyangEE...@netcom.com>, tcy...@netcom.com (Tung-chiang Yang) says:
> >>
> >>cannot go to the Atlantic Ocean if
> >>
> >> (1) the native tribes in Northern Quebec went for independence, and
> >> (2) the other Canadian Atlantic provinces do not allow Quebec boats
> >> to pass by the waterways they control.
The Maritime provinces do not control the Gulf of St. Lawrence, although
they would have a strategic advantage at the main opening in the Gulf
between Newfoundland and Cape Breton Island (can't remember the name of
those Straits). Technically, the Gulf open water although by convention
only French and Canadian ships frequent the region (French because of
St. Pierre and Miquelon), or rather, only France and Canada have
territorial rights in the Gulf; Quebec would have similar rights in the
event of separation, and implicit in such a presence would be access to
the open Atlantic east of Nfld/Nova Scotia. Because of the Magdalene
Islands and Anticosti Island, a good deal of the Gulf would be
territorial Quebec waters in the aftermath of a separation.
> >
> >1) is a possibility, but 2) would be contrary to international law.
> >
> >And here I thought you guys were contemplating a canal up the
> >Brahmaputra or some such......
>
> Oh yeah, there is a Rainbow Falls on the Zangbo/Brahmaputra,
> just like the Niagara Falls on St. Laurent.
>
> But the Zangbo at the Great Bend forms the deepest canyon in
> the world, some 15,000 feet deep, and digging a Zangbo Seaway
> would be out of the question with present technology.
Unless the Tsangpo were dammed (I'm deliberately NOT using the Pinyin
spelling of the Tibetan name) and a couple of hundred locks built to
bring the upper reaches of the river in contact with the lower. The
other alternative is to blast a series of canal-tunnels into the eastern
Himalayas. But why would shipping/marine access be needed for Tibet
anyway? - unless China were successful in their expanionist ambitions
against Assam and the Northeast Frontier Province....
Mike Cleven
Tung-chiang Yang wrote:
>
> What do you feel when you walk in Montreal streets and get surrounded
> by a bunch of separatists?
Depends on what they're doing. If they were hurling mud/merde at
"maudits anglos", it'd probably get pretty nasty and I guess you could
say I'd feel threatened/insulted. Better be more than one of them in
such a case. Being anglo in the middle of a St. Jean Baptiste
celebration ain't exactly a comfortable experience, that's for sure.
On ordinary streets, of course, there's a mix of separatists and
nationalists (i.e. federalists) and unless a political event's underway
they'd just be another francophone crowd. Not threatening at all, unless
you've done something to provoke them....
Neil
On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, Mike Cleven wrote:
> Unless the Tsangpo were dammed (I'm deliberately NOT using the Pinyin
> spelling of the Tibetan name) and a couple of hundred locks built to
> bring the upper reaches of the river in contact with the lower. The
> other alternative is to blast a series of canal-tunnels into the eastern
> Himalayas. But why would shipping/marine access be needed for Tibet
> anyway? - unless China were successful in their expanionist ambitions
> against Assam and the Northeast Frontier Province....
Out of curiosity, are you referring to the Northeast Frontier Province of
Pakistan? Why on earth would the Chinese be interested in that?
Neil
Arizona State University
http://www.public.asu.edu/~neils
Mike Cleven
On 25 Jul 1997 04:19:53 GMT, fa...@arai.scw.che.tohoku.ac.jp (CHINA)
wrote:
>In article <5r7t9v$5...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>, jas...@wam.umd.edu says...
>>
>>Ryan Bergman (ry...@iastate.edu) wrote:
>>
>>: The Tibetan people have the right to self determination and they dont
>>: need China telling them how to live. Personaly I dont even understand
>>: why China wants Tibet, its not like theres anything there. Is it some
>>: kind of Imperial penis envy that makes the PRC behave like little
>>: children?
>
>
>
>Is RUSSAIA A democratic COuntry? Do the Chechen people have the right to vote
>for independence?
They do now, and have, even though it took a war of resistance to get
Moscow to cooperate. Other former Soviet territories also had votes
for independence - the Ukraine, the Baltics, the various Central Asian
states. The difference with Chechnya is that it was not a Soviet
Republic, but an administrative region of the Russian Republic, as are
many other restive national regions inherited by the Russians from the
Tsarist Empire; had Chechnya been constituted as a separate republic
under the Soviet system (as were Azerbaijanistan, Georgia, and
Armenia) then it's quite probable they would have been able to split
off like everyone else did......
>How about other countries?
>
Mike Cleven
On 24 Jul 1997 16:58:03 -1000, wi...@lava.net (Wing C Ng) wrote:
>In article <tcyangE...@netcom.com>,
>Tung-chiang Yang <tcy...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>I believe you are wrong. Do not forget that while the French-speaking
>>people in Quebec want an independence from Canada (as I said, too bad
>>Gui lives among these separatists which drove him crazy), some native
>>American tribes in Northern Quebec also want to go independent of Quebec.
>>Whether they want to be really independent or join the Canada system is
>>not clear.
>>
>>If these Indian people do go independent, Quebec is nothing but a small
>>land, and its Atlantic connection is cut off. If these Indian people
>>join the Canada system, Quebec is surrounded.
>
>Mao accused Lin Biao: you don't read books and you don't
>read newspapers, and you don't read the CCP Central's documents.
>
>Mr. Young does not know how to read maps. Gui's Concordia
>home is located in the city of Montreal, which leads directly
>into the Atlantic via the St. Laurent/St. Lawrence. There
>is such a thing called St. Lawrence Seaway which even bypasses
>the Niagara Falls. It will be difficult indeed for native
>Indians to claim the city of Montreal from any future Quebec
>indep. country.
>
>Wing
And Wing apparently also doesn't know how to read maps. Concordia is
in _west_ Montreal - part of the anglophone/federalist region that
would strive to remain in Canada, even if it meant a partitioned
Montreal. The first locks of the St. Lawrence Seaway, also, are
adjacent to the Caughnawaga Reserve, which will fight for its
independence from Quebec when the time comes and everybody knows it.
The Mohawks are quite prepared to create a micro-state on the lines of
Monaco or Andorra if they have to, and they'll find themselves allies
in the anti-sovereigntists of the Townships and the Ottawa Valley.
Caughnawaga/Kahnewake is strategically critical to the health of the
Seaway, and the Mohawks would be in a position to blackmail/negotiate
with the US and Canada for support against any attempt by Quebec's
"security forces" (the SQ and the neofascist volunteer militias
currently being organized semi-covertly) to take control of the
opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, which is an obvious "national
security interest" of the United States and therefore liable to
American "police actions", even in support of a criminal republic such
as the Ganienkehaka (the Mohawk state) is currently interpreted to be.
BTW, the St. Lawrence Seaway has nothing to do with Niagara Falls,
which is bypassed by the Welland Canal. The Seaway proper runs from
the Thousand Islands to the Lachine Locks.......
>
>
Mike Cleven
On 19 Jul 1997 04:04:49 GMT, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan)
wrote:
>In article <ironmtn-1807...@vic-as-01a04.direct.ca>,
>Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>|In article <33CC6D...@mail.direct.ca>, tric...@mail.direct.ca wrote:
>|
>|> A Ptr wrote:
>|> > >Good grief! A Chinese presuming to support the boycott over fox-hunting
>|> > >in England when the wholesale slaughter of world wildlife to bolster the
>|> > >sexual potency of Chinese males goes unchecked and uncriticized. How many
>|> >
>|> As one who has never met Mike Cleven, but has been reading his posts on
>|> other NGs for some time, I think "lay yau mo gau cho ah". Mike is no
>|> racist. He is very forthright, and some people may find their egos
>|> bruised when he demolishes their weak arguments. But he's no racist.
>|
>|Thanks Bullets (er, Rick?) - it's nice to get some moral support for a
>|change. Well, maybe not moral but at least half-complimentary.....
>|
>Still, you should apologize for what you said about Chinese. I am not
>sure whehter you are a racist or not, but you language is improper at
>least.
Like yours concerning non-Chinese isn't!!! Marquess, you're full of
it! Maybe - just _maybe_ I'll apologize for something I've said when
you apologize for all the ignorant comments you've made about me and
other North Americans in the course of various threads. I don't think
I've said anything explicitly insulting; if the Chinese are offended
at the truth about themselves that's their own problem. "If thine eye
offend thee, pluck it out", meaning change your perceptions if your
egos are easily bruised when confronted with your prejudices.....
>--
>Marquess of Chu 潘廷礼
Wing C Ng
In article <33ef4dee...@news.bctel.ca>,
This Cleven person from Vancouver supports Tibet separation from China,
but is against Quebec separation from Canada. He also seems to support
Caughnawaga/Kahenwake whatever separation from Quebec. And then he
castigates the "criminal" republic of the Mohawk state, whatever that is.
Wow, no one has yet called either Tibet or Quebec "criminal republics"
yet.
Wing
Wing C Ng
In article <33EE8B...@rapidshop.com>,
Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Wing C Ng wrote:
>>
>> In article <5s44ol$ji4$1...@neptune.uniserve.com>,
>
>Unless the Tsangpo were dammed (I'm deliberately NOT using the Pinyin
>spelling of the Tibetan name) and a couple of hundred locks built to
>bring the upper reaches of the river in contact with the lower. The
>other alternative is to blast a series of canal-tunnels into the eastern
>Himalayas. But why would shipping/marine access be needed for Tibet
>anyway? - unless China were successful in their expanionist ambitions
>against Assam and the Northeast Frontier Province....
The so-called Northeast Frontier Agency was indisputably Chinese
territory administered by the local govt. of Tibet. Goldstein
agrees, and so does Maxwell "India's China war".
Wing
Brian Allardice
>This Cleven person from Vancouver supports Tibet separation from China,
>Wing
This is becoming increasingly bizarre, but it is interesting to note
that an ancient (and no doubt unequal) treaty gives the Yanks (not,
I may add, yaks) right of innocent navigation of the St. Lawrence, so
the situation becomes more complex, however the whole situation would
really have to be way out of hand for this to cause anything more than
squabbling about the costs of maintenence and ice-breaking......
By the way, does anyone *really* want the Tibetan theocracy back?
Cheers,
dba
Adrian Planinc
On 11 Aug 1997, Jingchun Yu wrote:
> Nonsense. Serbis were intervened against simply because they were not
> friends of the west in the first place. An independenet Quebec will not
> have such worry and they can untie their hands to crack downany independent
> move.
Serbs were intervened against when Croatia launched "Operation Storm", a
highly successful two-week lightning war.
The West realised that it had to intervene to prevent Croatia and its
Muslim allies from taking over the entire region.
The West will never intervene out of "humanitarian" or "moral"
considerations, only when its interests are threatened. That is the main
reason why it does diddly shit on the Tibet issue.
---
Do godine devedestprve, Horvat bil' je kmet,
rob Balkana te Zapada, jednog pa drugog htel.
Danas zori novi dan, novo sunce sije,
Od Zagorja do Dubrovnika,
nas se barjak vije.
Mike Cleven
On 12 Aug 1997 15:27:07 -1000, wi...@lava.net (Wing C Ng) wrote:
>In article <33ef4dee...@news.bctel.ca>,
>This Cleven person from Vancouver supports Tibet separation from China,
>but is against Quebec separation from Canada.
Who sez? The "pur laines" can go if they want - they just can't take
the whole place with them. I'm from British Columbia, for damn's
sake, and would just as soon everything east of the Rockies sank into
the ocean! The problem with the Quebec separatist agenda is that it
denies the rights of regions of Quebec that are not separatist in
character (including some French ones) to remain in Canada if they so
wish (and they do).
He also seems to support
>Caughnawaga/Kahenwake whatever separation from Quebec. And then he
>castigates the "criminal" republic of the Mohawk state, whatever that is.
>Wow, no one has yet called either Tibet or Quebec "criminal republics"
>yet.
Well, you've called the Tibetans "bandits" and "murderers", but I was
meaning something else - the Mohawk economy has a large base in
illegal cigarette and alcohol smuggling and within the Mohawk polity
there is a large faction of Vietnam vets and militia types that is
regularly portrayed (rightly or wrongly) in the mainstream media as a
"criminal element". I did NOT castigate the Mohawks, and support
their cause implicitly. The term "criminal republic" I coined to
describe the Mohawk's particular means of self-sufficiency within a
discriminatory economy, as well as the "criminal" nature by which the
Canadian media describes their very strong and multifaceted
microseparatist movement, the Haudenosaunee and its radical
counterpart the Mohawk Warrior Society. Most Canadians would have
immediately understood the term. Caughnawaga and Kahnewake are
alternate spellings of the Mohawk name for one of their main reserves,
which is in suburban Montreal and, with the Kahnesetake/Oka community
across Lac des Deux Montagnes, was the focus of the Oka Crisis of
1990. After 500 years of occupation of Hochelaga (the ancient name
for Montreal), the Mohawk language is still strong and the Mohawk
community has retained its identity and desire for independence from
domination by linguistic and cultural fascism - the latter being a
force chiefly represented in modern Quebec by the separatist movement
in all its francophone vainglory. Your use of the term "whatever" is
pretty expressive of your own prejudices - I would never use such a
deprecation of a Chinese placename, and would expect to be raked over
the coals for it. I suggest you apologize to the Mohawks, before the
Marquess of Chu demands that you do .......
Your denunciation of my support for the right of groups within Canada
to remain within Canada instead of being shanghaied out of it by
ethnic fascism is not easily comparable to the Tibetan situation - at
least not in any way that is favourable to your ongoing denial of the
rights and distinctiveness of Tibetan culture and historical identity.
The rights of the Quebec's natives and other non-francophones, and of
those francophones who wish to remain Canadian and not join a French
banana republic. All these communities - especially the natives -
have centuries-old roots in Quebec. This includes (among the
anglophones) Quebec's large Jewish community, which is staunchly
Canadian and has been the victim of anti-Semitism from the French
"nationalists" for decades......
T. Downing
On 13 Aug 1997 03:35:44 GMT, dba@*spamnix*.uniserve.com (Brian
Allardice) wrote:
>In article <5sr2hb$4...@malasada.lava.net>, wi...@lava.net (Wing C Ng) says:
>
>>This Cleven person from Vancouver supports Tibet separation from China,
>>Wing
>
>
>This is becoming increasingly bizarre, but it is interesting to note
>that an ancient (and no doubt unequal) treaty gives the Yanks (not,
>I may add, yaks) right of innocent navigation of the St. Lawrence, so
>the situation becomes more complex, however the whole situation would
>really have to be way out of hand for this to cause anything more than
>squabbling about the costs of maintenence and ice-breaking......
>
>By the way, does anyone *really* want the Tibetan theocracy back?
1. Yanks are never innocent so there is only a theoretical right of
navigation.
2. Why not let the monks do their thing? As long as no one is forced
to be a monk why should anyone be prevented from being one?