Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Explain how Tibet evolved from its Genghis Khan days of glory to a time when the CIA's modern weapons and logistics could not help Da Lama and his troops to resist the PLA for more than a few weeks - something was rotten in Potala Palace with the lamas! Re: The Dark Ages in Tibet under the rule of the Lamas are thankfully gone
0 views
Skip to first unread message
lo yeeOn
May 11, 2013, 9:45:36 PM5/11/13
to
In article <518c31f3....@news.giganews.com>, <hab...@anony.net> wrote:
>That is no excuse to take over their country and make them a minority
>as China is doing in Tibet , Xin Jiang and Inner Mongolia
But your statement indicates that you are very, very confused.
Given my subject line, your single sentence response begins with the
impression that you were talking about Tibet being taken over when you
talked about "their country". But when you started talking about
making "them a minority", you are comparing them also with A, B, and
C, where A = Tibet, B = Xin Jiang, and C = Inner Mongolia.
So, it appears that you were comparing A with A and B and C.
While it may be logical admissible, it does not make sense to compare
A with A in a linguistic context where words are conveyed to mean
something for communication purposes. It is especially true when A
does not compare well with B or C.
While A can vacuously compare with A itself, it contributes to no
information.
A does not compare well with B because ethnic Tibetans remain the
majority of the TAR while it is possible that ethnic Han Chinese are
getting to be comparable in numbers to the Uighurs.
A also does not compare well with C because there is not a comparable
ethnic struggle in Inner Mongolia.
Furthermore, the critical issue of political importance is that A and
B and C have all been a part of China long before the communist took
over. Just compare the map of China in the Qing dynasty (for nearly
three hundred years of history) with the current one and compare the
map of the Republic of China (1911-1949) with the current Chinese map,
and you will see that the current map contains no more territory than
its two predecessors. In fact, the ROC claimed Outer Mongolia as its
own, which is a large piece of land, just as its predecessor but China
does not. But all of them claim A, B, and C as part of its territory.
So, there is no basis to talk about China "taking over" A, or B, or C,
regardless of the ethnic composition in those areas.
As to ethnic composition in any region in the world, it changes all
the time. As long as sovereignty is not a question, there is no basis
for a complaint about ethnic composition, unless you do not believe in
the freedom of movement within a country.
In the US, ethnic composition changes rapidly in recent years. Only
petty sour grapes type would complain about hispanic population to
become the majority in such and such a state.
Of course, the US killed all the American Indians to become what it is
today. China has not pursued such a policy. There is no evidence
that China's policy in Tibet is meant to harm ethnic Tibetans. It is
pure VOA, RFA type propaganda in collaboration with Da Lama and his
TGIE cohorts.
Now consider the fact that some Tibetans count the Mongols as their
forebears and thus lamented the loss of its past glory. So, a legit
question is to ask how did they manage to loss that glory?
My guess is you can't blame the CCP for robbing it from the Mongols or
the Tibetan lamas. While Mongols couldn't hold its far-flung empire
for more than some four scores and x number of years, the Tibetan
lamas stayed alive only by agreeing to be somebody else's vassel or
tributory state.
Of course, the Chinese suffered their own humiliation before the whole
world when Imperial Japan and colonialist from the West entered China
at will and carved up its prime real estate along the coasts. And
when a group of Chinese believe that they could fight off the invaders
with their fists together with their righteousness, they got shot dead
right away or if they got captured, their heads got chopped off by the
imperial Japanese soldiers' swords and were recorded for history books.
At least the intellectuals among the Chinese people at the time knew
what was wrong. They looked inside themselves. And they fought their
way out.
But let's focus on these three groups that existed in China: the
Tibetans under the lamas, the Nationalists soldiers, and the
Communists along with their peasant ally. We know that the lives of
the lamas were extremely decadent while the masses were illiterate and
relentlessly exploited. (In Heinrich Harrer's Seven Years in Tibet,
he recounted the first dinner he was invited to have dinner with the
"Holy Mother", i.e., the mother of Da Lama and the record-holder of
being the mother of the largest number of Incarnations, he counted 40
dishes at the banquet of many guests. And this was happening among
the Tibetans in the "noble class" while the masses had to work from
morning to dark, panting and moaning at the hard work they had to do
to survive. Tibet under the Lamas was clearly heading to trouble
because the system was so inequitable.) And we also know that the
Nationalist under Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek was getting
U.S. military and economic aide to fight the communists. But who were
supplying the communist guerrilla soldiers? Hardly no one, except may
be the Soviet Union. They might have given them so rifles, grenades,
and ammunition. Mostly, on a one-on-one basis, they were poorly
equipped and could not have fought off the Nationalists, not to defeat
them.
The fact, that the communist's successful takeover of China, with
little fighting, shows that they won by the force of logic - not by
force of luck.
So, of course, the Nationalists could afford only token presence in
Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it. But the
decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
But if anyone fails to see that the complaints from Tibet today mostly
come from the monks. Of course, they complain. They lost their past
glory and the last vestige of influence of the masses.
But there is no objective reason why the corrupt monk system should
not be replaced by an egalitarian one - which the communists brought
in and eventually imposed.
China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum. It is
particularly not a result of some evil doing, despite western
rhetoric. China was able to go in because the lamas system had rotten
to the core. If it was a matter of brute force, China would have been
kicked out like Nazi Germany was kicked out after losing some 26
million lives fighting their invaders. And if China was using
overwhelming force like the U.S. has been using in Afghanistan and
Iraq, then China would still be spending tens of billions hiring
military contractors to replace the departing US troops. China has
none of the problems of either Nazi Germany or the US/NATO in their
foreign adventure. Perhaps, there is a couple of reasons for that.
One, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced.
Second, Tibet is not a foreign land that China is wasting billions to
subdue with bomb, missiles, bullets, military contractors and tens of
millions of dollars of bribes to a puppet government.
For sure, China still has a Tibet problem. But as long as the U.S. is
spending a few billions each year to destabilize China through Tibet,
and to a lesser extent, Xinjiang, then China has to spend some money
to fight that off. But Tibet is not China's Afghanistan or Iraq.
lo yeeOn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: So, let's look at the unethical conduct of the Dalai
Lamas... and that of the U.S. government too! Re: No one is free of
Criticism including China.
In article <7288330.Ssghh1SrV1@Dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <peter.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>rst9 wrote:
>
>> Why don't you stop lying to serve your own agenda. Anyone is free to
>> travel to Xinjiang and Tibet, go there and see for yourself.
>
>You are not reading the article dear friend, there are no journalists aloud
>there and the reports of HR violations are big.
>Your information runs short by completely trusting CCP propaganda that
>leaves out and distorts a lot.
>
>> 3 were killed included a Chinese student from Shenyang, China, and over 260
>> injured in Boston at the Boston Marath.
>
>That is another very tragic matter, do not use this to whitewash CCP
>crimes, it does not make
>you credible in any way.
>
>No one is free of Criticism including China.
>
>Love, Peter (Neljor)
Don't be sanctimonious and don't distort what the other poster said.
He was only responding to your statement that 21 people were killed in
China's Xinjiang.
You were so rude that you even took out letters from the term "Boston
Marathon". I checked his original follow-up. He had it spelled
correctly. But you are so full of yourself that you mangled his words
and didn't care.
His response to the mention of the Xinjiang terrorist incident was:
> On Tuesday, or so it seems, 21 people were killed in the region of
> Xinjiang in northwest China.
3 were killed included a Chinese student from Shenyang, China, and
over 260 injured in Boston at the Boston Marathon.
Both incidents were domestic terrorism, at least that is how a lot of
people see them.
Both are tragic. And in the case of the Boston Marathon bombings, it
further serves to prove that invading and occupying Afghanistan has
not prevented a terrorist attack from happening in the United States.
The Chechen brothers were boys when they arrived in the States some
ten years ago and Americans troops had already been in Afghanistan by
then. So, destroying the bin Laden training camp did nothing to
prevent the attack against Americans in Libya's Benghazi on 9/11 in
2012 nor did it prevent the Boston bombings this year.
So, why are we still dragging our feet to pull out?
This has to be the most farcical withdrawing in the annals of world
civilization. Is it not a great tragedy that seven American troops
died needlessly when we had all year in 2012 to pull out but instead
the politicians want to stay until the end of 2014 just to reduce the
troops to some 12,000?
A US civilian cargo plane has crashed at Bagram airbase in
Afghanistan, killing its seven crew, officials say.
Why do they have to die? Why?
And then another 8 ISAF soldiers were killed in less than a week
later? Why?
Attacks across Afghanistan kill 8 service members, including at
least 5 Americans
And then there were 3 British soldiers killed in Afghanistan just a
week before. Why?
And then in the same week of the Bagram plane crash that killed 7
Americans, there was another military cargo plane crash taking off
from a base in Kyrgyzstan, trying to bring fuel into Afghanistan,
killing an unknown number of crew members. Why?
These victims lost their lives in Afghanistan because the old men in
Washington lied. Those who died didn't have to die, had enough of us
the people recognized the folly of the Afghan war.
There is no reason to talk up a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan
and then sit on it for three more years before reducing the troop
level to 12,000 men and still keeping Bagram. What kind of
manuevering is that - other than Washington's desire to keep the
airbase in Bagram?
That is a real tragedy that nothing China has done can match.
China has not bombed another country. And China has only wrested
power from the decadent monks and landowners.
China's success in defeating the decadent monks and landowners has
resulted in the freedom of millions of Tibetan serfs who had been
hereditarily enslaved. They were enslaved due to the lies of Tibetan
Buddhism.
The Dalai Lama always reincarnates as Dalai Lama while the serfs die
and reincarnate as worms;
The Dalai Lama is a living Buddha when in reality they love worldly
pleasure and material possessions. Indeed they used 36 people to
carry their sedans and enjoyed an opulent lifestyle at their summer
palaces at Norbulingka - so much so that they sneaked back there
often even when they were supposed to be at their official residence
praying and meditating at Potola.
The Dalai Lamas have perfect knowledge and yet they didn't even have
the foresight to choose a suitable place for their palaces. So they
built the Potola palace which no doubt killed many serfs because of
the difficulty required to build it. And yet the Dalai Lamas hated
the place and so since the 7th Dalai Lama, Norbulingka became their
lust and obsession. They built and built and destroyed the flora
and fauna. They have no doubt killed many snow leopards because
even Da Lama's private tutor from Austria, Herr Heinrich Harrer
witnessed the death of one that wandered into Norbulingka.
The Dalai Lamas were acting like scum bags and were no less
disgusting.
Unfortunately for the Tibetans, former Chinese governments only had
symbolic presence in Tibet because China was starving and occupied by
foreign forces. Only after the CCP won, the serfs were liberated and
now the masses are free to do what they want to do. They don't need
foreigners to incite violence and impose misery on them.
How do I know that? I know because a man with the nom de plume of
Theurang told me. So let's read what I said below.
lo yeeOn
Subject: The Tibetans are smiling and that makes Theurang unhappy! So
where is THeurang's compassion? Re: They treat us like animals By
Theurang (writer)
In article <7167513.oz1WfLRYUc@Dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <peter.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"They treat us like animals"
>Tuesday, 7 May 2013
>
>Tashi Rabten (pen name: Theurang) is a Tibetan writer, poet and editor
>who is serving a four-year sentence in Mianyang Prison,
>Sichuan Province. He graduated from North-West University for
>Nationalities and edited the now-banned Tibetan language
>journal "Shar Dungri" and also published "Written in Blood", a
>compilation of his poems, notes and writings on the situation in
>Tibet following the 2008 protests.
>
>In this essay, translated by TCHRD, the writer condemns the cultural
>insensitivity of Chinese tourists and the commercialization
>of Tibetan culture as the number of Chinese tourists continues to rise,
>exerting immense pressure on the fragile ecology and
>landscape of the Tibetan Plateau.
>
>They treat us like animals
Bad title! 'cos it's making a false advertisement.
A reader's normal response to the words "They treat us like animals"
is that of "They treat us badly".
The article below doesn't convey that kind of imagery. It's easy for
an average reader to say that the author is belly-aching. "What's he
complaining about? Tourists giving indigenous people money who are
all too happy to accept? Tourists snapping pictures at anybody in
sight? Tourists sharing the surrounding of monasteries with the
indigenous people? Jeez-Louise, what kind of times are we living in
today? Even if there are no tourists in London or New York, CCTV are
still all over the respective city, constantly monitoring every face
in its sight.
And the news media has just finished praising these CCTV cameras in
Boston for the speed with which the FBI succeeded in identifying the
bombing suspects.
And when you think about it, perhaps these tourist cameras may also
serve as a socially (in addition to the individually) useful function
of capturing the faces of a few potential self-immolation inciters
among the monks near the monasteries. How about that for a win-win
situation?
Also, if you read Heinrich Harrer's Sieben Jahre in Tibet (Seven Years
in Tibet), you'll learn that Da Lama had several expensive telescopes
in his possession. And he had some of them mounted on a balcony at
his Potola Palace residential quarters overlooking the town of Lhasa.
There he enjoyed peering into his telescopes to check out what the
people were doing in their gardens.
Harrer observed that many of Da Lama's subjects would, as soon as they
discovered that they were being watched and studied, quickly remove
themselves from plain view. And they would explain that they didn't
want to "sadden the heart" of their young ruler.
So, we can see that snooping is not a new phenomenon in Tibet. The
only difference is that today a tourist can aim his/her camera at you
if you are on a street while during the years when Da Lama was still
the ruler of Tibet, only he was privileged to watch over your every
moves.
So, Theurang, author of "They treat us like animials", really does not
have a legitimate complaint against either the tourists who have been
flocking to Tibet these days or the Chinese government for promoting
tourism over there.
Actually, the author is quite bitter about his fellow Tibetans who are
all too happy to earn some money by being the locals who know their
way.
What makes me laugh and cry at the same time is to witness the
smiling faces of the Tibetan masses lured by hard cash. . . .
. . . When tourist vehicles arrive, ruddy-faced Tibetan women and
snot-nosed Tibetan boys rush into action with their horses. Holding
their breath, desperation in their eyes, they carry Chinese tourists
on their horses and walk up the mountains. Holding fifty-Yuan notes
in their hands, smiles written all over their faces, they kill their
time waiting for the arrival of other tourists. When I see them, I
wonder how a race that once conquered two-thirds of the world's
territory has now been turned into a bunch of soul-less slaves
serving other people. My dear fellow-countrymen, if we cannot paint
the bones of our ancestors in gold, the least we could do is not to
throw their gray hair in the wind.
But why did the author begrudge the masses for being materialistic
when the Dalai Lamas for generations have been so glad to collect gold
watches, diamond music boxes, all kinds of jewels, and tons and tons
of gold bars and gold coins? Why can't he have a little compassion
and share the joy of his own people whose parents or grandparents were
serfs working in extreme conditions just to have food in the stomach
in the end of the day while the abbots and landowners lived like
kings?
While I can sympathize with Theurang, the author, for his sentimental
yearning for an era that is gone, there is no suggestion whatsoever
that "They treat us like animials".
Actually, the author is extremely confused about that certain "race
that once conquered two-thirds of the world's territory" that, in his
view, "has now been turned into a bunch of soul-less slaves serving
other people". Be a little more kind to your own people and a lot
less assured of your righteousness, will you?
First, as you know from history, there might have been a "race" that
"once conquered two-thirds of the world's territory", if you want to
discount the Americas and Africa as well as much of the rest of the
planet, but it couldn't hold on to much of that territory for even a
hundred years. Part of the reason, about which many historians can
readily agree, is that the Mongols weren't sufficiently sophisticated
to rule that amount of territory, once they got off their horses and
put their swords away.
Second, the Tibetan masses didn't have a chance once they were turned
into serfs serving the monks after the latter figured out how to use
religion to make them superstitious, illiterate, and willing to work
for the ruling class practically for free for their entire lives and
still expect to reincarnate as worms in the next life.
Given the historical context, the Tibetans never had a choice. They
were only liberated when the CCP came and wrested the power from the
landowners and the abbots, and outlawed serfdom and instituted land
reform.
Theurang can fill himself with "anger" and let "resentment boil in"
his own heart. But what he has described lends plenty of support to
the Chinese government's claim that the West's accusation that it
represses the Tibetans is a lie.
China's ruling class has no incentive to repress its minorities
because there are so many of them in substantial numbers. If they do
not repress the Miao or the Manchu, for example, then what motivation
is there for them to selectively repress the Uighurs or Da Lama's
followers, other than the facts that they are terrorists and
treacherous elements in the society who are wilfully working with
foreigners to destabilize the country to cause it to fall apart?
Thanks Theurang, your article does a lot of good to vindicate the
Chinese government - against the lies and distortions from the VOA,
RFA, and the like of BBC News' Damian Grammaticas.
lo yeeOn
>
> By Theurang
>
>During the summer, my homeland is filled with swarms of Chinese
>tourists. The rush of tourists means that elderly Tibetans are
>having difficulties circumambulating the monasteries. Covering their
>heads in robes, monks and nuns stand by gaping at the
>tourists in silence. When I see these images, when I think about them,
>I suffer from intense pain and despair. Anger and
>resentment boil in my heart. Today, under the crushing boots of
>foreigners, my homeland is suffering from degeneration and
>decay.
>
>Like swarms of ants unleashed by anthills, these increasing number of
>tourists are making preparations to settle themselves
>permanently on our lands. What makes me laugh and cry at the same time
>is to witness the smiling faces of the Tibetan masses
>lured by hard cash. Even the leaders of the nomadic villages have
>signed contracts to sell their lands. In the next two to three
>years, these visitors who call themselves tourists will settle
>permanently on our lands.
>
>When tourist vehicles arrive, ruddy-faced Tibetan women and snot-nosed
>Tibetan boys rush into action with their horses.
>Holding their breath, desperation in their eyes, they carry Chinese
>tourists on their horses and walk up the mountains. Holding
>fifty-Yuan notes in their hands, smiles written all over their faces,
>they kill their time waiting for the arrival of other tourists.
>When I see them, I wonder how a race that once conquered two-thirds of
>the world’s territory has now been turned into a
>bunch of soul-less slaves serving other people. My dear
>fellow-countrymen, if we cannot paint the bones of our ancestors in
>gold, the least we could do is not to throw their gray hair in the wind.
>
>Tourists visiting from surrounding areas carry cameras of different
>sizes in their hands. Crowds of monks, elderly folks and
>‘servicemen’ bearing horses gape at the tourists when the latter
>take pictures of nomadic villages and rivers. One of the
>tourists pointed his camera at the strange-looking eyes of these
>Tibetans and took their pictures. When I saw this, I wondered:
>‘When the tourist returns to his place, where would he advertize this
>picture and what sort of caption would he give it?’ These
>thoughts gave me intense pain and despair.
>
>Why do these tourists point their cameras on the faces of elderly
>Tibetans and take their pictures? Do these tourists not have a
>sense of ethics and morality? If we turn around and point the camera on
>their faces and take their pictures, wouldn’t they run
>away from us saying we are violating their rights? The fact that they
>keep taking pictures of our people, our mountains and our
>villages—despite knowing that such actions are unethical, immoral and
>illegal—clearly shows what kind of status our people
>enjoy. They treat us like animals lacking the ability of speech. They
>treat us as wage laborers who could be swayed in any
>direction by the lure of hard cash. They treat us as a race of ignorant
>barbarians. My dear fellow countrymen, as the saying
>goes, if sons fail to inherit the legacy of forefathers or if the
>thread fails to inherit the legacy of needles, others would keep
>trampling on our heads.
>
>What would happen if you visit a Chinese city and randomly point your
>camera on the face of a Chinese and take his picture?
>What consequences would you have to bear if you selfishly take pictures
>of homes, belongings and other precious objects of a
>city? How would the whip of laws chase you away if you trample upon the
>rights and liberties of people living in a city? Why
>can’t the standards of law and ethics of the cities be applied
>equally in our nomadic grasslands? Why can’t camera-holding
>tourists riding in cars and masses on horses enjoy equal status if
>human rights have a universal resonance? Like in the cities,
>why can’t we put up signboards in nomadic grasslands declaring,
>‘Taking pictures, peeing and spitting are strictly prohibited
>here!’
>
>http://www.tchrd.org/2013/05/they-treat-us-like-animals/
>That is no excuse to take over their country and make them a minority
>as China is doing in Tibet , Xin Jiang and Inner Mongolia
But your statement indicates that you are very, very confused.
Given my subject line, your single sentence response begins with the
impression that you were talking about Tibet being taken over when you
talked about "their country". But when you started talking about
making "them a minority", you are comparing them also with A, B, and
C, where A = Tibet, B = Xin Jiang, and C = Inner Mongolia.
So, it appears that you were comparing A with A and B and C.
While it may be logical admissible, it does not make sense to compare
A with A in a linguistic context where words are conveyed to mean
something for communication purposes. It is especially true when A
does not compare well with B or C.
While A can vacuously compare with A itself, it contributes to no
information.
A does not compare well with B because ethnic Tibetans remain the
majority of the TAR while it is possible that ethnic Han Chinese are
getting to be comparable in numbers to the Uighurs.
A also does not compare well with C because there is not a comparable
ethnic struggle in Inner Mongolia.
Furthermore, the critical issue of political importance is that A and
B and C have all been a part of China long before the communist took
over. Just compare the map of China in the Qing dynasty (for nearly
three hundred years of history) with the current one and compare the
map of the Republic of China (1911-1949) with the current Chinese map,
and you will see that the current map contains no more territory than
its two predecessors. In fact, the ROC claimed Outer Mongolia as its
own, which is a large piece of land, just as its predecessor but China
does not. But all of them claim A, B, and C as part of its territory.
So, there is no basis to talk about China "taking over" A, or B, or C,
regardless of the ethnic composition in those areas.
As to ethnic composition in any region in the world, it changes all
the time. As long as sovereignty is not a question, there is no basis
for a complaint about ethnic composition, unless you do not believe in
the freedom of movement within a country.
In the US, ethnic composition changes rapidly in recent years. Only
petty sour grapes type would complain about hispanic population to
become the majority in such and such a state.
Of course, the US killed all the American Indians to become what it is
today. China has not pursued such a policy. There is no evidence
that China's policy in Tibet is meant to harm ethnic Tibetans. It is
pure VOA, RFA type propaganda in collaboration with Da Lama and his
TGIE cohorts.
Now consider the fact that some Tibetans count the Mongols as their
forebears and thus lamented the loss of its past glory. So, a legit
question is to ask how did they manage to loss that glory?
My guess is you can't blame the CCP for robbing it from the Mongols or
the Tibetan lamas. While Mongols couldn't hold its far-flung empire
for more than some four scores and x number of years, the Tibetan
lamas stayed alive only by agreeing to be somebody else's vassel or
tributory state.
Of course, the Chinese suffered their own humiliation before the whole
world when Imperial Japan and colonialist from the West entered China
at will and carved up its prime real estate along the coasts. And
when a group of Chinese believe that they could fight off the invaders
with their fists together with their righteousness, they got shot dead
right away or if they got captured, their heads got chopped off by the
imperial Japanese soldiers' swords and were recorded for history books.
At least the intellectuals among the Chinese people at the time knew
what was wrong. They looked inside themselves. And they fought their
way out.
But let's focus on these three groups that existed in China: the
Tibetans under the lamas, the Nationalists soldiers, and the
Communists along with their peasant ally. We know that the lives of
the lamas were extremely decadent while the masses were illiterate and
relentlessly exploited. (In Heinrich Harrer's Seven Years in Tibet,
he recounted the first dinner he was invited to have dinner with the
"Holy Mother", i.e., the mother of Da Lama and the record-holder of
being the mother of the largest number of Incarnations, he counted 40
dishes at the banquet of many guests. And this was happening among
the Tibetans in the "noble class" while the masses had to work from
morning to dark, panting and moaning at the hard work they had to do
to survive. Tibet under the Lamas was clearly heading to trouble
because the system was so inequitable.) And we also know that the
Nationalist under Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek was getting
U.S. military and economic aide to fight the communists. But who were
supplying the communist guerrilla soldiers? Hardly no one, except may
be the Soviet Union. They might have given them so rifles, grenades,
and ammunition. Mostly, on a one-on-one basis, they were poorly
equipped and could not have fought off the Nationalists, not to defeat
them.
The fact, that the communist's successful takeover of China, with
little fighting, shows that they won by the force of logic - not by
force of luck.
So, of course, the Nationalists could afford only token presence in
Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it. But the
decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
But if anyone fails to see that the complaints from Tibet today mostly
come from the monks. Of course, they complain. They lost their past
glory and the last vestige of influence of the masses.
But there is no objective reason why the corrupt monk system should
not be replaced by an egalitarian one - which the communists brought
in and eventually imposed.
China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum. It is
particularly not a result of some evil doing, despite western
rhetoric. China was able to go in because the lamas system had rotten
to the core. If it was a matter of brute force, China would have been
kicked out like Nazi Germany was kicked out after losing some 26
million lives fighting their invaders. And if China was using
overwhelming force like the U.S. has been using in Afghanistan and
Iraq, then China would still be spending tens of billions hiring
military contractors to replace the departing US troops. China has
none of the problems of either Nazi Germany or the US/NATO in their
foreign adventure. Perhaps, there is a couple of reasons for that.
One, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced.
Second, Tibet is not a foreign land that China is wasting billions to
subdue with bomb, missiles, bullets, military contractors and tens of
millions of dollars of bribes to a puppet government.
For sure, China still has a Tibet problem. But as long as the U.S. is
spending a few billions each year to destabilize China through Tibet,
and to a lesser extent, Xinjiang, then China has to spend some money
to fight that off. But Tibet is not China's Afghanistan or Iraq.
lo yeeOn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: So, let's look at the unethical conduct of the Dalai
Lamas... and that of the U.S. government too! Re: No one is free of
Criticism including China.
In article <7288330.Ssghh1SrV1@Dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <peter.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>rst9 wrote:
>
>> Why don't you stop lying to serve your own agenda. Anyone is free to
>> travel to Xinjiang and Tibet, go there and see for yourself.
>
>You are not reading the article dear friend, there are no journalists aloud
>there and the reports of HR violations are big.
>Your information runs short by completely trusting CCP propaganda that
>leaves out and distorts a lot.
>
>> 3 were killed included a Chinese student from Shenyang, China, and over 260
>> injured in Boston at the Boston Marath.
>
>That is another very tragic matter, do not use this to whitewash CCP
>crimes, it does not make
>you credible in any way.
>
>No one is free of Criticism including China.
>
>Love, Peter (Neljor)
Don't be sanctimonious and don't distort what the other poster said.
He was only responding to your statement that 21 people were killed in
China's Xinjiang.
You were so rude that you even took out letters from the term "Boston
Marathon". I checked his original follow-up. He had it spelled
correctly. But you are so full of yourself that you mangled his words
and didn't care.
His response to the mention of the Xinjiang terrorist incident was:
> On Tuesday, or so it seems, 21 people were killed in the region of
> Xinjiang in northwest China.
3 were killed included a Chinese student from Shenyang, China, and
over 260 injured in Boston at the Boston Marathon.
Both incidents were domestic terrorism, at least that is how a lot of
people see them.
Both are tragic. And in the case of the Boston Marathon bombings, it
further serves to prove that invading and occupying Afghanistan has
not prevented a terrorist attack from happening in the United States.
The Chechen brothers were boys when they arrived in the States some
ten years ago and Americans troops had already been in Afghanistan by
then. So, destroying the bin Laden training camp did nothing to
prevent the attack against Americans in Libya's Benghazi on 9/11 in
2012 nor did it prevent the Boston bombings this year.
So, why are we still dragging our feet to pull out?
This has to be the most farcical withdrawing in the annals of world
civilization. Is it not a great tragedy that seven American troops
died needlessly when we had all year in 2012 to pull out but instead
the politicians want to stay until the end of 2014 just to reduce the
troops to some 12,000?
A US civilian cargo plane has crashed at Bagram airbase in
Afghanistan, killing its seven crew, officials say.
Why do they have to die? Why?
And then another 8 ISAF soldiers were killed in less than a week
later? Why?
Attacks across Afghanistan kill 8 service members, including at
least 5 Americans
And then there were 3 British soldiers killed in Afghanistan just a
week before. Why?
And then in the same week of the Bagram plane crash that killed 7
Americans, there was another military cargo plane crash taking off
from a base in Kyrgyzstan, trying to bring fuel into Afghanistan,
killing an unknown number of crew members. Why?
These victims lost their lives in Afghanistan because the old men in
Washington lied. Those who died didn't have to die, had enough of us
the people recognized the folly of the Afghan war.
There is no reason to talk up a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan
and then sit on it for three more years before reducing the troop
level to 12,000 men and still keeping Bagram. What kind of
manuevering is that - other than Washington's desire to keep the
airbase in Bagram?
That is a real tragedy that nothing China has done can match.
China has not bombed another country. And China has only wrested
power from the decadent monks and landowners.
China's success in defeating the decadent monks and landowners has
resulted in the freedom of millions of Tibetan serfs who had been
hereditarily enslaved. They were enslaved due to the lies of Tibetan
Buddhism.
The Dalai Lama always reincarnates as Dalai Lama while the serfs die
and reincarnate as worms;
The Dalai Lama is a living Buddha when in reality they love worldly
pleasure and material possessions. Indeed they used 36 people to
carry their sedans and enjoyed an opulent lifestyle at their summer
palaces at Norbulingka - so much so that they sneaked back there
often even when they were supposed to be at their official residence
praying and meditating at Potola.
The Dalai Lamas have perfect knowledge and yet they didn't even have
the foresight to choose a suitable place for their palaces. So they
built the Potola palace which no doubt killed many serfs because of
the difficulty required to build it. And yet the Dalai Lamas hated
the place and so since the 7th Dalai Lama, Norbulingka became their
lust and obsession. They built and built and destroyed the flora
and fauna. They have no doubt killed many snow leopards because
even Da Lama's private tutor from Austria, Herr Heinrich Harrer
witnessed the death of one that wandered into Norbulingka.
The Dalai Lamas were acting like scum bags and were no less
disgusting.
Unfortunately for the Tibetans, former Chinese governments only had
symbolic presence in Tibet because China was starving and occupied by
foreign forces. Only after the CCP won, the serfs were liberated and
now the masses are free to do what they want to do. They don't need
foreigners to incite violence and impose misery on them.
How do I know that? I know because a man with the nom de plume of
Theurang told me. So let's read what I said below.
lo yeeOn
Subject: The Tibetans are smiling and that makes Theurang unhappy! So
where is THeurang's compassion? Re: They treat us like animals By
Theurang (writer)
In article <7167513.oz1WfLRYUc@Dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <peter.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"They treat us like animals"
>Tuesday, 7 May 2013
>
>Tashi Rabten (pen name: Theurang) is a Tibetan writer, poet and editor
>who is serving a four-year sentence in Mianyang Prison,
>Sichuan Province. He graduated from North-West University for
>Nationalities and edited the now-banned Tibetan language
>journal "Shar Dungri" and also published "Written in Blood", a
>compilation of his poems, notes and writings on the situation in
>Tibet following the 2008 protests.
>
>In this essay, translated by TCHRD, the writer condemns the cultural
>insensitivity of Chinese tourists and the commercialization
>of Tibetan culture as the number of Chinese tourists continues to rise,
>exerting immense pressure on the fragile ecology and
>landscape of the Tibetan Plateau.
>
>They treat us like animals
Bad title! 'cos it's making a false advertisement.
A reader's normal response to the words "They treat us like animals"
is that of "They treat us badly".
The article below doesn't convey that kind of imagery. It's easy for
an average reader to say that the author is belly-aching. "What's he
complaining about? Tourists giving indigenous people money who are
all too happy to accept? Tourists snapping pictures at anybody in
sight? Tourists sharing the surrounding of monasteries with the
indigenous people? Jeez-Louise, what kind of times are we living in
today? Even if there are no tourists in London or New York, CCTV are
still all over the respective city, constantly monitoring every face
in its sight.
And the news media has just finished praising these CCTV cameras in
Boston for the speed with which the FBI succeeded in identifying the
bombing suspects.
And when you think about it, perhaps these tourist cameras may also
serve as a socially (in addition to the individually) useful function
of capturing the faces of a few potential self-immolation inciters
among the monks near the monasteries. How about that for a win-win
situation?
Also, if you read Heinrich Harrer's Sieben Jahre in Tibet (Seven Years
in Tibet), you'll learn that Da Lama had several expensive telescopes
in his possession. And he had some of them mounted on a balcony at
his Potola Palace residential quarters overlooking the town of Lhasa.
There he enjoyed peering into his telescopes to check out what the
people were doing in their gardens.
Harrer observed that many of Da Lama's subjects would, as soon as they
discovered that they were being watched and studied, quickly remove
themselves from plain view. And they would explain that they didn't
want to "sadden the heart" of their young ruler.
So, we can see that snooping is not a new phenomenon in Tibet. The
only difference is that today a tourist can aim his/her camera at you
if you are on a street while during the years when Da Lama was still
the ruler of Tibet, only he was privileged to watch over your every
moves.
So, Theurang, author of "They treat us like animials", really does not
have a legitimate complaint against either the tourists who have been
flocking to Tibet these days or the Chinese government for promoting
tourism over there.
Actually, the author is quite bitter about his fellow Tibetans who are
all too happy to earn some money by being the locals who know their
way.
What makes me laugh and cry at the same time is to witness the
smiling faces of the Tibetan masses lured by hard cash. . . .
. . . When tourist vehicles arrive, ruddy-faced Tibetan women and
snot-nosed Tibetan boys rush into action with their horses. Holding
their breath, desperation in their eyes, they carry Chinese tourists
on their horses and walk up the mountains. Holding fifty-Yuan notes
in their hands, smiles written all over their faces, they kill their
time waiting for the arrival of other tourists. When I see them, I
wonder how a race that once conquered two-thirds of the world's
territory has now been turned into a bunch of soul-less slaves
serving other people. My dear fellow-countrymen, if we cannot paint
the bones of our ancestors in gold, the least we could do is not to
throw their gray hair in the wind.
But why did the author begrudge the masses for being materialistic
when the Dalai Lamas for generations have been so glad to collect gold
watches, diamond music boxes, all kinds of jewels, and tons and tons
of gold bars and gold coins? Why can't he have a little compassion
and share the joy of his own people whose parents or grandparents were
serfs working in extreme conditions just to have food in the stomach
in the end of the day while the abbots and landowners lived like
kings?
While I can sympathize with Theurang, the author, for his sentimental
yearning for an era that is gone, there is no suggestion whatsoever
that "They treat us like animials".
Actually, the author is extremely confused about that certain "race
that once conquered two-thirds of the world's territory" that, in his
view, "has now been turned into a bunch of soul-less slaves serving
other people". Be a little more kind to your own people and a lot
less assured of your righteousness, will you?
First, as you know from history, there might have been a "race" that
"once conquered two-thirds of the world's territory", if you want to
discount the Americas and Africa as well as much of the rest of the
planet, but it couldn't hold on to much of that territory for even a
hundred years. Part of the reason, about which many historians can
readily agree, is that the Mongols weren't sufficiently sophisticated
to rule that amount of territory, once they got off their horses and
put their swords away.
Second, the Tibetan masses didn't have a chance once they were turned
into serfs serving the monks after the latter figured out how to use
religion to make them superstitious, illiterate, and willing to work
for the ruling class practically for free for their entire lives and
still expect to reincarnate as worms in the next life.
Given the historical context, the Tibetans never had a choice. They
were only liberated when the CCP came and wrested the power from the
landowners and the abbots, and outlawed serfdom and instituted land
reform.
Theurang can fill himself with "anger" and let "resentment boil in"
his own heart. But what he has described lends plenty of support to
the Chinese government's claim that the West's accusation that it
represses the Tibetans is a lie.
China's ruling class has no incentive to repress its minorities
because there are so many of them in substantial numbers. If they do
not repress the Miao or the Manchu, for example, then what motivation
is there for them to selectively repress the Uighurs or Da Lama's
followers, other than the facts that they are terrorists and
treacherous elements in the society who are wilfully working with
foreigners to destabilize the country to cause it to fall apart?
Thanks Theurang, your article does a lot of good to vindicate the
Chinese government - against the lies and distortions from the VOA,
RFA, and the like of BBC News' Damian Grammaticas.
lo yeeOn
>
> By Theurang
>
>During the summer, my homeland is filled with swarms of Chinese
>tourists. The rush of tourists means that elderly Tibetans are
>having difficulties circumambulating the monasteries. Covering their
>heads in robes, monks and nuns stand by gaping at the
>tourists in silence. When I see these images, when I think about them,
>I suffer from intense pain and despair. Anger and
>resentment boil in my heart. Today, under the crushing boots of
>foreigners, my homeland is suffering from degeneration and
>decay.
>
>Like swarms of ants unleashed by anthills, these increasing number of
>tourists are making preparations to settle themselves
>permanently on our lands. What makes me laugh and cry at the same time
>is to witness the smiling faces of the Tibetan masses
>lured by hard cash. Even the leaders of the nomadic villages have
>signed contracts to sell their lands. In the next two to three
>years, these visitors who call themselves tourists will settle
>permanently on our lands.
>
>When tourist vehicles arrive, ruddy-faced Tibetan women and snot-nosed
>Tibetan boys rush into action with their horses.
>Holding their breath, desperation in their eyes, they carry Chinese
>tourists on their horses and walk up the mountains. Holding
>fifty-Yuan notes in their hands, smiles written all over their faces,
>they kill their time waiting for the arrival of other tourists.
>When I see them, I wonder how a race that once conquered two-thirds of
>the world’s territory has now been turned into a
>bunch of soul-less slaves serving other people. My dear
>fellow-countrymen, if we cannot paint the bones of our ancestors in
>gold, the least we could do is not to throw their gray hair in the wind.
>
>Tourists visiting from surrounding areas carry cameras of different
>sizes in their hands. Crowds of monks, elderly folks and
>‘servicemen’ bearing horses gape at the tourists when the latter
>take pictures of nomadic villages and rivers. One of the
>tourists pointed his camera at the strange-looking eyes of these
>Tibetans and took their pictures. When I saw this, I wondered:
>‘When the tourist returns to his place, where would he advertize this
>picture and what sort of caption would he give it?’ These
>thoughts gave me intense pain and despair.
>
>Why do these tourists point their cameras on the faces of elderly
>Tibetans and take their pictures? Do these tourists not have a
>sense of ethics and morality? If we turn around and point the camera on
>their faces and take their pictures, wouldn’t they run
>away from us saying we are violating their rights? The fact that they
>keep taking pictures of our people, our mountains and our
>villages—despite knowing that such actions are unethical, immoral and
>illegal—clearly shows what kind of status our people
>enjoy. They treat us like animals lacking the ability of speech. They
>treat us as wage laborers who could be swayed in any
>direction by the lure of hard cash. They treat us as a race of ignorant
>barbarians. My dear fellow countrymen, as the saying
>goes, if sons fail to inherit the legacy of forefathers or if the
>thread fails to inherit the legacy of needles, others would keep
>trampling on our heads.
>
>What would happen if you visit a Chinese city and randomly point your
>camera on the face of a Chinese and take his picture?
>What consequences would you have to bear if you selfishly take pictures
>of homes, belongings and other precious objects of a
>city? How would the whip of laws chase you away if you trample upon the
>rights and liberties of people living in a city? Why
>can’t the standards of law and ethics of the cities be applied
>equally in our nomadic grasslands? Why can’t camera-holding
>tourists riding in cars and masses on horses enjoy equal status if
>human rights have a universal resonance? Like in the cities,
>why can’t we put up signboards in nomadic grasslands declaring,
>‘Taking pictures, peeing and spitting are strictly prohibited
>here!’
>
>http://www.tchrd.org/2013/05/they-treat-us-like-animals/
lo yeeOn
May 15, 2013, 5:56:39 PM5/15/13
to
Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it. But the
decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
But everyone should be able to see that the complaints concerning the
decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
way Tibet is governed today mostly come from the monks. Of course,
they complain. They have lost their past glory and the last vestige
of influence of the masses.
But there is no objective reason as to why the corrupt monk system
should not be replaced by an egalitarian one - which the communists
brought in and eventually imposed.
China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum. It is
particularly not a result of some evil doing on China's part, despite
brought in and eventually imposed.
China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum. It is
western rhetoric. China was able to go in because the lamas system
had rotted to the core. If Tibet were a reasonable "country" and if
it were a matter of brute force on the Chinese communists' part, they
would have been kicked out like Nazi Germany was kicked out from the
Soviet Union after some 26 million Soviet lives had been lost
resisting or fighting the Nazi invaders.
And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
month hiring military contractors to replace the departing US troops.
China has none of the problems of either Nazi Germany or the US/NATO
is under Chinese occupation. And there are also strong reasons for
that.
First, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced and millions
who needed to be liberated from the lamas and the landowners. And
have had a glimpse into that unspeakably dark past of that region when
the non-producing lamas ran amok in Heinricc Harrer's Seven Years of
Tibet. And many Tibetans today can attest to the social progress made
in the region. In fact, Harrer gave examples of the cruelty he had
personally witnessed, including cases in which he thought were more
inhumane than the death penalty.
As for the perception that substantive progress has actually been made
in Tibet, I will quote Cui Yuying, a contemporary Tibetan Chinese who
tells us that the lamas politics should remain buried in the past.
(See article attached below).
Second, Tibet has never been a foreign land that China had to enter
and waste billions after billions on just trying to subdue. No air
raid in the stealth of night, no missiles, no bullets, no military
contractors and tens of millions of dollars of bribes to a puppet
government.
Third, when the communists overthrew the Nationalist government in
government.
1949, they had to send troops into every province in China to assert
control. That means the populous Guangdong province in the south,
that means the desert-like Xinjiang province in the northwest, and
that means Tibet in the far west - remember that Tibet was a province
in the time of the Republic of China just as Guangdong and Xinjiang
were provinces.
There are several misconceptions in the Tibetan issue the West has
concocted and nurtured through its propaganda machine:
1) Some behavior of some monks in Tibet (the media is able to capture)
means the same behavior for all Tibetans (if they are given the chance
- which is that all are for the Dalai Lama and all are against China).
In fact many Tibetans, like Cui Yuhing, have no desire to surrender
their current way of life to a lama-dominated society or a society
dominated by lamas as puppet of some foreign power and do not welcome
the return of the Dalai Lama.
2) Tibet was an independent country until the communists took over
China and entered Tibet - it has been "occupied" by China ever since.
If it were true, then Tibet would have been a member of the UN which
was formed in 1945 under the U.S.'s leadership - keep in mind that the
communists were still four years away from defeating the Nationalists.
The truth is since 1644 at the founding of the Qing dynasty and
through out the decades of Nationalist rule from 1911-1949, Tibet was
a "province" of China. Just check all the relevant Chinese maps to
convince yourself of this unintrovertible fact! Tibet has for
hundreds of years a part of China.
And if the Tibetans were unhappy with the Chinese rule, they should
have done something about it. But they never did. The lamas and
landowners enjoyed massively decadent lives with most the province's
wealth at their disposal while the masses live in abject proverty and
despair. The ruling class was outwardly hostile to technology and
progress, according to Harrer. It was able to do that for two
reasons: i) it was a different time when Tibet was hard to reach so
that the ruling class could exploit the masses with impunity; and ii)
the lamas have successfully beaten a massively false belief system
into the brains of the masses that resulted in their willingness to do
anything the ruling class wanted.
But regarding i) above, the time has changed. Global transportation
and communication progress means that the lamas could not keep up with
their decadent live style and be able to get away with it. So, when
the Chinese came in to assert control, the lamas had to yield, no
matter how unwillingly. Regarding ii), China is still working on a
massive resuscitation program to take the people out of their stupid
superstitions and ignorance. But it is a good thing to separate
governing from religion. And so, the requirement for all people in
China to get a mandatory secondary education until 18 years of age
before monkhood means that you are more likely to be making a mature
decision than are doing it because of brainwashing or coercion.
In any case, Tibet has never had a record of independence and the
reason why the lamas were able to reign free with cruelty was only
because of inaccessibility of the geographic area in the old days.
And even today, no country thinks that the monks are capable of
running a country. There is no political basis for an independent
Tibet except the empty talks funded by US Congress's propaganda arm:
the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
3) China is repressive in Tibet.
If it were true, Tibetans would have risen up in a meaningful way like
the Soviet citizens rose up against the invading Nazi soldiers - not
just red-robed monks kicking down doors of business shops in Lhasa in
2008 in the lead up to China's first hosting of a Summer Olympics or
the highly staged ritual sacrifice of children by fire.
Whatever security measures China's been forced to use in Tibet today,
it is inextricably tied to the uninterrupted stream of foreign-funded
violent activities inside Tibet through the cooperation of some monks
who are working with those Tibetan monks in exile.
So, for as long as foreign subversive activities are at work in Tibet,
the question of how the majority of Tibetans feel about China is hard
to sort out.
China is not intentionally or irrationally repressive in Tibet.
Police presence is simply correlated with the amount of subversion
that goes on. China is in fact fighting a foreign enemy who is intent
on spending a lot of money to pry Tibet loose for its own geopolitical
gain. For as long as the U.S. is massively funding the Tibet issue,
China has in effect no choice but to respond as a security issue for
the entire Chinese population. China just does not want to be made
into an Iraq, an Afghanistan, a Libya, or a Syria. The Chinese people
deserve better if they can defend themselves.
For sure, China still has a Tibet problem. But as long as the U.S. is
spending a few billions each year to destabilize China through Tibet,
and to a lesser extent, Xinjiang, then China has to spend some money
indigenuous or externally caused. And since no western political
system today is willing to tolerate a system where monks make all
political decisions, the West's support for the Dalai Lama and his
TGIE cohorts cannot be viewed in any other way except with suspicions.
But Tibet is not China's Afghanistan or Iraq.
lo yeeOn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tibetans don't want repatriation of Dalai Lama: Chinese Vice Minister
Cui
SUBODH GAUTAM
http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=54605
BEIJING, May 12: Chinese Vice Minister in the State Council
Information Office Cui Yuying has said that the Tibetan people won't
accept the repatriation of Dalai Lama, who she said is bent on
disintegrating the country.
Cui, who was born in Tibet and later also became chief of Tibet
Autonomous Region (TAR), said people living in TAR do not accept the
political ideology held by Dalai Lama. Foreign media might have been
spreading rumors that Tibetan people want repatriation of Dalai
Lama. But this is not the situation," she said. "Our investigation
has shown that Tibetans do not want to see Dalai Lama coming back."
Cui said that 14th Dalai Lama had not done anything to bring about
development in Tibet. "Dalai Lama only tried to disintegrate the
country. Tibetans do not agree with this kind of thought," she told
visiting journalists from Nepal and India on Thursday evening.
Stating that it was China, which gave him the title of Dalai Lama,
Vice Minister Cui said, "The recognition was not given only for the
14th Dalai Lama, but also for all his predecessors. But Tibetan people
do not agree with the political ideology of the 14th Lama."
Asked if the Chinese government had made any initiatives to repatriate
some 200,000 Tibetan refugees living in India, Cui said, "There is no
problem for Tibetans who would enter Tibet individually. But it is
difficult for those who enter Tibet as a representative of Dalai
Lama," she further said. Dalai Lama, who has been advocating for Free
Tibet, is living an exiled life in Dharmashala, India since 1959.
Cui said there won't be any change in Chinese policy toward the
Tibetans living abroad. "There are many rights and privileges secured
for Tibetans returning to Tibet on individual basis. They will return
to Tibet if they learn about this. Doors are always open for them to
Tibet," she said.
Cui said Dalai Lama might have told that Tibet was like heaven and the
people had everything they needed during his rule. "But that was not
the case. There was abject poverty in Tibet during those days,"
While claiming that US intelligence agency CIA had been distributing
money to Dalai Lama and his followers, Cui said, "Dalai Lama has not
spent that money wisely. This is the reason why his followers are
living a miserable life," she added.
On the occasion, she also mentioned that Chinese government had placed
Tibet in its priority list and it was bringing about development in
different sectors in Tibet. "Tibet was completely different 50 or 60
years ago. The life styles of Tibetan people have changed only
recently," she told.
While there was only one kilometer road from Potala Place to Winter
Palace, only two percent of the population was literate in Tibet when
Dalai Lama had left Tibet. There were no programs for the conservation
of monasteries. The average life expectancy has now reached 70 years
against 36 years back in the 1960s and 99 percent of the Tibetan
people have access to free education. Tibet now has seven airports and
widely connected road network.
Published on 2013-05-13 06:40:23
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Subject: So, let's look at the unethical conduct of the Dalai
lo yeeOn
May 15, 2013, 6:21:43 PM5/15/13
to
In article <273693075.u9UVT7NB25@Dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <peter.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>lo yeeOn wrote:
>
>> Explain how Tibet evolved from its Genghis Khan days of glory to a time
>> when the CIA's modern weapons and logistics could not help Da Lama and his
>> troops to resist the PLA for more than a few weeks - something was rotten
>> in Potala Palace with the lamas! Re: The Dark Ages in Tibet under the rule
>> of the Lamas are thankfully gone
>
>If you internet is not blocked by China's firewall you can find all (non
>CCP based) information there.
>
>Take Care dear friend, Peter
Cut out this "dear friend" crap. It is nauseating because you have no
substance in your response and you clearly did not mean what you said.
As to your "If you internet is not blocked by China's firewall you can
find all (non CCP based) information there" line:
I can say that for any "non CCP based" information on the internet,
you have already dished it out here in these newsgroups, and it is
massively uninformative. And if you disagree, just cite one source
that can explain to anyone here how Tibet ended up falling so fast
from its Genghis Khan glory. Genghis Khan died in the 1200's. There
were no CCP then. So, what happened? Did the CCP set up a firewall
by its previous incarnations to cause the lamas to fall from its
Genghis Khan glory, like a bunch of fallen angels? And if so, what
might those "incarnations" be?
The lamas have fallen. And that's why they are agitating to return.
But once they are fallen, they cannot rise again. You ought to tell
them that.
But it is clear that you were just being evasive because I was citing
what you have posted as evidence that your propaganda has mercilessly
worked against Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts.
So, let's go back to my original response with a current edit.
lo yeeOn
Subject: Explain how Tibet evolved from its Genghis Khan days of glory
to a time when the CIA's modern weapons and logistics could not help
Da Lama and his troops to resist the PLA for more than a few weeks -
something was rotten in Potala Palace with the lamas! Re: The Dark
Ages in Tibet under the rule of the Lamas are thankfully gone
So, of course, the Nationalists could afford only a token presence in
they complain. They have lost their past glory and the last vestige
China has none of the problems of either Nazi Germany or the US/NATO
2) Subject: So, let's look at the unethical conduct of the Dalai
Peter Terpstra <peter.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>lo yeeOn wrote:
>
>> Explain how Tibet evolved from its Genghis Khan days of glory to a time
>> when the CIA's modern weapons and logistics could not help Da Lama and his
>> troops to resist the PLA for more than a few weeks - something was rotten
>> in Potala Palace with the lamas! Re: The Dark Ages in Tibet under the rule
>> of the Lamas are thankfully gone
>
>If you internet is not blocked by China's firewall you can find all (non
>CCP based) information there.
>
>Take Care dear friend, Peter
Cut out this "dear friend" crap. It is nauseating because you have no
substance in your response and you clearly did not mean what you said.
As to your "If you internet is not blocked by China's firewall you can
find all (non CCP based) information there" line:
I can say that for any "non CCP based" information on the internet,
you have already dished it out here in these newsgroups, and it is
massively uninformative. And if you disagree, just cite one source
that can explain to anyone here how Tibet ended up falling so fast
from its Genghis Khan glory. Genghis Khan died in the 1200's. There
were no CCP then. So, what happened? Did the CCP set up a firewall
by its previous incarnations to cause the lamas to fall from its
Genghis Khan glory, like a bunch of fallen angels? And if so, what
might those "incarnations" be?
The lamas have fallen. And that's why they are agitating to return.
But once they are fallen, they cannot rise again. You ought to tell
them that.
But it is clear that you were just being evasive because I was citing
what you have posted as evidence that your propaganda has mercilessly
worked against Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts.
So, let's go back to my original response with a current edit.
lo yeeOn
Subject: Explain how Tibet evolved from its Genghis Khan days of glory
to a time when the CIA's modern weapons and logistics could not help
Da Lama and his troops to resist the PLA for more than a few weeks -
something was rotten in Potala Palace with the lamas! Re: The Dark
Ages in Tibet under the rule of the Lamas are thankfully gone
Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it. But the
decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
But everyone should be able to see that the complaints concerning the
way Tibet is governed today mostly come from the monks. Of course,
they complain. They have lost their past glory and the last vestige
of influence of the masses.
But there is no objective reason as to why the corrupt monk system
should not be replaced by an egalitarian one - which the communists
brought in and eventually imposed.
China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum. It is
particularly not a result of some evil doing on China's part, despite
brought in and eventually imposed.
China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum. It is
western rhetoric. China was able to go in because the lamas system
had rotted to the core. If Tibet were a reasonable "country" and if
it were a matter of brute force on the Chinese communists' part, they
would have been kicked out like Nazi Germany was kicked out from the
Soviet Union after some 26 million Soviet lives had been lost
resisting or fighting the Nazi invaders.
And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
month hiring military contractors to replace the departing US troops.
it were a matter of brute force on the Chinese communists' part, they
would have been kicked out like Nazi Germany was kicked out from the
Soviet Union after some 26 million Soviet lives had been lost
resisting or fighting the Nazi invaders.
And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
China has none of the problems of either Nazi Germany or the US/NATO
in their foreign adventure. Therefore, it is hard to see that Tibet
is under Chinese occupation. And there are also strong reasons for
that.
First, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced and millions
who needed to be liberated from the lamas and the landowners. And
have had a glimpse into that unspeakably dark past of that region when
the non-producing lamas ran amok in Heinricc Harrer's Seven Years of
Tibet. And many Tibetans today can attest to the social progress made
in the region. In fact, Harrer gave examples of the cruelty he had
personally witnessed, including cases in which he thought were more
inhumane than the death penalty.
As for the perception that substantive progress has actually been made
in Tibet, I will quote Cui Yuying, a contemporary Tibetan Chinese who
tells us that the lamas politics should remain buried in the past.
(See article attached below).
Second, Tibet has never been a foreign land that China had to enter
and waste billions after billions on just trying to subdue. No air
raid in the stealth of night, no missiles, no bullets, no military
is under Chinese occupation. And there are also strong reasons for
that.
First, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced and millions
who needed to be liberated from the lamas and the landowners. And
have had a glimpse into that unspeakably dark past of that region when
the non-producing lamas ran amok in Heinricc Harrer's Seven Years of
Tibet. And many Tibetans today can attest to the social progress made
in the region. In fact, Harrer gave examples of the cruelty he had
personally witnessed, including cases in which he thought were more
inhumane than the death penalty.
As for the perception that substantive progress has actually been made
in Tibet, I will quote Cui Yuying, a contemporary Tibetan Chinese who
tells us that the lamas politics should remain buried in the past.
(See article attached below).
Second, Tibet has never been a foreign land that China had to enter
and waste billions after billions on just trying to subdue. No air
contractors and tens of millions of dollars of bribes to a puppet
government.
government.
For sure, China still has a Tibet problem. But as long as the U.S. is
spending a few billions each year to destabilize China through Tibet,
and to a lesser extent, Xinjiang, then China has to spend some money
spending a few billions each year to destabilize China through Tibet,
and to a lesser extent, Xinjiang, then China has to spend some money
to fight that off. Besides, nobody is able to tell whether it is
indigenuous or externally caused. And since no western political
system today is willing to tolerate a system where monks make all
political decisions, the West's support for the Dalai Lama and his
TGIE cohorts cannot be viewed in any other way except with suspicions.
indigenuous or externally caused. And since no western political
system today is willing to tolerate a system where monks make all
political decisions, the West's support for the Dalai Lama and his
TGIE cohorts cannot be viewed in any other way except with suspicions.
But Tibet is not China's Afghanistan or Iraq.
lo yeeOn
lo yeeOn
lo yeeOn
May 15, 2013, 6:57:51 PM5/15/13
to
In article <5db27a86-72b3-465d...@a10g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>,
The Progressive Voice <thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 11, 6:45 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
Replacement of some broken paragraphs I hastily presented last time:
[China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum. It
by countries during WWII.)
And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
month hiring military contractors to replace the departing US
>
>There is no evidence that the degree of exploitation prevelant in
>china was the same in Tibet. Remember Tibet outloawed the death
>penalty in 1912.
I am sorry a) I fail to parse the first sentence of your response and
b) I have realized that I had some incomplete sentences in my previous
post that might have confused you too.
So, I have inserted a replacement for the broken paragraphs that I
might have created a confusion for my readers. And I am also
attaching the entire post (with the current edit) right after my
signature so that maybe you Tom Jigme Wheat can clarify what you
wanted to say.
But as far as the death penalty being outlawed in 1912, which even if
I believe it, does not diminish the degree of cruelty in the justice
system set up and run by the lamas between 1912-1949. I have read
plenty of stories in Heinrich Harrer's Seven Years in Tibet which
together painted a grim picture of cruelty under Da Lama's sytem of
justice.
lo yeeOn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A corrected edition though no guarantee that it is error free.
Subject: Explain how Tibet evolved from its Genghis Khan days of glory
to a time when the CIA's modern weapons and logistics could not help
Da Lama and his troops to resist the PLA for more than a few weeks -
something was rotten in Potala Palace with the lamas! Re: The Dark
Ages in Tibet under the rule of the Lamas are thankfully gone
So, of course, the Nationalists could afford only a token presence in
they complain. They have lost their past glory and the last vestige
China has none of the problems of either Nazi Germany or the US/NATO
2) Subject: So, let's look at the unethical conduct of the Dalai
>the world’s territory has now been turned into a
>picture and what sort of caption would he give it?’ These
>illegal—clearly shows what kind of status our people
>equally in our nomadic grasslands? Why can’t camera-holding
>‘Taking pictures, peeing and spitting are strictly prohibited
>here!’
>
>http://www.tchrd.org/2013/05/they-treat-us-like-animals/
The Progressive Voice <thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 11, 6:45 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
[China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum. It
is particularly not a result of some evil doing on China's part,
despite western rhetoric. China was able to go in because the lamas
system had rotted to the core. If Tibet were a reasonable "country"
and if it were a matter of brute force on the Chinese communists'
part, they would have been kicked out like Nazi Germany was kicked
out from the Soviet Union after some 26 million Soviet lives had
been lost resisting or fighting the Nazi invaders.
(The 26 million figure is taken from a wikipedia articles on losses
and if it were a matter of brute force on the Chinese communists'
part, they would have been kicked out like Nazi Germany was kicked
out from the Soviet Union after some 26 million Soviet lives had
been lost resisting or fighting the Nazi invaders.
by countries during WWII.)
And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
troops.
China has none of the problems of either Nazi Germany or the US/NATO
China has none of the problems of either Nazi Germany or the US/NATO
in their foreign adventure. Therefore, it is hard to see that Tibet
is under Chinese occupation. And there are also strong reasons for
that.
First, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced and
millions who needed to be liberated from the lamas and the
landowners. And have had a glimpse into that unspeakably dark past
of that region when the non-producing lamas ran amok in Heinrich
is under Chinese occupation. And there are also strong reasons for
that.
First, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced and
millions who needed to be liberated from the lamas and the
landowners. And have had a glimpse into that unspeakably dark past
Harrer's Seven Years of Tibet. And many Tibetans today can attest
to the social progress made in the region. In fact, Harrer gave
examples of the cruelty he had personally witnessed, including cases
in which he thought were more inhumane than the death penalty.
. . . (long addition - please see attachment below)]
to the social progress made in the region. In fact, Harrer gave
examples of the cruelty he had personally witnessed, including cases
in which he thought were more inhumane than the death penalty.
>
>There is no evidence that the degree of exploitation prevelant in
>china was the same in Tibet. Remember Tibet outloawed the death
>penalty in 1912.
I am sorry a) I fail to parse the first sentence of your response and
b) I have realized that I had some incomplete sentences in my previous
post that might have confused you too.
So, I have inserted a replacement for the broken paragraphs that I
might have created a confusion for my readers. And I am also
attaching the entire post (with the current edit) right after my
signature so that maybe you Tom Jigme Wheat can clarify what you
wanted to say.
But as far as the death penalty being outlawed in 1912, which even if
I believe it, does not diminish the degree of cruelty in the justice
system set up and run by the lamas between 1912-1949. I have read
plenty of stories in Heinrich Harrer's Seven Years in Tibet which
together painted a grim picture of cruelty under Da Lama's sytem of
justice.
lo yeeOn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A corrected edition though no guarantee that it is error free.
Subject: Explain how Tibet evolved from its Genghis Khan days of glory
to a time when the CIA's modern weapons and logistics could not help
Da Lama and his troops to resist the PLA for more than a few weeks -
something was rotten in Potala Palace with the lamas! Re: The Dark
Ages in Tibet under the rule of the Lamas are thankfully gone
Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it. But the
decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
But everyone should be able to see that the complaints concerning the
way Tibet is governed today mostly come from the monks. Of course,
they complain. They have lost their past glory and the last vestige
of influence of the masses.
But there is no objective reason as to why the corrupt monk system
should not be replaced by an egalitarian one - which the communists
brought in and eventually imposed.
China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum. It is
particularly not a result of some evil doing on China's part, despite
brought in and eventually imposed.
China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum. It is
western rhetoric. China was able to go in because the lamas system
had rotted to the core. If Tibet were a reasonable "country" and if
it were a matter of brute force on the Chinese communists' part, they
would have been kicked out like Nazi Germany was kicked out from the
Soviet Union after some 26 million Soviet lives had been lost
resisting or fighting the Nazi invaders.
And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
month hiring military contractors to replace the departing US troops.
it were a matter of brute force on the Chinese communists' part, they
would have been kicked out like Nazi Germany was kicked out from the
Soviet Union after some 26 million Soviet lives had been lost
resisting or fighting the Nazi invaders.
And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
China has none of the problems of either Nazi Germany or the US/NATO
in their foreign adventure. Therefore, it is hard to see that Tibet
is under Chinese occupation. And there are also strong reasons for
that.
First, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced and millions
who needed to be liberated from the lamas and the landowners. And
have had a glimpse into that unspeakably dark past of that region when
the non-producing lamas ran amok in Heinrich Harrer's Seven Years of
is under Chinese occupation. And there are also strong reasons for
that.
First, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced and millions
who needed to be liberated from the lamas and the landowners. And
have had a glimpse into that unspeakably dark past of that region when
Tibet. And many Tibetans today can attest to the social progress made
in the region. In fact, Harrer gave examples of the cruelty he had
personally witnessed, including cases in which he thought were more
inhumane than the death penalty.
As for the perception that substantive progress has actually been made
in Tibet, I will quote Cui Yuying, a contemporary Tibetan Chinese who
tells us that the lamas politics should remain buried in the past.
(See article attached below).
Second, Tibet has never been a foreign land that China had to enter
and waste billions after billions on just trying to subdue. No air
raid in the stealth of night, no missiles, no bullets, no military
in the region. In fact, Harrer gave examples of the cruelty he had
personally witnessed, including cases in which he thought were more
inhumane than the death penalty.
As for the perception that substantive progress has actually been made
in Tibet, I will quote Cui Yuying, a contemporary Tibetan Chinese who
tells us that the lamas politics should remain buried in the past.
(See article attached below).
Second, Tibet has never been a foreign land that China had to enter
and waste billions after billions on just trying to subdue. No air
contractors and tens of millions of dollars of bribes to a puppet
government.
government.
For sure, China still has a Tibet problem. But as long as the U.S. is
spending a few billions each year to destabilize China through Tibet,
and to a lesser extent, Xinjiang, then China has to spend some money
spending a few billions each year to destabilize China through Tibet,
and to a lesser extent, Xinjiang, then China has to spend some money
to fight that off. Besides, nobody is able to tell whether it is
indigenuous or externally caused. And since no western political
system today is willing to tolerate a system where monks make all
political decisions, the West's support for the Dalai Lama and his
TGIE cohorts cannot be viewed in any other way except with suspicions.
indigenuous or externally caused. And since no western political
system today is willing to tolerate a system where monks make all
political decisions, the West's support for the Dalai Lama and his
TGIE cohorts cannot be viewed in any other way except with suspicions.
But Tibet is not China's Afghanistan or Iraq.
lo yeeOn
lo yeeOn
>bunch of soul-less slaves serving other people. My dear
>fellow-countrymen, if we cannot paint the bones of our ancestors in
>gold, the least we could do is not to throw their gray hair in the wind.
>
>Tourists visiting from surrounding areas carry cameras of different
>sizes in their hands. Crowds of monks, elderly folks and
>‘servicemen’ bearing horses gape at the tourists when the latter
>fellow-countrymen, if we cannot paint the bones of our ancestors in
>gold, the least we could do is not to throw their gray hair in the wind.
>
>Tourists visiting from surrounding areas carry cameras of different
>sizes in their hands. Crowds of monks, elderly folks and
>take pictures of nomadic villages and rivers. One of the
>tourists pointed his camera at the strange-looking eyes of these
>Tibetans and took their pictures. When I saw this, I wondered:
>‘When the tourist returns to his place, where would he advertize this
>tourists pointed his camera at the strange-looking eyes of these
>Tibetans and took their pictures. When I saw this, I wondered:
>picture and what sort of caption would he give it?’ These
>thoughts gave me intense pain and despair.
>
>Why do these tourists point their cameras on the faces of elderly
>Tibetans and take their pictures? Do these tourists not have a
>sense of ethics and morality? If we turn around and point the camera on
>their faces and take their pictures, wouldn’t they run
>
>Why do these tourists point their cameras on the faces of elderly
>Tibetans and take their pictures? Do these tourists not have a
>sense of ethics and morality? If we turn around and point the camera on
>away from us saying we are violating their rights? The fact that they
>keep taking pictures of our people, our mountains and our
>villages—despite knowing that such actions are unethical, immoral and
>keep taking pictures of our people, our mountains and our
>illegal—clearly shows what kind of status our people
>enjoy. They treat us like animals lacking the ability of speech. They
>treat us as wage laborers who could be swayed in any
>direction by the lure of hard cash. They treat us as a race of ignorant
>barbarians. My dear fellow countrymen, as the saying
>goes, if sons fail to inherit the legacy of forefathers or if the
>thread fails to inherit the legacy of needles, others would keep
>trampling on our heads.
>
>What would happen if you visit a Chinese city and randomly point your
>camera on the face of a Chinese and take his picture?
>What consequences would you have to bear if you selfishly take pictures
>of homes, belongings and other precious objects of a
>city? How would the whip of laws chase you away if you trample upon the
>rights and liberties of people living in a city? Why
>can’t the standards of law and ethics of the cities be applied
>treat us as wage laborers who could be swayed in any
>direction by the lure of hard cash. They treat us as a race of ignorant
>barbarians. My dear fellow countrymen, as the saying
>goes, if sons fail to inherit the legacy of forefathers or if the
>thread fails to inherit the legacy of needles, others would keep
>trampling on our heads.
>
>What would happen if you visit a Chinese city and randomly point your
>camera on the face of a Chinese and take his picture?
>What consequences would you have to bear if you selfishly take pictures
>of homes, belongings and other precious objects of a
>city? How would the whip of laws chase you away if you trample upon the
>rights and liberties of people living in a city? Why
>equally in our nomadic grasslands? Why can’t camera-holding
>tourists riding in cars and masses on horses enjoy equal status if
>human rights have a universal resonance? Like in the cities,
>why can’t we put up signboards in nomadic grasslands declaring,
>human rights have a universal resonance? Like in the cities,
>‘Taking pictures, peeing and spitting are strictly prohibited
>here!’
>
>http://www.tchrd.org/2013/05/they-treat-us-like-animals/
lo yeeOn
May 16, 2013, 1:16:24 AM5/16/13
to
In article <518c31f3....@news.giganews.com>, <hab...@anony.net> wrote:
>That is no excuse to take over their country and make them a minority
>as China is doing in Tibet , Xin Jiang and Inner Mongolia
But your statement indicates that you are very, very confused.
Given my subject line, your single sentence response begins with the
impression that you were talking about Tibet being taken over when you
talked about "their country". But when you started talking about
making "them a minority", you are comparing them also with A, B, and
C, where A = Tibet, B = Xin Jiang, and C = Inner Mongolia.
So, it appears that you were comparing A with A and B and C.
While it may be logical admissible, it does not make sense to compare
A with A in a linguistic context where words are conveyed to mean
something for communication purposes. It is especially true when A
does not compare well with B or C.
While A can vacuously compare with A itself, it contributes to no
information.
A does not compare well with B because ethnic Tibetans remain the
majority of the TAR while it is possible that ethnic Han Chinese are
getting to be comparable in numbers to the Uighurs.
A also does not compare well with C because there is not a comparable
ethnic struggle in Inner Mongolia.
Furthermore, the critical issue of political importance is that A and
B and C have all been a part of China long before the communists took
>That is no excuse to take over their country and make them a minority
>as China is doing in Tibet , Xin Jiang and Inner Mongolia
But your statement indicates that you are very, very confused.
Given my subject line, your single sentence response begins with the
impression that you were talking about Tibet being taken over when you
talked about "their country". But when you started talking about
making "them a minority", you are comparing them also with A, B, and
C, where A = Tibet, B = Xin Jiang, and C = Inner Mongolia.
So, it appears that you were comparing A with A and B and C.
While it may be logical admissible, it does not make sense to compare
A with A in a linguistic context where words are conveyed to mean
something for communication purposes. It is especially true when A
does not compare well with B or C.
While A can vacuously compare with A itself, it contributes to no
information.
A does not compare well with B because ethnic Tibetans remain the
majority of the TAR while it is possible that ethnic Han Chinese are
getting to be comparable in numbers to the Uighurs.
A also does not compare well with C because there is not a comparable
ethnic struggle in Inner Mongolia.
Furthermore, the critical issue of political importance is that A and
over. Just compare the map of China in the Qing dynasty (for nearly
three hundred years of history) with the current one and compare the
map of the Republic of China (1911-1949) with the current Chinese map,
and you will see that the current map contains no more territory than
its two predecessors. In fact, the ROC claimed Outer Mongolia as its
own, which is a large piece of land, just as its predecessor did but
three hundred years of history) with the current one and compare the
map of the Republic of China (1911-1949) with the current Chinese map,
and you will see that the current map contains no more territory than
its two predecessors. In fact, the ROC claimed Outer Mongolia as its
China does not. But all of them claim A, B, and C as part of its
territory.
So, there is no basis to talk about China "taking over" A, or B, or C,
regardless of the ethnic composition in those areas.
As to ethnic composition in any region in the world, it changes all
the time. As long as sovereignty is not a question, there is no basis
for a complaint about ethnic composition, unless you do not believe in
the freedom of movement within a country.
In the US, ethnic composition has changed rapidly in recent years.
territory.
So, there is no basis to talk about China "taking over" A, or B, or C,
regardless of the ethnic composition in those areas.
As to ethnic composition in any region in the world, it changes all
the time. As long as sovereignty is not a question, there is no basis
for a complaint about ethnic composition, unless you do not believe in
the freedom of movement within a country.
Only petty sour grapes types complain about the hispanic population
becoming the majority in such and such a state.
Of course, the US killed all the American Indians to become what it is
today. China has not pursued such a policy. There is no evidence
that China's policy in Tibet is meant to harm ethnic Tibetans. It is
pure VOA, RFA type propaganda in collaboration with Da Lama and his
TGIE cohorts.
Now consider the fact that some Tibetans count the Mongols as their
forebears and thus lamented the loss of its past glory. So, a legit
My guess is you can't blame the CCP for robbing it from the Mongols or
for more than some four score and x number of years, the Tibetan
lamas stayed alive only by agreeing to be somebody else's vassal or
tributory state.
Of course, the Chinese suffered their own humiliation before the whole
world when Imperial Japan and colonialists from the West entered China
Of course, the Chinese suffered their own humiliation before the whole
at will and carved up its prime real estate along the coasts. And
when a group of Chinese believed that with righteousness, they could
fight off the invaders with their own bare fists, they got shot dead
right away or if they got captured, their heads got chopped off with
the shiny swords the imperial Japanese soldiers wielded in full public
view. One can relive such grusome moments by viewing photos from
history books.
At least the intellectuals among the Chinese people at the time knew
what was wrong. They looked inside themselves. And they fought their
way out.
But let's focus on these three groups that existed in China: the
Tibetans under the lamas, the Nationalist soldiers, and the communists
At least the intellectuals among the Chinese people at the time knew
what was wrong. They looked inside themselves. And they fought their
way out.
But let's focus on these three groups that existed in China: the
along with their peasant allies. We know that the lives of the lamas
were extremely decadent while the masses were illiterate and
relentlessly exploited. (In Heinrich Harrer's Seven Years in Tibet,
he recounted the first dinner he was invited to have dinner with the
"Holy Mother", i.e., the mother of Da Lama and the record-holder of
being the mother of the largest number of Incarnations, he counted 40
dishes at the banquet of many guests. And this was happening among
the Tibetans in the "noble class" while the masses had to work from
morning to dark, panting and moaning at the hard work they had to do
to survive. Tibet under the Lamas was clearly heading to trouble
because the system was so inequitable.) And we also know that the
Nationalist under Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek was getting U.S.
military and economic aide to fight the communists. But who was
relentlessly exploited. (In Heinrich Harrer's Seven Years in Tibet,
he recounted the first dinner he was invited to have dinner with the
"Holy Mother", i.e., the mother of Da Lama and the record-holder of
being the mother of the largest number of Incarnations, he counted 40
dishes at the banquet of many guests. And this was happening among
the Tibetans in the "noble class" while the masses had to work from
morning to dark, panting and moaning at the hard work they had to do
to survive. Tibet under the Lamas was clearly heading to trouble
because the system was so inequitable.) And we also know that the
Nationalist under Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek was getting U.S.
supplying the communist guerrilla soldiers? Hardly anyone, except
maybe the Soviet Union. They might have given them so rifles,
grenades, and ammunition. Mostly, on a one-on-one basis, they were
poorly equipped and could not have fought off the Nationalists, not to
defeat them.
The fact that the communists successfully took over China, with little
poorly equipped and could not have fought off the Nationalists, not to
defeat them.
have had a glimpse into that unspeakably dark past of that region when
the non-producing lamas ran amok in Heinricc Harrer's Seven Years of
Tibet. And many Tibetans today can attest to the social progress made
in the region. In fact, Harrer gave examples of the cruelty he had
personally witnessed, including cases in which he thought were more
inhumane than the death penalty.
As for the perception that substantive progress has actually been made
in Tibet, I will quote Cui Yuying, a contemporary Tibetan Chinese who
tells us that the lamas politics should remain buried in the past.
(See article attached below.)
in the region. In fact, Harrer gave examples of the cruelty he had
personally witnessed, including cases in which he thought were more
inhumane than the death penalty.
As for the perception that substantive progress has actually been made
in Tibet, I will quote Cui Yuying, a contemporary Tibetan Chinese who
tells us that the lamas politics should remain buried in the past.
hundreds of years a part of China.
And if the Tibetans were unhappy with the Chinese rule, they should
have done something about it. But they never did. The lamas and
landowners enjoyed massively decadent lives with most the province's
wealth at their disposal while the masses lived in abject poverty and
And if the Tibetans were unhappy with the Chinese rule, they should
have done something about it. But they never did. The lamas and
landowners enjoyed massively decadent lives with most the province's
despair. The ruling class was outwardly hostile to technology and
progress, according to Harrer.
It was able to maintain this hostility for two reasons: i) it was a
progress, according to Harrer.
different time when Tibet was hard to reach so that the ruling class
could exploit the masses with impunity; and ii) the lamas had
successfully beaten a massively false belief system into the brains of
the masses that resulted in their willingness to do anything the
ruling class wanted.
But regarding i) above, the times have changed. Global transportation
the masses that resulted in their willingness to do anything the
ruling class wanted.
and communication progress means that the lamas could not keep up with
their decadent live style and be able to get away with it. So, when
the Chinese came in to assert control, the lamas had to yield, no
matter how unwillingly. Regarding ii), China is still working on a
massive resuscitation program to take the people out of their stupid
superstitions and ignorance. But it is a good thing to separate
governing from religion. And so, the requirement for all people in
China to get a mandatory secondary education until 18 years of age
before monkhood means that you are more likely to be making a mature
decision than are doing it because of brainwashing or coercion.
In any case, Tibet has never had a record of independence and the
reason why the lamas were able to reign free with cruelty was only
because of inaccessibility of the geographic area in the old days.
And even today, no country thinks that the monks are capable of
running a country. There is no political basis for an independent
Tibet except the empty talk funded by US Congress's propaganda arm:
their decadent live style and be able to get away with it. So, when
the Chinese came in to assert control, the lamas had to yield, no
matter how unwillingly. Regarding ii), China is still working on a
massive resuscitation program to take the people out of their stupid
superstitions and ignorance. But it is a good thing to separate
governing from religion. And so, the requirement for all people in
China to get a mandatory secondary education until 18 years of age
before monkhood means that you are more likely to be making a mature
decision than are doing it because of brainwashing or coercion.
In any case, Tibet has never had a record of independence and the
reason why the lamas were able to reign free with cruelty was only
because of inaccessibility of the geographic area in the old days.
And even today, no country thinks that the monks are capable of
running a country. There is no political basis for an independent
>Tourists visiting from surrounding areas carry cameras of different
>sizes in their hands. Crowds of monks, elderly folks and
>‘servicemen’ bearing horses gape at the tourists when the latter
>sizes in their hands. Crowds of monks, elderly folks and
>take pictures of nomadic villages and rivers. One of the
>tourists pointed his camera at the strange-looking eyes of these
>Tibetans and took their pictures. When I saw this, I wondered:
>‘When the tourist returns to his place, where would he advertize this
>tourists pointed his camera at the strange-looking eyes of these
>Tibetans and took their pictures. When I saw this, I wondered:
>picture and what sort of caption would he give it?’ These
>thoughts gave me intense pain and despair.
>
>Why do these tourists point their cameras on the faces of elderly
>Tibetans and take their pictures? Do these tourists not have a
>sense of ethics and morality? If we turn around and point the camera on
>their faces and take their pictures, wouldn’t they run
>
>Why do these tourists point their cameras on the faces of elderly
>Tibetans and take their pictures? Do these tourists not have a
>sense of ethics and morality? If we turn around and point the camera on
>away from us saying we are violating their rights? The fact that they
>keep taking pictures of our people, our mountains and our
>villages—despite knowing that such actions are unethical, immoral and
>keep taking pictures of our people, our mountains and our
>illegal—clearly shows what kind of status our people
>enjoy. They treat us like animals lacking the ability of speech. They
>treat us as wage laborers who could be swayed in any
>direction by the lure of hard cash. They treat us as a race of ignorant
>barbarians. My dear fellow countrymen, as the saying
>goes, if sons fail to inherit the legacy of forefathers or if the
>thread fails to inherit the legacy of needles, others would keep
>trampling on our heads.
>
>What would happen if you visit a Chinese city and randomly point your
>camera on the face of a Chinese and take his picture?
>What consequences would you have to bear if you selfishly take pictures
>of homes, belongings and other precious objects of a
>city? How would the whip of laws chase you away if you trample upon the
>rights and liberties of people living in a city? Why
>can’t the standards of law and ethics of the cities be applied
>treat us as wage laborers who could be swayed in any
>direction by the lure of hard cash. They treat us as a race of ignorant
>barbarians. My dear fellow countrymen, as the saying
>goes, if sons fail to inherit the legacy of forefathers or if the
>thread fails to inherit the legacy of needles, others would keep
>trampling on our heads.
>
>What would happen if you visit a Chinese city and randomly point your
>camera on the face of a Chinese and take his picture?
>What consequences would you have to bear if you selfishly take pictures
>of homes, belongings and other precious objects of a
>city? How would the whip of laws chase you away if you trample upon the
>rights and liberties of people living in a city? Why
>equally in our nomadic grasslands? Why can’t camera-holding
>tourists riding in cars and masses on horses enjoy equal status if
>human rights have a universal resonance? Like in the cities,
>why can’t we put up signboards in nomadic grasslands declaring,
>human rights have a universal resonance? Like in the cities,
>‘Taking pictures, peeing and spitting are strictly prohibited
>here!’
>
>http://www.tchrd.org/2013/05/they-treat-us-like-animals/
lo yeeOn
May 16, 2013, 9:45:41 PM5/16/13
to
In article <5db27a86-72b3-465d...@a10g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>,
The Progressive Voice <thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 11, 6:45��pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
The Progressive Voice <thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 11, 6:45��pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>> In article <518c31f3.605891...@news.giganews.com>, ��<hab...@anony.net> wrote:
>> >That is no excuse to take over their country and make them a minority
>> >as China is doing in Tibet , Xin Jiang and Inner Mongolia
>>
>> But your statement indicates that you are very, very confused.
>>
>> Given my subject line, your single sentence response begins with
>> the impression that you were talking about Tibet being taken over
>> when you talked about "their country". But when you started
>> talking about making "them a minority", you are comparing them also
>> with A, B, and C, where A = Tibet, B = Xin Jiang, and C = Inner
>> Mongolia.
>>
>> So, it appears that you were comparing A with A and B and C.
>>
>> While it may be logical admissible, it does not make sense to
>> compare A with A in a linguistic context where words are conveyed
>> to mean something for communication purposes. It is especially
>> true when A does not compare well with B or C.
>>
>> While A can vacuously compare with A itself, it contributes to no
>> information.
>>
>> A does not compare well with B because ethnic Tibetans remain the
>> majority of the TAR while it is possible that ethnic Han Chinese
>> are getting to be comparable in numbers to the Uighurs.
>>
>> A also does not compare well with C because there is not a
>> comparable ethnic struggle in Inner Mongolia.
>>
>> Furthermore, the critical issue of political importance is that A
>> and B and C have all been a part of China long before the
>> communists took over. Just compare the map of China in the Qing
>> >That is no excuse to take over their country and make them a minority
>> >as China is doing in Tibet , Xin Jiang and Inner Mongolia
>>
>> But your statement indicates that you are very, very confused.
>>
>> Given my subject line, your single sentence response begins with
>> the impression that you were talking about Tibet being taken over
>> when you talked about "their country". But when you started
>> talking about making "them a minority", you are comparing them also
>> with A, B, and C, where A = Tibet, B = Xin Jiang, and C = Inner
>> Mongolia.
>>
>> So, it appears that you were comparing A with A and B and C.
>>
>> While it may be logical admissible, it does not make sense to
>> compare A with A in a linguistic context where words are conveyed
>> to mean something for communication purposes. It is especially
>> true when A does not compare well with B or C.
>>
>> While A can vacuously compare with A itself, it contributes to no
>> information.
>>
>> A does not compare well with B because ethnic Tibetans remain the
>> majority of the TAR while it is possible that ethnic Han Chinese
>> are getting to be comparable in numbers to the Uighurs.
>>
>> A also does not compare well with C because there is not a
>> comparable ethnic struggle in Inner Mongolia.
>>
>> Furthermore, the critical issue of political importance is that A
>> and B and C have all been a part of China long before the
>> dynasty (for nearly three hundred years of history) with the
>> current one and compare the map of the Republic of China
>> (1911-1949) with the current Chinese map, and you will see that the
>> current map contains no more territory than its two predecessors.
>> In fact, the ROC claimed Outer Mongolia as its own, which is a
>> large piece of land, just as its predecessor did but China does
>> current one and compare the map of the Republic of China
>> (1911-1949) with the current Chinese map, and you will see that the
>> current map contains no more territory than its two predecessors.
>> In fact, the ROC claimed Outer Mongolia as its own, which is a
>> not. But all of them claim A, B, and C as part of its territory.
>>
>> So, there is no basis to talk about China "taking over" A, or B, or
>> C, regardless of the ethnic composition in those areas.
>>
>> As to ethnic composition in any region in the world, it changes all
>> the time. As long as sovereignty is not a question, there is no
>> basis for a complaint about ethnic composition, unless you do not
>> believe in the freedom of movement within a country.
>>
>>
>> So, there is no basis to talk about China "taking over" A, or B, or
>> C, regardless of the ethnic composition in those areas.
>>
>> As to ethnic composition in any region in the world, it changes all
>> the time. As long as sovereignty is not a question, there is no
>> basis for a complaint about ethnic composition, unless you do not
>> believe in the freedom of movement within a country.
>>
>> In the US, ethnic composition has changed rapidly in recent years.
>> Only petty sour grapes types complain about the hispanic population
>> becoming the majority in such and such a state.
>> Only petty sour grapes types complain about the hispanic population
>>
>> Of course, the US killed all the American Indians to become what it
>> is today. China has not pursued such a policy. There is no
>> evidence that China's policy in Tibet is meant to harm ethnic
>> Tibetans. It is pure VOA, RFA type propaganda in collaboration
>> with Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts.
>>
>> Now consider the fact that some Tibetans count the Mongols as their
>> forebears and thus lamented the loss of its past glory. So, a
>> legit question is to ask how did they manage to lose that glory?
>> Of course, the US killed all the American Indians to become what it
>> is today. China has not pursued such a policy. There is no
>> evidence that China's policy in Tibet is meant to harm ethnic
>> Tibetans. It is pure VOA, RFA type propaganda in collaboration
>> with Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts.
>>
>> Now consider the fact that some Tibetans count the Mongols as their
>> forebears and thus lamented the loss of its past glory. So, a
>>
>> My guess is you can't blame the CCP for robbing it from the Mongols
>> or the Tibetan lamas. While Mongols couldn't hold their far-flung
>> My guess is you can't blame the CCP for robbing it from the Mongols
>> empire for more than some four score and x number of years, the
>> Tibetan lamas stayed alive only by agreeing to be somebody else's
>> vassal or tributory state.
>>
>> Of course, the Chinese suffered their own humiliation before the
>> whole world when Imperial Japan and colonialists from the West
>> Of course, the Chinese suffered their own humiliation before the
>> entered China at will and carved up its prime real estate along the
>> coasts. And when a group of Chinese believed that with
>> righteousness, they could fight off the invaders with their own
>> bare fists, they got shot dead right away or if they got captured,
>> their heads got chopped off with the shiny swords the imperial
>> Japanese soldiers wielded in full public view. One can relive such
>> grusome moments by viewing photos from history books.
>> righteousness, they could fight off the invaders with their own
>> bare fists, they got shot dead right away or if they got captured,
>> their heads got chopped off with the shiny swords the imperial
>> Japanese soldiers wielded in full public view. One can relive such
>>
>> At least the intellectuals among the Chinese people at the time
>> knew what was wrong. They looked inside themselves. And they
>> fought their way out.
>>
>> But let's focus on these three groups that existed in China: the
>> At least the intellectuals among the Chinese people at the time
>> knew what was wrong. They looked inside themselves. And they
>> fought their way out.
>>
>> But let's focus on these three groups that existed in China: the
>> Tibetans under the lamas, the Nationalist soldiers, and the
>> communists along with their peasant allies. We know that the lives
>> of the lamas were extremely decadent while the masses were
>> illiterate and relentlessly exploited. (In Heinrich Harrer's Seven
>> Years in Tibet, he recounted the first dinner he was invited to
>> have dinner with the "Holy Mother", i.e., the mother of Da Lama and
>> the record-holder of being the mother of the largest number of
>> Incarnations, he counted 40 dishes at the banquet of many guests.
>> And this was happening among the Tibetans in the "noble class"
>> while the masses had to work from morning to dark, panting and
>> moaning at the hard work they had to do to survive. Tibet under
>> the Lamas was clearly heading to trouble because the system was so
>> inequitable.) And we also know that the Nationalist under
>> Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek was getting U.S. military and
>> economic aide to fight the communists. But who was supplying the
>> illiterate and relentlessly exploited. (In Heinrich Harrer's Seven
>> Years in Tibet, he recounted the first dinner he was invited to
>> have dinner with the "Holy Mother", i.e., the mother of Da Lama and
>> the record-holder of being the mother of the largest number of
>> Incarnations, he counted 40 dishes at the banquet of many guests.
>> And this was happening among the Tibetans in the "noble class"
>> while the masses had to work from morning to dark, panting and
>> moaning at the hard work they had to do to survive. Tibet under
>> the Lamas was clearly heading to trouble because the system was so
>> inequitable.) And we also know that the Nationalist under
>> Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek was getting U.S. military and
>> communist guerrilla soldiers? Hardly anyone, except maybe the
>> Soviet Union. They might have given them so rifles, grenades, and
>> ammunition. Mostly, on a one-on-one basis, they were poorly
>> equipped and could not have fought off the Nationalists, not to
>> defeat them.
>>
>> The fact that the communists successfully took over China, with
>> ammunition. Mostly, on a one-on-one basis, they were poorly
>> equipped and could not have fought off the Nationalists, not to
>> defeat them.
>>
>> little fighting, shows that they won by the force of logic - not by
>> force of luck.
>>
>> So, of course, the Nationalists could afford only token presence in
>> Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it. ��But the
>> decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
>> nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
>>
>> force of luck.
>>
>> So, of course, the Nationalists could afford only token presence in
>> Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it. ��But the
>> decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
>> nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
>>
Replacement of some broken paragraphs I hastily presented last time:
[China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum. It
is particularly not a result of some evil doing on China's part,
despite western rhetoric. China was able to go in because the lamas
system had rotted to the core. If Tibet were a reasonable "country"
and if it were a matter of brute force on the Chinese communists'
part, they would have been kicked out like Nazi Germany was kicked
and if it were a matter of brute force on the Chinese communists'
out from the Soviet Union, even after some 26 million Soviet lives
had been lost resisting or fighting the Nazi invaders.
(The 26 million figure is taken from a wikipedia article on losses
by countries during WWII.)
And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
just as the US has.
And had China been compelled to fight an insurgency war anywhere in
the world since 1950, she would have been surely and totally broke!
China has clearly neither the Nazi Germany or the US/NATO problems.
Thus, it is hard to see that Tibet is ever under Chinese occupation.
And there are of course strong reasons for the difference.
First, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced and
millions who needed to be liberated from the lamas and the
of that region when the non-producing lamas ran amok in Heinrich
Harrer's Seven Years of Tibet. And many Tibetans today can attest
to the social progress made in the region. In fact, Harrer gave
examples of the cruelty he had personally witnessed, including cases
in which he thought were more inhumane than the death penalty.
to the social progress made in the region. In fact, Harrer gave
examples of the cruelty he had personally witnessed, including cases
in which he thought were more inhumane than the death penalty.
. . . (long addition - please see attachment below)]
>
>There is no evidence that the degree of exploitation prevelant in
>china was the same in Tibet. Remember Tibet outloawed the death
>penalty in 1912.
I am sorry a) I fail to parse the first sentence of your response and
b) I have realized that I had some incomplete sentences in my previous
post that might have confused you too.
So, I have inserted a replacement for the broken paragraphs that might
>
>There is no evidence that the degree of exploitation prevelant in
>china was the same in Tibet. Remember Tibet outloawed the death
>penalty in 1912.
I am sorry a) I fail to parse the first sentence of your response and
b) I have realized that I had some incomplete sentences in my previous
post that might have confused you too.
have caused confusion for my readers. And I am also attaching the
entire post (with the current edit) right after my signature so that
maybe you Tom Jigme Wheat can clarify what you wanted to say.
But as far as the death penalty being outlawed in 1912, which even if
I believe it, does not diminish the degree of cruelty in the justice
system set up and run by the lamas between 1912-1949. I have read
plenty of stories in Heinrich Harrer's Seven Years in Tibet which
together painted a grim picture of cruelty under Da Lama's sytem of
justice.
lo yeeOn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A corrected edition though no guarantee that it is error free.
Subject: Explain how Tibet evolved from its Genghis Khan days of glory
to a time when the CIA's modern weapons and logistics could not help
Da Lama and his troops to resist the PLA for more than a few weeks -
something was rotten in Potala Palace with the lamas! Re: The Dark
Ages in Tibet under the rule of the Lamas are thankfully gone
maybe you Tom Jigme Wheat can clarify what you wanted to say.
But as far as the death penalty being outlawed in 1912, which even if
I believe it, does not diminish the degree of cruelty in the justice
system set up and run by the lamas between 1912-1949. I have read
plenty of stories in Heinrich Harrer's Seven Years in Tibet which
together painted a grim picture of cruelty under Da Lama's sytem of
justice.
lo yeeOn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A corrected edition though no guarantee that it is error free.
Subject: Explain how Tibet evolved from its Genghis Khan days of glory
to a time when the CIA's modern weapons and logistics could not help
Da Lama and his troops to resist the PLA for more than a few weeks -
something was rotten in Potala Palace with the lamas! Re: The Dark
Ages in Tibet under the rule of the Lamas are thankfully gone
In article <518c31f3....@news.giganews.com>, <hab...@anony.net> wrote:
>That is no excuse to take over their country and make them a minority
>as China is doing in Tibet , Xin Jiang and Inner Mongolia
But your statement indicates that you are very, very confused.
Given my subject line, your single sentence response begins with the
impression that you were talking about Tibet being taken over when you
talked about "their country". But when you started talking about
making "them a minority", you are comparing them also with A, B, and
C, where A = Tibet, B = Xin Jiang, and C = Inner Mongolia.
So, it appears that you were comparing A with A and B and C.
While it may be logical admissible, it does not make sense to compare
A with A in a linguistic context where words are conveyed to mean
something for communication purposes. It is especially true when A
does not compare well with B or C.
While A can vacuously compare with A itself, it contributes to no
information.
A does not compare well with B because ethnic Tibetans remain the
majority of the TAR while it is possible that ethnic Han Chinese are
getting to be comparable in numbers to the Uighurs.
A also does not compare well with C because there is not a comparable
ethnic struggle in Inner Mongolia.
Furthermore, the critical issue of political importance is that A and
B and C have all been a part of China long before the communists took
>That is no excuse to take over their country and make them a minority
>as China is doing in Tibet , Xin Jiang and Inner Mongolia
But your statement indicates that you are very, very confused.
Given my subject line, your single sentence response begins with the
impression that you were talking about Tibet being taken over when you
talked about "their country". But when you started talking about
making "them a minority", you are comparing them also with A, B, and
C, where A = Tibet, B = Xin Jiang, and C = Inner Mongolia.
So, it appears that you were comparing A with A and B and C.
While it may be logical admissible, it does not make sense to compare
A with A in a linguistic context where words are conveyed to mean
something for communication purposes. It is especially true when A
does not compare well with B or C.
While A can vacuously compare with A itself, it contributes to no
information.
A does not compare well with B because ethnic Tibetans remain the
majority of the TAR while it is possible that ethnic Han Chinese are
getting to be comparable in numbers to the Uighurs.
A also does not compare well with C because there is not a comparable
ethnic struggle in Inner Mongolia.
Furthermore, the critical issue of political importance is that A and
over. Just compare the map of China in the Qing dynasty (for nearly
three hundred years of history) with the current one and compare the
map of the Republic of China (1911-1949) with the current Chinese map,
and you will see that the current map contains no more territory than
its two predecessors. In fact, the ROC claimed Outer Mongolia as its
own, which is a large piece of land, just as its predecessor did but
three hundred years of history) with the current one and compare the
map of the Republic of China (1911-1949) with the current Chinese map,
and you will see that the current map contains no more territory than
its two predecessors. In fact, the ROC claimed Outer Mongolia as its
China does not. But all of them claim A, B, and C as part of its
territory.
So, there is no basis to talk about China "taking over" A, or B, or C,
regardless of the ethnic composition in those areas.
As to ethnic composition in any region in the world, it changes all
the time. As long as sovereignty is not a question, there is no basis
for a complaint about ethnic composition, unless you do not believe in
the freedom of movement within a country.
territory.
So, there is no basis to talk about China "taking over" A, or B, or C,
regardless of the ethnic composition in those areas.
As to ethnic composition in any region in the world, it changes all
the time. As long as sovereignty is not a question, there is no basis
for a complaint about ethnic composition, unless you do not believe in
the freedom of movement within a country.
In the US, ethnic composition has changed rapidly in recent years.
Only petty sour grapes types complain about the hispanic population
becoming the majority in such and such a state.
Only petty sour grapes types complain about the hispanic population
Of course, the US killed all the American Indians to become what it is
today. China has not pursued such a policy. There is no evidence
that China's policy in Tibet is meant to harm ethnic Tibetans. It is
pure VOA, RFA type propaganda in collaboration with Da Lama and his
TGIE cohorts.
Now consider the fact that some Tibetans count the Mongols as their
forebears and thus lamented the loss of its past glory. So, a legit
My guess is you can't blame the CCP for robbing it from the Mongols or
for more than some four score and x number of years, the Tibetan
lamas stayed alive only by agreeing to be somebody else's vassal or
tributory state.
Of course, the Chinese suffered their own humiliation before the whole
world when Imperial Japan and colonialists from the West entered China
Of course, the Chinese suffered their own humiliation before the whole
at will and carved up its prime real estate along the coasts. And
when a group of Chinese believed that with righteousness, they could
fight off the invaders with their own bare fists, they got shot dead
right away or if they got captured, their heads got chopped off with
the shiny swords the imperial Japanese soldiers wielded in full public
view. One can relive such grusome moments by viewing photos from
fight off the invaders with their own bare fists, they got shot dead
right away or if they got captured, their heads got chopped off with
the shiny swords the imperial Japanese soldiers wielded in full public
view. One can relive such grusome moments by viewing photos from
history books.
At least the intellectuals among the Chinese people at the time knew
what was wrong. They looked inside themselves. And they fought their
way out.
But let's focus on these three groups that existed in China: the
At least the intellectuals among the Chinese people at the time knew
what was wrong. They looked inside themselves. And they fought their
way out.
But let's focus on these three groups that existed in China: the
Tibetans under the lamas, the Nationalist soldiers, and the communists
along with their peasant allies. We know that the lives of the lamas
were extremely decadent while the masses were illiterate and
relentlessly exploited. (In Heinrich Harrer's Seven Years in Tibet,
he recounted the first dinner he was invited to have dinner with the
"Holy Mother", i.e., the mother of Da Lama and the record-holder of
being the mother of the largest number of Incarnations, he counted 40
dishes at the banquet of many guests. And this was happening among
the Tibetans in the "noble class" while the masses had to work from
morning to dark, panting and moaning at the hard work they had to do
to survive. Tibet under the Lamas was clearly heading to trouble
because the system was so inequitable.) And we also know that the
Nationalist under Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek was getting U.S.
military and economic aide to fight the communists. But who was
relentlessly exploited. (In Heinrich Harrer's Seven Years in Tibet,
he recounted the first dinner he was invited to have dinner with the
"Holy Mother", i.e., the mother of Da Lama and the record-holder of
being the mother of the largest number of Incarnations, he counted 40
dishes at the banquet of many guests. And this was happening among
the Tibetans in the "noble class" while the masses had to work from
morning to dark, panting and moaning at the hard work they had to do
to survive. Tibet under the Lamas was clearly heading to trouble
because the system was so inequitable.) And we also know that the
Nationalist under Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek was getting U.S.
supplying the communist guerrilla soldiers? Hardly anyone, except
maybe the Soviet Union. They might have given them so rifles,
grenades, and ammunition. Mostly, on a one-on-one basis, they were
poorly equipped and could not have fought off the Nationalists, not to
defeat them.
The fact that the communists successfully took over China, with little
poorly equipped and could not have fought off the Nationalists, not to
defeat them.
fighting, shows that they won by the force of logic - not by force of
luck.
So, of course, the Nationalists could afford only a token presence in
luck.
Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it. But the
decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
But everyone should be able to see that the complaints concerning the
way Tibet is governed today mostly come from the monks. Of course,
they complain. They have lost their past glory and the last vestige
of influence of the masses.
But there is no objective reason as to why the corrupt monk system
should not be replaced by an egalitarian one - which the communists
brought in and eventually imposed.
China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum.
brought in and eventually imposed.
China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum.
It is particularly not a result of some evil doing on China's part,
despite western rhetoric.
China was able to go in because the lamas system had rotted to the
core.
If Tibet were a reasonable "country" and if it were a matter of brute
like Nazi Germany was kicked out from the Soviet Union, even after
some 26 million Soviet lives had been lost resisting or fighting the
Nazi invaders.
(The 26 million figure is taken from a wikipedia article on losses by
Nazi invaders.
countries during WWII.)
And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
just as the US has.
And had China been compelled to fight an insurgency war anywhere in
the world since 1950, she would have been surely and totally broke!
China has clearly neither the Nazi Germany or the US/NATO problems.
Thus, it is hard to see that Tibet is ever under Chinese occupation.
And there are of course strong reasons for the difference.
First, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced and millions
who needed to be liberated from the lamas and the landowners. And we
have had a glimpse into that unspeakably dark past of that region when
the non-producing lamas ran amok in Heinricc Harrer's Seven Years of
Tibet. And many Tibetans today can attest to the social progress made
in the region. In fact, Harrer gave examples of the cruelty he had
personally witnessed, including cases in which he thought were more
inhumane than the death penalty.
As for the perception that substantive progress has actually been made
in Tibet, I will quote Cui Yuying, a contemporary Tibetan Chinese who
tells us that the lamas politics should remain buried in the past.
(See article attached below.)
Second, Tibet has never been a foreign land that China had to enter
and waste billions after billions on just trying to subdue. No air
contractors and tens of millions of dollars of bribes to a puppet
government.
government.
For sure, China still has a Tibet problem. But as long as the U.S. is
spending a few billions each year to destabilize China through Tibet,
and to a lesser extent, Xinjiang, then China has to spend some money
spending a few billions each year to destabilize China through Tibet,
and to a lesser extent, Xinjiang, then China has to spend some money
to fight that off. Besides, nobody is able to tell whether it is
indigenuous or externally caused. And since no western political
system today is willing to tolerate a system where monks make all
political decisions, the West's support for the Dalai Lama and his
TGIE cohorts cannot be viewed in any other way except with suspicion.
indigenuous or externally caused. And since no western political
system today is willing to tolerate a system where monks make all
political decisions, the West's support for the Dalai Lama and his
TGIE cohorts cannot be viewed in any other way except with suspicion.
But Tibet is not China's Afghanistan or Iraq.
lo yeeOn
lo yeeOn
lo yeeOn
May 16, 2013, 9:50:40 PM5/16/13
to
In article <273693075.u9UVT7NB25@Dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <peter.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course, the US killed all the American Indians to become what it is
today. China has not pursued such a policy. There is no evidence
that China's policy in Tibet is meant to harm ethnic Tibetans. It is
pure VOA, RFA type propaganda in collaboration with Da Lama and his
TGIE cohorts.
Now consider the fact that some Tibetans count the Mongols as their
forebears and thus lamented the loss of its past glory. So, a legit
question is to ask how did they manage to lose that glory?
My guess is you can't blame the CCP for robbing it from the Mongols or
the Tibetan lamas. While Mongols couldn't hold their far-flung empire
for more than some four score and x number of years, the Tibetan
lamas stayed alive only by agreeing to be somebody else's vassal or
supplying the communist guerrilla soldiers? Hardly anyone, except
maybe the Soviet Union. They might have given them so rifles,
they complain. They have lost their past glory and the last vestige
China was able to go in because the lamas system had rotted to the
core.
If Tibet were a reasonable "country" and if it were a matter of brute
force on the Chinese communists' part, they would have been kicked out
like Nazi Germany was kicked out from the Soviet Union after some 26
2) Subject: So, let's look at the unethical conduct of the Dalai
Peter Terpstra <peter.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>lo yeeOn wrote:
>
>> Explain how Tibet evolved from its Genghis Khan days of glory to a time
>> when the CIA's modern weapons and logistics could not help Da Lama and his
>> troops to resist the PLA for more than a few weeks - something was rotten
>> in Potala Palace with the lamas! Re: The Dark Ages in Tibet under the rule
>> of the Lamas are thankfully gone
>
>
>> Explain how Tibet evolved from its Genghis Khan days of glory to a time
>> when the CIA's modern weapons and logistics could not help Da Lama and his
>> troops to resist the PLA for more than a few weeks - something was rotten
>> in Potala Palace with the lamas! Re: The Dark Ages in Tibet under the rule
>> of the Lamas are thankfully gone
>
>If you internet is not blocked by China's firewall you can find all (non
>CCP based) information there.
>
>Take Care dear friend, Peter
Cut out this "dear friend" crap. It is nauseating because you have no
substance in your response and you clearly did not mean what you said.
As to your "If you internet is not blocked by China's firewall you can
find all (non CCP based) information there" line:
I can say that for any "non CCP based" information on the internet,
you have already dished it out here in these newsgroups, and it is
massively uninformative. And if you disagree, just cite one source
that can explain to anyone here how Tibet ended up falling so fast
from its Genghis Khan glory. Genghis Khan died in the 1200's. There
was no CCP then. So, what happened? Did the CCP set up a firewall
>CCP based) information there.
>
>Take Care dear friend, Peter
Cut out this "dear friend" crap. It is nauseating because you have no
substance in your response and you clearly did not mean what you said.
As to your "If you internet is not blocked by China's firewall you can
find all (non CCP based) information there" line:
I can say that for any "non CCP based" information on the internet,
you have already dished it out here in these newsgroups, and it is
massively uninformative. And if you disagree, just cite one source
that can explain to anyone here how Tibet ended up falling so fast
from its Genghis Khan glory. Genghis Khan died in the 1200's. There
by its previous incarnations to cause the lamas to fall from its
Genghis Khan glory, like a bunch of fallen angels? And if so, what
might those "incarnations" be?
The lamas have fallen. And that's why they are agitating to return.
But once they are fallen, they cannot rise again. You ought to tell
them that.
But it is clear that you were just being evasive because I was citing
what you have posted as evidence that your propaganda has mercilessly
worked against Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts.
So, let's go back to my original response with a current edit.
lo yeeOn
Genghis Khan glory, like a bunch of fallen angels? And if so, what
might those "incarnations" be?
The lamas have fallen. And that's why they are agitating to return.
But once they are fallen, they cannot rise again. You ought to tell
them that.
But it is clear that you were just being evasive because I was citing
what you have posted as evidence that your propaganda has mercilessly
worked against Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts.
So, let's go back to my original response with a current edit.
lo yeeOn
Subject: Explain how Tibet evolved from its Genghis Khan days of glory
to a time when the CIA's modern weapons and logistics could not help
Da Lama and his troops to resist the PLA for more than a few weeks -
something was rotten in Potala Palace with the lamas! Re: The Dark
Ages in Tibet under the rule of the Lamas are thankfully gone
to a time when the CIA's modern weapons and logistics could not help
Da Lama and his troops to resist the PLA for more than a few weeks -
something was rotten in Potala Palace with the lamas! Re: The Dark
Ages in Tibet under the rule of the Lamas are thankfully gone
In article <518c31f3....@news.giganews.com>, <hab...@anony.net> wrote:
>That is no excuse to take over their country and make them a minority
>as China is doing in Tibet , Xin Jiang and Inner Mongolia
But your statement indicates that you are very, very confused.
Given my subject line, your single sentence response begins with the
impression that you were talking about Tibet being taken over when you
talked about "their country". But when you started talking about
making "them a minority", you are comparing them also with A, B, and
C, where A = Tibet, B = Xin Jiang, and C = Inner Mongolia.
So, it appears that you were comparing A with A and B and C.
While it may be logical admissible, it does not make sense to compare
A with A in a linguistic context where words are conveyed to mean
something for communication purposes. It is especially true when A
does not compare well with B or C.
While A can vacuously compare with A itself, it contributes to no
information.
A does not compare well with B because ethnic Tibetans remain the
majority of the TAR while it is possible that ethnic Han Chinese are
getting to be comparable in numbers to the Uighurs.
A also does not compare well with C because there is not a comparable
ethnic struggle in Inner Mongolia.
Furthermore, the critical issue of political importance is that A and
B and C have all been a part of China long before the communists took
>That is no excuse to take over their country and make them a minority
>as China is doing in Tibet , Xin Jiang and Inner Mongolia
But your statement indicates that you are very, very confused.
Given my subject line, your single sentence response begins with the
impression that you were talking about Tibet being taken over when you
talked about "their country". But when you started talking about
making "them a minority", you are comparing them also with A, B, and
C, where A = Tibet, B = Xin Jiang, and C = Inner Mongolia.
So, it appears that you were comparing A with A and B and C.
While it may be logical admissible, it does not make sense to compare
A with A in a linguistic context where words are conveyed to mean
something for communication purposes. It is especially true when A
does not compare well with B or C.
While A can vacuously compare with A itself, it contributes to no
information.
A does not compare well with B because ethnic Tibetans remain the
majority of the TAR while it is possible that ethnic Han Chinese are
getting to be comparable in numbers to the Uighurs.
A also does not compare well with C because there is not a comparable
ethnic struggle in Inner Mongolia.
Furthermore, the critical issue of political importance is that A and
over. Just compare the map of China in the Qing dynasty (for nearly
three hundred years of history) with the current one and compare the
map of the Republic of China (1911-1949) with the current Chinese map,
and you will see that the current map contains no more territory than
its two predecessors. In fact, the ROC claimed Outer Mongolia as its
own, which is a large piece of land, just as its predecessor did but
three hundred years of history) with the current one and compare the
map of the Republic of China (1911-1949) with the current Chinese map,
and you will see that the current map contains no more territory than
its two predecessors. In fact, the ROC claimed Outer Mongolia as its
China does not. But all of them claim A, B, and C as part of its
territory.
So, there is no basis to talk about China "taking over" A, or B, or C,
regardless of the ethnic composition in those areas.
As to ethnic composition in any region in the world, it changes all
the time. As long as sovereignty is not a question, there is no basis
for a complaint about ethnic composition, unless you do not believe in
the freedom of movement within a country.
territory.
So, there is no basis to talk about China "taking over" A, or B, or C,
regardless of the ethnic composition in those areas.
As to ethnic composition in any region in the world, it changes all
the time. As long as sovereignty is not a question, there is no basis
for a complaint about ethnic composition, unless you do not believe in
the freedom of movement within a country.
In the US, ethnic composition has changed rapidly in recent years.
Only petty sour grapes types complain about the hispanic population
becoming the majority in such and such a state.
Only petty sour grapes types complain about the hispanic population
Of course, the US killed all the American Indians to become what it is
today. China has not pursued such a policy. There is no evidence
that China's policy in Tibet is meant to harm ethnic Tibetans. It is
pure VOA, RFA type propaganda in collaboration with Da Lama and his
TGIE cohorts.
Now consider the fact that some Tibetans count the Mongols as their
forebears and thus lamented the loss of its past glory. So, a legit
My guess is you can't blame the CCP for robbing it from the Mongols or
for more than some four score and x number of years, the Tibetan
lamas stayed alive only by agreeing to be somebody else's vassal or
tributory state.
Of course, the Chinese suffered their own humiliation before the whole
world when Imperial Japan and colonialists from the West entered China
Of course, the Chinese suffered their own humiliation before the whole
at will and carved up its prime real estate along the coasts. And
when a group of Chinese believed that with righteousness, they could
fight off the invaders with their own bare fists, they got shot dead
right away or if they got captured, their heads got chopped off with
the shiny swords the imperial Japanese soldiers wielded in full public
view. One can relive such grusome moments by viewing photos from
fight off the invaders with their own bare fists, they got shot dead
right away or if they got captured, their heads got chopped off with
the shiny swords the imperial Japanese soldiers wielded in full public
view. One can relive such grusome moments by viewing photos from
history books.
At least the intellectuals among the Chinese people at the time knew
what was wrong. They looked inside themselves. And they fought their
way out.
But let's focus on these three groups that existed in China: the
At least the intellectuals among the Chinese people at the time knew
what was wrong. They looked inside themselves. And they fought their
way out.
But let's focus on these three groups that existed in China: the
Tibetans under the lamas, the Nationalist soldiers, and the communists
along with their peasant allies. We know that the lives of the lamas
were extremely decadent while the masses were illiterate and
relentlessly exploited. (In Heinrich Harrer's Seven Years in Tibet,
he recounted the first dinner he was invited to have dinner with the
"Holy Mother", i.e., the mother of Da Lama and the record-holder of
being the mother of the largest number of Incarnations, he counted 40
dishes at the banquet of many guests. And this was happening among
the Tibetans in the "noble class" while the masses had to work from
morning to dark, panting and moaning at the hard work they had to do
to survive. Tibet under the Lamas was clearly heading to trouble
because the system was so inequitable.) And we also know that the
Nationalist under Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek was getting U.S.
military and economic aide to fight the communists. But who was
relentlessly exploited. (In Heinrich Harrer's Seven Years in Tibet,
he recounted the first dinner he was invited to have dinner with the
"Holy Mother", i.e., the mother of Da Lama and the record-holder of
being the mother of the largest number of Incarnations, he counted 40
dishes at the banquet of many guests. And this was happening among
the Tibetans in the "noble class" while the masses had to work from
morning to dark, panting and moaning at the hard work they had to do
to survive. Tibet under the Lamas was clearly heading to trouble
because the system was so inequitable.) And we also know that the
Nationalist under Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek was getting U.S.
supplying the communist guerrilla soldiers? Hardly anyone, except
maybe the Soviet Union. They might have given them so rifles,
grenades, and ammunition. Mostly, on a one-on-one basis, they were
poorly equipped and could not have fought off the Nationalists, not to
defeat them.
The fact that the communists successfully took over China, with little
poorly equipped and could not have fought off the Nationalists, not to
defeat them.
fighting, shows that they won by the force of logic - not by force of
luck.
So, of course, the Nationalists could afford only a token presence in
luck.
Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it. But the
decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
But everyone should be able to see that the complaints concerning the
way Tibet is governed today mostly come from the monks. Of course,
they complain. They have lost their past glory and the last vestige
of influence of the masses.
But there is no objective reason as to why the corrupt monk system
should not be replaced by an egalitarian one - which the communists
brought in and eventually imposed.
China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum.
brought in and eventually imposed.
China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum.
It is particularly not a result of some evil doing on China's part,
despite western rhetoric.
China was able to go in because the lamas system had rotted to the
core.
If Tibet were a reasonable "country" and if it were a matter of brute
like Nazi Germany was kicked out from the Soviet Union after some 26
million Soviet lives had been lost resisting or fighting the Nazi
invaders.
(The 26 million figure is taken from a wikipedia article on losses by
countries during WWII.)
And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
month fighting an insurgency or hiring military contractors to do it
just as the US has.
And had China been compelled to fight an insurgency war anywhere in
the world since 1950, she would have been surely and totally broke!
China has clearly neither the Nazi Germany or the US/NATO problems.
Thus, it is hard to see that Tibet is ever under Chinese occupation.
And there are of course strong reasons for the difference.
invaders.
(The 26 million figure is taken from a wikipedia article on losses by
countries during WWII.)
And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
month fighting an insurgency or hiring military contractors to do it
just as the US has.
And had China been compelled to fight an insurgency war anywhere in
the world since 1950, she would have been surely and totally broke!
China has clearly neither the Nazi Germany or the US/NATO problems.
Thus, it is hard to see that Tibet is ever under Chinese occupation.
And there are of course strong reasons for the difference.
First, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced and millions
who needed to be liberated from the lamas and the landowners. And we
have had a glimpse into that unspeakably dark past of that region when
the non-producing lamas ran amok in Heinricc Harrer's Seven Years of
Tibet. And many Tibetans today can attest to the social progress made
in the region. In fact, Harrer gave examples of the cruelty he had
personally witnessed, including cases in which he thought were more
inhumane than the death penalty.
As for the perception that substantive progress has actually been made
in Tibet, I will quote Cui Yuying, a contemporary Tibetan Chinese who
tells us that the lamas politics should remain buried in the past.
(See article attached below.)
Second, Tibet has never been a foreign land that China had to enter
and waste billions after billions on just trying to subdue. No air
raid in the stealth of night, no missiles, no bullets, no military
who needed to be liberated from the lamas and the landowners. And we
have had a glimpse into that unspeakably dark past of that region when
the non-producing lamas ran amok in Heinricc Harrer's Seven Years of
Tibet. And many Tibetans today can attest to the social progress made
in the region. In fact, Harrer gave examples of the cruelty he had
personally witnessed, including cases in which he thought were more
inhumane than the death penalty.
As for the perception that substantive progress has actually been made
in Tibet, I will quote Cui Yuying, a contemporary Tibetan Chinese who
tells us that the lamas politics should remain buried in the past.
(See article attached below.)
Second, Tibet has never been a foreign land that China had to enter
and waste billions after billions on just trying to subdue. No air
contractors and tens of millions of dollars of bribes to a puppet
government.
government.
For sure, China still has a Tibet problem. But as long as the U.S. is
spending a few billions each year to destabilize China through Tibet,
and to a lesser extent, Xinjiang, then China has to spend some money
spending a few billions each year to destabilize China through Tibet,
and to a lesser extent, Xinjiang, then China has to spend some money
to fight that off. Besides, nobody is able to tell whether it is
indigenuous or externally caused. And since no western political
system today is willing to tolerate a system where monks make all
political decisions, the West's support for the Dalai Lama and his
TGIE cohorts cannot be viewed in any other way except with suspicion.
indigenuous or externally caused. And since no western political
system today is willing to tolerate a system where monks make all
political decisions, the West's support for the Dalai Lama and his
TGIE cohorts cannot be viewed in any other way except with suspicion.
But Tibet is not China's Afghanistan or Iraq.
lo yeeOn
lo yeeOn
lo yeeOn
May 16, 2013, 9:54:23 PM5/16/13
to
lo yeeOn
May 18, 2013, 2:26:01 AM5/18/13
to
In article <4a5ec04d-dae1-46a2...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>If Tibet was such a happy place for the Tibetans, then why did over a
>100 tibetans set themselves on fire to protest chinese communist rule
For as long as the US Congress is spending billions of dollars on
destabilizing Tibet each year using Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts, only
the die-hards will believe that the vulnerable children and young
mothers who went to burn themselves to death while calling for Da Lama
to return and live for ten thousand years to live are genuinely
expressing unhappiness. It is also such a fallacy that 100 cases
of self-immolation is any fair indication of the preference of six
million Tibetans in China. 100 cases involved 100 Tibetans. Ok, we
can all agree to that. But 100 does not equal 6,000,000! It's not
even close.
In fact, Tibetans don't want repatriation of Dalai Lama, according to
Chinese Vice Minister Cui Yuying - a prominent ethnic Tibetan Chinese
woman.
So I, as well as many others, do believe that the self-immolations are
concocted by the exiles, such as the Free Tibet die-hards and their
allies inside the TGIE and some monks with some monasteries in China,
in collaboration with their financial backers from the West.
As for your other comments, here are my responses:
Tom Jigme Wheat wrote in response to my comment (lines begin with >):
> The fact that the communists successfully took over China, with
> little fighting, shows that they won by the force of logic - not by
> force of luck.
>
> So, of course, the Nationalists could afford only a token presence
> in Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it.
What source do you cite other than the CCP that China had sovereignty
over tibet during the Nationalist phase of its history. It is common
knowlege that Tibet declared independence with the fall of the Qing
dynasty in 1911 - 1912, and maintained that independence since 1951.
I have done it many times: just check any ROC (that's the "Republic of
China", i.e., tne Nationalists, not the CCP) map on the internet.
Likewise, any Chinese map during the Qing dynasty (also not the CCP).
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/map-republic-china-1917
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYRMMphmPY4_K7uQOxo8SJe3pP5j-fh0lcHnwDV0Pr6RZyBjP_AQ
Ok? You could have looked it up yourself. Stop being so lazy next
time.
So what if "Tibet declared independence with the fall of the Qing
dynasty in 1911 - 1912"? It doesn't mean anything.
During the fall of Qing, everybody declared independence, including
the populous province of Guangdong. And Guangdong remains a part of
China (despite its 1912 declaration).
Other provinces that declared independence:
Fujian independence
Guangdong independence
Shandong independence
Sichuan independence
Tibetan independence
Mongolian independence
And Taiwan and many other provinces called their revolts "uprisings".
The South of the U.S. also declared independence. That doesn't mean
that the South was ever a separate country from the U.S.!
Tibet was always considered a province of China. Nobody, especially
not Da Lama, ever maintained a kind of independence from China,
whether it was before or "since 1951."
Check out the Wikipedia article on Xinhai Revolution of China.
-----
Tom Jigme Wheat in response to my comment:
> But there is no objective reason as to why the corrupt monk system
> should not be replaced by an egalitarian one - which the communists
> brought in and eventually imposed.
How was it not egalitarian compared to the qing. The monks were
cellibate and the leader of the country, the dalai lama came from
the peasant classes.
Tom Jigme Wheat, you are comparing oranges with apples!
You were comparing Tibet in 1949 with Qing before 1911, right?
How stupid!
China was heading for humiliation under the Qing. The imperial
Japanese, the US, and the Europeans were greeting the Chinese with
swords, guns, canons, and bayonets. The Chinese people finally
recognized that they themselves were to blame for the humiliation they
received from the foreigners. Yet, Dalai Lamas 13 and 14 were
spending the same period (1911-1951) busy building palace after palace
at Norbulingka while the mother of Da Lama (number 14), i.e., the
Mother of the most Incarnations in Tibetan Buddhism, were treating the
members of the ruling class in Lhasa with a 40-course banquet at the
month-old celebration of her young child. And while not even Qing had
the institution of serfdom, Tibet had a system of owning serfs until
the CCP went in and liberated them. So, how is it not true that only
the communists brought egalitarianism into TIbet?
-----
Tom Jigme Wheat responded to my previous post:
> China was able to go in because the lamas system had rotted to the
> core.
No Independent Tibet got in the way of the Imperialist designs of
the CCP. That's why they describe the old system as so corrupt. If
it was really better in Tibet under Communist rule Tibetans would'nt
be setting themselves on fire, and we would have a Tibetan Governor.
For as long as there is a massive effort to destabilize Tibet from
outside with a lot of US taxpayer money, protests and even
self-immolations are the result.
And Tibet does have a Tibetan as governor.
This has always been the case.
According to the Wikipedia, the Tibet Autonomous Region is a
province-level entity of the People's Republic of China. It is
governed by a People's Government, led by a Chairman. The current
Chairman is Losang Jamcan.
--------
Tom Jigme Wehat responded to my previous post:
> If Tibet were a reasonable "country" and if it were a matter of brute
> force on the Chinese communists' part, they would have been kicked out
> like Nazi Germany was kicked out from the Soviet Union after some 26
> million Soviet lives had been lost resisting or fighting the Nazi
> invaders.
There was 6 million Tibetans in Tibet and 400 million chinese. You can
easily do the math. The PLA overwhelmed them with numbers.
The point is: to the Tibetans, regardless of numbers, the Chinese did
nothing of the sort the Nazi Germany did to the Soviet Union. The
Soviet Union was also a much more populous country than Germany. But
Germany was the invader and slaughtered the Soviets but China has not
been an invader of Tibet and it did not slaughter the Tibetans in
any way remotely like Germany slaughtered the Soviet citizens.
Finally, Germany and the USSR were distinct countries but Tibet has
always been only a province of China - nothing more. Nothing more
because the lamas were too corrupt to assert their manhood.
-----
Tom Jigme Wehat responded to my previous post:
> And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
> using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
> China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
> month fighting an insurgency or hiring military contractors to do it
> just as the US has.
The only reason we have an insurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq is
because we follow international standards of decency in war. If we
didn't we would be bombing full population centers were the
insurgents are located like the russians did in Afghanistan.
The US follows international standards of decency to invade and occupy
other countries thousands of miles away while China does not follow
international standards of decency to invade and occupy other
countries?
China under the CCP has not invaded or occupied any country. So,
maybe it is moot to talk about following any standards.
But don't make us laugh. China under the CCP has always been careful
to only pursue peaceful developments.
On the other hand, the US devastated both Iraq and Afghanistan. We
used mass deception to destroy Iraq. The rationale for invading and
occupying Afghanistan is equally dubious!
We did not follow "international standards of decency in war". And we
even killed the 16 yo American citizen Abdulraman al-Awlaki. We
destroyed whole cities like Fallujah and reduced Sirte of Libya to
rubble. When you talk like this, you lose all credibility to speak
for the Tibetans.
Finally, you still did not explain how Tibet has fallen so low since
the days of Genghis Khan, which was the theme of my original reply to
Habshi's one-liner claim that Tibet was a country and China invaded
it. Neither he nor you has made any attempt to clarify the picture.
lo yeeOn
-----
Subject: The justice system in Tibet as run by the lamas before 1949
was not only unjust but cruel, according to Heinrich Harrer Re:
>> So, of course, the Nationalists could afford only token presence in
of that region when the non-producing lamas ran amok in Heinrich
like Nazi Germany was kicked out from the Soviet Union, even after
The Progressive Voice <thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 16, 6:54 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>100 tibetans set themselves on fire to protest chinese communist rule
For as long as the US Congress is spending billions of dollars on
destabilizing Tibet each year using Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts, only
the die-hards will believe that the vulnerable children and young
mothers who went to burn themselves to death while calling for Da Lama
to return and live for ten thousand years to live are genuinely
expressing unhappiness. It is also such a fallacy that 100 cases
of self-immolation is any fair indication of the preference of six
million Tibetans in China. 100 cases involved 100 Tibetans. Ok, we
can all agree to that. But 100 does not equal 6,000,000! It's not
even close.
In fact, Tibetans don't want repatriation of Dalai Lama, according to
Chinese Vice Minister Cui Yuying - a prominent ethnic Tibetan Chinese
woman.
So I, as well as many others, do believe that the self-immolations are
concocted by the exiles, such as the Free Tibet die-hards and their
allies inside the TGIE and some monks with some monasteries in China,
in collaboration with their financial backers from the West.
As for your other comments, here are my responses:
Tom Jigme Wheat wrote in response to my comment (lines begin with >):
> The fact that the communists successfully took over China, with
> little fighting, shows that they won by the force of logic - not by
> force of luck.
>
> So, of course, the Nationalists could afford only a token presence
> in Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it.
over tibet during the Nationalist phase of its history. It is common
knowlege that Tibet declared independence with the fall of the Qing
dynasty in 1911 - 1912, and maintained that independence since 1951.
I have done it many times: just check any ROC (that's the "Republic of
China", i.e., tne Nationalists, not the CCP) map on the internet.
Likewise, any Chinese map during the Qing dynasty (also not the CCP).
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/map-republic-china-1917
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYRMMphmPY4_K7uQOxo8SJe3pP5j-fh0lcHnwDV0Pr6RZyBjP_AQ
Ok? You could have looked it up yourself. Stop being so lazy next
time.
So what if "Tibet declared independence with the fall of the Qing
dynasty in 1911 - 1912"? It doesn't mean anything.
During the fall of Qing, everybody declared independence, including
the populous province of Guangdong. And Guangdong remains a part of
China (despite its 1912 declaration).
Other provinces that declared independence:
Fujian independence
Guangdong independence
Shandong independence
Sichuan independence
Tibetan independence
Mongolian independence
And Taiwan and many other provinces called their revolts "uprisings".
The South of the U.S. also declared independence. That doesn't mean
that the South was ever a separate country from the U.S.!
Tibet was always considered a province of China. Nobody, especially
not Da Lama, ever maintained a kind of independence from China,
whether it was before or "since 1951."
Check out the Wikipedia article on Xinhai Revolution of China.
-----
Tom Jigme Wheat in response to my comment:
> But there is no objective reason as to why the corrupt monk system
> should not be replaced by an egalitarian one - which the communists
> brought in and eventually imposed.
cellibate and the leader of the country, the dalai lama came from
the peasant classes.
Tom Jigme Wheat, you are comparing oranges with apples!
You were comparing Tibet in 1949 with Qing before 1911, right?
How stupid!
China was heading for humiliation under the Qing. The imperial
Japanese, the US, and the Europeans were greeting the Chinese with
swords, guns, canons, and bayonets. The Chinese people finally
recognized that they themselves were to blame for the humiliation they
received from the foreigners. Yet, Dalai Lamas 13 and 14 were
spending the same period (1911-1951) busy building palace after palace
at Norbulingka while the mother of Da Lama (number 14), i.e., the
Mother of the most Incarnations in Tibetan Buddhism, were treating the
members of the ruling class in Lhasa with a 40-course banquet at the
month-old celebration of her young child. And while not even Qing had
the institution of serfdom, Tibet had a system of owning serfs until
the CCP went in and liberated them. So, how is it not true that only
the communists brought egalitarianism into TIbet?
-----
Tom Jigme Wheat responded to my previous post:
> China was able to go in because the lamas system had rotted to the
> core.
the CCP. That's why they describe the old system as so corrupt. If
it was really better in Tibet under Communist rule Tibetans would'nt
be setting themselves on fire, and we would have a Tibetan Governor.
For as long as there is a massive effort to destabilize Tibet from
outside with a lot of US taxpayer money, protests and even
self-immolations are the result.
And Tibet does have a Tibetan as governor.
This has always been the case.
According to the Wikipedia, the Tibet Autonomous Region is a
province-level entity of the People's Republic of China. It is
governed by a People's Government, led by a Chairman. The current
Chairman is Losang Jamcan.
--------
Tom Jigme Wehat responded to my previous post:
> If Tibet were a reasonable "country" and if it were a matter of brute
> force on the Chinese communists' part, they would have been kicked out
> like Nazi Germany was kicked out from the Soviet Union after some 26
> million Soviet lives had been lost resisting or fighting the Nazi
> invaders.
easily do the math. The PLA overwhelmed them with numbers.
The point is: to the Tibetans, regardless of numbers, the Chinese did
nothing of the sort the Nazi Germany did to the Soviet Union. The
Soviet Union was also a much more populous country than Germany. But
Germany was the invader and slaughtered the Soviets but China has not
been an invader of Tibet and it did not slaughter the Tibetans in
any way remotely like Germany slaughtered the Soviet citizens.
Finally, Germany and the USSR were distinct countries but Tibet has
always been only a province of China - nothing more. Nothing more
because the lamas were too corrupt to assert their manhood.
-----
Tom Jigme Wehat responded to my previous post:
> And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
> using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
> China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
> month fighting an insurgency or hiring military contractors to do it
> just as the US has.
because we follow international standards of decency in war. If we
didn't we would be bombing full population centers were the
insurgents are located like the russians did in Afghanistan.
The US follows international standards of decency to invade and occupy
other countries thousands of miles away while China does not follow
international standards of decency to invade and occupy other
countries?
China under the CCP has not invaded or occupied any country. So,
maybe it is moot to talk about following any standards.
But don't make us laugh. China under the CCP has always been careful
to only pursue peaceful developments.
On the other hand, the US devastated both Iraq and Afghanistan. We
used mass deception to destroy Iraq. The rationale for invading and
occupying Afghanistan is equally dubious!
We did not follow "international standards of decency in war". And we
even killed the 16 yo American citizen Abdulraman al-Awlaki. We
destroyed whole cities like Fallujah and reduced Sirte of Libya to
rubble. When you talk like this, you lose all credibility to speak
for the Tibetans.
Finally, you still did not explain how Tibet has fallen so low since
the days of Genghis Khan, which was the theme of my original reply to
Habshi's one-liner claim that Tibet was a country and China invaded
it. Neither he nor you has made any attempt to clarify the picture.
lo yeeOn
-----
Subject: The justice system in Tibet as run by the lamas before 1949
was not only unjust but cruel, according to Heinrich Harrer Re:
Explain how Tibet evolved from its Genghis Khan days of glory to a
time when the CIA's modern weapons and logistics could not help Da
Lama and his troops to resist the PLA for more than a few weeks -
something was rotten in Potala Palace with the lamas! Re: The Dark
Ages in Tibet under the rule of the Lamas are thankfully gone
time when the CIA's modern weapons and logistics could not help Da
Lama and his troops to resist the PLA for more than a few weeks -
something was rotten in Potala Palace with the lamas! Re: The Dark
Ages in Tibet under the rule of the Lamas are thankfully gone
In article <5db27a86-72b3-465d...@a10g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>,
The Progressive Voice <thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 11, 6:45��pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
The Progressive Voice <thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 11, 6:45��pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>> Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it. ��But the
>> decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
>> nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
>>
>> decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
>> nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
>>
Replacement of some broken paragraphs I hastily presented last time:
[China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum. It
is particularly not a result of some evil doing on China's part,
despite western rhetoric. China was able to go in because the lamas
system had rotted to the core. If Tibet were a reasonable "country"
and if it were a matter of brute force on the Chinese communists'
part, they would have been kicked out like Nazi Germany was kicked
out from the Soviet Union, even after some 26 million Soviet lives
despite western rhetoric. China was able to go in because the lamas
system had rotted to the core. If Tibet were a reasonable "country"
and if it were a matter of brute force on the Chinese communists'
part, they would have been kicked out like Nazi Germany was kicked
had been lost resisting or fighting the Nazi invaders.
(The 26 million figure is taken from a Wikipedia article on losses
by countries during WWII.)
And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
month fighting an insurgency or hiring military contractors to do it
just as the US has.
And had China been compelled to fight an insurgency war anywhere in
the world since 1950, she would have been surely and totally broke!
China has clearly neither the Nazi Germany or the US/NATO problems.
Thus, it is hard to see that Tibet is ever under Chinese occupation.
And there are of course strong reasons for the difference.
First, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced and
millions who needed to be liberated from the lamas and the
landowners. And have had a glimpse into that unspeakably dark past
And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
month fighting an insurgency or hiring military contractors to do it
just as the US has.
And had China been compelled to fight an insurgency war anywhere in
the world since 1950, she would have been surely and totally broke!
China has clearly neither the Nazi Germany or the US/NATO problems.
Thus, it is hard to see that Tibet is ever under Chinese occupation.
And there are of course strong reasons for the difference.
First, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced and
millions who needed to be liberated from the lamas and the
of that region when the non-producing lamas ran amok in Heinrich
Harrer's Seven Years of Tibet. And many Tibetans today can attest
to the social progress made in the region. In fact, Harrer gave
examples of the cruelty he had personally witnessed, including cases
in which he thought were more inhumane than the death penalty.
to the social progress made in the region. In fact, Harrer gave
examples of the cruelty he had personally witnessed, including cases
in which he thought were more inhumane than the death penalty.
. . . (long addition - please see attachment below)]
>
>There is no evidence that the degree of exploitation prevelant in
>china was the same in Tibet. Remember Tibet outloawed the death
>penalty in 1912.
I am sorry a) I fail to parse the first sentence of your response and
b) I have realized that I had some incomplete sentences in my previous
post that might have confused you too.
So, I have inserted a replacement for the broken paragraphs that might
have caused confusion for my readers. And I am also attaching the
entire post (with the current edit) right after my signature so that
maybe you Tom Jigme Wheat can clarify what you wanted to say.
But as far as the death penalty being outlawed in 1912, which even if
I believe it, does not diminish the degree of cruelty in the justice
system set up and run by the lamas between 1912-1949. I have read
plenty of stories in Heinrich Harrer's Seven Years in Tibet which
together painted a grim picture of cruelty under Da Lama's sytem of
justice.
lo yeeOn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A corrected edition though no guarantee that it is error free.
>
>There is no evidence that the degree of exploitation prevelant in
>china was the same in Tibet. Remember Tibet outloawed the death
>penalty in 1912.
I am sorry a) I fail to parse the first sentence of your response and
b) I have realized that I had some incomplete sentences in my previous
post that might have confused you too.
So, I have inserted a replacement for the broken paragraphs that might
have caused confusion for my readers. And I am also attaching the
entire post (with the current edit) right after my signature so that
maybe you Tom Jigme Wheat can clarify what you wanted to say.
But as far as the death penalty being outlawed in 1912, which even if
I believe it, does not diminish the degree of cruelty in the justice
system set up and run by the lamas between 1912-1949. I have read
plenty of stories in Heinrich Harrer's Seven Years in Tibet which
together painted a grim picture of cruelty under Da Lama's sytem of
justice.
lo yeeOn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A corrected edition though no guarantee that it is error free.
Subject: Explain how Tibet evolved from its Genghis Khan days of glory
to a time when the CIA's modern weapons and logistics could not help
Da Lama and his troops to resist the PLA for more than a few weeks -
something was rotten in Potala Palace with the lamas! Re: The Dark
Ages in Tibet under the rule of the Lamas are thankfully gone
to a time when the CIA's modern weapons and logistics could not help
Da Lama and his troops to resist the PLA for more than a few weeks -
something was rotten in Potala Palace with the lamas! Re: The Dark
Ages in Tibet under the rule of the Lamas are thankfully gone
some 26 million Soviet lives had been lost resisting or fighting the
Nazi invaders.
(The 26 million figure is taken from a Wikipedia article on losses by
Nazi invaders.
lo yeeOn
May 19, 2013, 2:36:34 AM5/19/13
to
In article <4a5ec04d-dae1-46a2...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
The Progressive Voice <thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 16, 6:54 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
The Progressive Voice <thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 16, 6:54 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>If Tibet was such a happy place for the Tibetans, then why did over a
>100 tibetans set themselves on fire to protest chinese communist rule
For as long as the US Congress is spending billions of dollars on
destabilizing Tibet each year using Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts, only
the die-hards will believe that the vulnerable children and young
mothers who went to burn themselves to death while calling for Da Lama
to return and live for ten thousand years are genuinely expressing
>100 tibetans set themselves on fire to protest chinese communist rule
For as long as the US Congress is spending billions of dollars on
destabilizing Tibet each year using Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts, only
the die-hards will believe that the vulnerable children and young
mothers who went to burn themselves to death while calling for Da Lama
unhappiness. It is also such a fallacy that 100 cases of
self-immolation is any fair indication of the preference of six
million Tibetans in China. 100 cases involved 100 Tibetans. Ok, we
can all agree to that. But 100 does not equal 6,000,000! It's not
even close.
In fact, Tibetans don't want repatriation of Dalai Lama, according to
Chinese Vice Minister Cui Yuying - a prominent ethnic Tibetan Chinese
woman.
So I, as well as many others, do believe that the self-immolations are
concocted by the exiles, such as the Free Tibet die-hards and their
allies inside the TGIE and some monks with some monasteries in China,
in collaboration with their financial backers from the West.
As for your other comments, here are my responses:
Tom Jigme Wheat wrote in response to my comment (lines begin with >):
self-immolation is any fair indication of the preference of six
million Tibetans in China. 100 cases involved 100 Tibetans. Ok, we
can all agree to that. But 100 does not equal 6,000,000! It's not
even close.
In fact, Tibetans don't want repatriation of Dalai Lama, according to
Chinese Vice Minister Cui Yuying - a prominent ethnic Tibetan Chinese
woman.
So I, as well as many others, do believe that the self-immolations are
concocted by the exiles, such as the Free Tibet die-hards and their
allies inside the TGIE and some monks with some monasteries in China,
in collaboration with their financial backers from the West.
As for your other comments, here are my responses:
Tom Jigme Wheat wrote in response to my comment (lines begin with >):
> The fact that the communists successfully took over China, with
> little fighting, shows that they won by the force of logic - not by
> force of luck.
>
> So, of course, the Nationalists could afford only a token presence
> in Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it.
> little fighting, shows that they won by the force of logic - not by
> force of luck.
>
> So, of course, the Nationalists could afford only a token presence
> in Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it.
What source do you cite other than the CCP that China had sovereignty
over tibet during the Nationalist phase of its history. It is common
knowlege that Tibet declared independence with the fall of the Qing
dynasty in 1911 - 1912, and maintained that independence since 1951.
I have done it many times: just check any ROC (that's the "Republic of
China", i.e., the Nationalists, not the CCP) map on the internet.
over tibet during the Nationalist phase of its history. It is common
knowlege that Tibet declared independence with the fall of the Qing
dynasty in 1911 - 1912, and maintained that independence since 1951.
I have done it many times: just check any ROC (that's the "Republic of
Likewise, any Chinese map during the Qing dynasty (also not the CCP).
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/map-republic-china-1917
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYRMMphmPY4_K7uQOxo8SJe3pP5j-fh0lcHnwDV0Pr6RZyBjP_AQ
Ok? You could have looked it up yourself. Stop being so lazy next
time.
So what if "Tibet declared independence with the fall of the Qing
dynasty in 1911 - 1912"? It doesn't mean anything.
During the fall of Qing, practically everybody declared independence,
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/map-republic-china-1917
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYRMMphmPY4_K7uQOxo8SJe3pP5j-fh0lcHnwDV0Pr6RZyBjP_AQ
Ok? You could have looked it up yourself. Stop being so lazy next
time.
So what if "Tibet declared independence with the fall of the Qing
dynasty in 1911 - 1912"? It doesn't mean anything.
including the populous province of Guangdong. And Guangdong remains a
part of China (despite its 1912 declaration).
Other provinces that also declared independence include (aside from
part of China (despite its 1912 declaration).
the rebel provinces of Guangdong and Tibet) Fujian, Shandong, Sichuan,
and Mongolia.
It was also the case that the PLA entered every Chinese province to
assert control as soon as the Nationalists had fled to Taiwan. Nobody
ever claims that Guangdong has become a land of occupation. That
means that neither did Tibet become a land of occupation, since both
of them have been a Chinese province and therefore have had the same
sort of political status within China for hundreds of years (since
1644) already.
Many other provinces, including Taiwan, also staged a revolt against
the waning Qing dynasty; but they called their revolts "uprisings".
Now the South of the U.S. also declared independence. That of course
doesn't mean that the South was ever a separate country from the U.S.!
People love to be independent; but not everyone has the wherewithal to
be independent. None of the Chinese provinces at the end of Qing had
it except for Mongolia. The Nationalists tried to deny them but they
failed.
Tibet was always considered a province of China. Nobody, especially
not Da Lama, ever maintained a kind of independence from China,
whether it was before or "since 1951."
Check out the Wikipedia article on Xinhai Revolution of China.
-----
Tom Jigme Wheat in response to my comment:
> But there is no objective reason as to why the corrupt monk system
> should not be replaced by an egalitarian one - which the communists
> brought in and eventually imposed.
> should not be replaced by an egalitarian one - which the communists
> brought in and eventually imposed.
How was it not egalitarian compared to the qing. The monks were
cellibate and the leader of the country, the dalai lama came from
the peasant classes.
Tom Jigme Wheat, you are comparing oranges with apples!
You were comparing Tibet in 1949 with Qing before 1911, right?
How stupid!
China was heading for humiliation under the Qing. The imperial
Japanese, the US, and the Europeans were greeting the Chinese with
swords, guns, canons, and bayonets. The Chinese people finally
recognized that they themselves were to blame for the humiliation they
received from the foreigners. Yet, Dalai Lamas 13 and 14 were
spending the same period (1911-1951) busy building palace after palace
at Norbulingka while the mother of Da Lama (number 14), i.e., the
Mother of the most Incarnations in Tibetan Buddhism, were treating the
members of the ruling class in Lhasa with a 40-course banquet at the
month-old celebration of her young child. And while not even Qing had
the institution of serfdom, Tibet had a system of owning serfs until
the CCP went in and liberated them. So, how is it not true that only
the communists brought egalitarianism into TIbet?
Also, that Da Lama came from a peasant family does not mean Tibet had
cellibate and the leader of the country, the dalai lama came from
the peasant classes.
Tom Jigme Wheat, you are comparing oranges with apples!
You were comparing Tibet in 1949 with Qing before 1911, right?
How stupid!
China was heading for humiliation under the Qing. The imperial
Japanese, the US, and the Europeans were greeting the Chinese with
swords, guns, canons, and bayonets. The Chinese people finally
recognized that they themselves were to blame for the humiliation they
received from the foreigners. Yet, Dalai Lamas 13 and 14 were
spending the same period (1911-1951) busy building palace after palace
at Norbulingka while the mother of Da Lama (number 14), i.e., the
Mother of the most Incarnations in Tibetan Buddhism, were treating the
members of the ruling class in Lhasa with a 40-course banquet at the
month-old celebration of her young child. And while not even Qing had
the institution of serfdom, Tibet had a system of owning serfs until
the CCP went in and liberated them. So, how is it not true that only
the communists brought egalitarianism into TIbet?
an egalitarian society. He and his family got lucky; but millions of
Tibetans remained mired in chronic poverty while the ruling class,
consisting of "noblemen" and lamas didn't have to work and did not
work while they feted each other with sumptuous meals regularly.
I mentioned that Da Lama's Mama was feasting the elite with a 40-meal
course banquet at the occasion of her youngest child's one-month after
birth celebration. The source is Heinrich Harrer's Seven Years in
Tibet. And the same book also has a photo showing a bunch of
well-dressed Tibetan people gathering for dinner. The caption under
the photo says: "A feast in the home of a nobleman in Lhasa: thirty
courses, three hours at table."
This elite group is not where Da Lama and his family came from before
he was selected by the lamas to be "the Dalai Lama". Of course if 5.4
million Tibetans were serfs or laborers, subtracting a dozen from them
and adding them to the 600,000 of the elite does not materially change
the welfare of the society under the rule of the lamas and landowners.
We have the same problem in this country even today. Adding Obama to
the ruling class has not at all empowered the 99% nor the African
American community. One can in fact argue that putting him in the
White House has actually hurt the cause of the African Americans
because the establishment and its propaganda machine would be quick to
dismiss any existing problems that concern the community as a
consequence of neglect because one of them is actually in the White
House and the Attorney General as well as the diplomat to the UN are
likewise of African descent, etc., etc. For example, the murder of
Trayvon Martin has been treated only as a typical city crime while it
would have been a crime of national importance because of the
stereotyping of the African American youths if it were not for Obama
and co being in power.
And not surprisingly, African American youths continue to have a high
dropout rate from school and account for a disproportionate fraction
of the nation's incarcerated population. It is just like someone from
the barrio bought a lotto ticket and won big. The 99.99% of the
people from the barrio remain impoverished and in despair, despite
this singular addition to the nouveau riche.
The Tibetan masses have known that for a long time. And that's why
Cui Yuying, the prominent Tibetan political leader in China today,
recently said that most Chinese Tibetans do not want Da Lama to return
to Tibet because his political agenda is at variance with that of the
majority of the Tibetan people. Now that is a powerful testimonial
against the desperate assertion that Tibet was an egalitarian society
in feudal Tibet because Da Lama came from a peasant family.
-----
Tom Jigme Wheat responded to my previous post:
> China was able to go in because the lamas system had rotted to the
> core.
> core.
No Independent Tibet got in the way of the Imperialist designs of
the CCP. That's why they describe the old system as so corrupt. If
it was really better in Tibet under Communist rule Tibetans would'nt
be setting themselves on fire, and we would have a Tibetan Governor.
For as long as there is a massive effort to destabilize Tibet from
outside with a lot of US taxpayer money, protests and even
self-immolations are the result.
And Tibet does have a Tibetan as governor.
This has always been the case.
According to the Wikipedia, the Tibet Autonomous Region is a
province-level entity of the People's Republic of China. It is
governed by a People's Government, led by a Chairman. The current
Chairman is Losang Jamcan.
--------
Tom Jigme Wehat responded to my previous post:
the CCP. That's why they describe the old system as so corrupt. If
it was really better in Tibet under Communist rule Tibetans would'nt
be setting themselves on fire, and we would have a Tibetan Governor.
For as long as there is a massive effort to destabilize Tibet from
outside with a lot of US taxpayer money, protests and even
self-immolations are the result.
And Tibet does have a Tibetan as governor.
This has always been the case.
According to the Wikipedia, the Tibet Autonomous Region is a
province-level entity of the People's Republic of China. It is
governed by a People's Government, led by a Chairman. The current
Chairman is Losang Jamcan.
--------
Tom Jigme Wehat responded to my previous post:
> If Tibet were a reasonable "country" and if it were a matter of brute
> force on the Chinese communists' part, they would have been kicked out
> like Nazi Germany was kicked out from the Soviet Union after some 26
> million Soviet lives had been lost resisting or fighting the Nazi
> invaders.
> force on the Chinese communists' part, they would have been kicked out
> like Nazi Germany was kicked out from the Soviet Union after some 26
> million Soviet lives had been lost resisting or fighting the Nazi
> invaders.
There was 6 million Tibetans in Tibet and 400 million chinese. You can
easily do the math. The PLA overwhelmed them with numbers.
The point is: to the Tibetans, regardless of numbers, the Chinese did
nothing of the sort the Nazi Germany did to the Soviet Union. The
Soviet Union was also a much more populous country than Germany. But
Germany was the invader and slaughtered the Soviets but China has not
been an invader of Tibet and it did not slaughter the Tibetans in
any way remotely like Germany slaughtered the Soviet citizens.
Finally, Germany and the USSR were distinct countries but Tibet has
always been only a province of China - nothing more. Nothing more
because the lamas were too corrupt to assert their manhood.
-----
Tom Jigme Wehat responded to my previous post:
easily do the math. The PLA overwhelmed them with numbers.
The point is: to the Tibetans, regardless of numbers, the Chinese did
nothing of the sort the Nazi Germany did to the Soviet Union. The
Soviet Union was also a much more populous country than Germany. But
Germany was the invader and slaughtered the Soviets but China has not
been an invader of Tibet and it did not slaughter the Tibetans in
any way remotely like Germany slaughtered the Soviet citizens.
Finally, Germany and the USSR were distinct countries but Tibet has
always been only a province of China - nothing more. Nothing more
because the lamas were too corrupt to assert their manhood.
-----
Tom Jigme Wehat responded to my previous post:
> And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
> using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
> China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
> month fighting an insurgency or hiring military contractors to do it
> just as the US has.
> using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
> China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
> month fighting an insurgency or hiring military contractors to do it
> just as the US has.
>> Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it. ��But the
>> decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
>> nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
>>
>> decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
>> nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
>>
Replacement of some broken paragraphs I hastily presented last time:
[China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum. It
is particularly not a result of some evil doing on China's part,
despite western rhetoric. China was able to go in because the lamas
system had rotted to the core. If Tibet were a reasonable "country"
and if it were a matter of brute force on the Chinese communists'
part, they would have been kicked out like Nazi Germany was kicked
out from the Soviet Union, even after some 26 million Soviet lives
despite western rhetoric. China was able to go in because the lamas
system had rotted to the core. If Tibet were a reasonable "country"
and if it were a matter of brute force on the Chinese communists'
part, they would have been kicked out like Nazi Germany was kicked
had been lost resisting or fighting the Nazi invaders.
(The 26 million figure is taken from a Wikipedia article on losses
by countries during WWII.)
And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
month fighting an insurgency or hiring military contractors to do it
just as the US has.
And had China been compelled to fight an insurgency war anywhere in
the world since 1950, she would have been surely and totally broke!
China has clearly neither the Nazi Germany or the US/NATO problems.
Thus, it is hard to see that Tibet is ever under Chinese occupation.
And there are of course strong reasons for the difference.
First, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced and
millions who needed to be liberated from the lamas and the
landowners. And have had a glimpse into that unspeakably dark past
And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
month fighting an insurgency or hiring military contractors to do it
just as the US has.
And had China been compelled to fight an insurgency war anywhere in
the world since 1950, she would have been surely and totally broke!
China has clearly neither the Nazi Germany or the US/NATO problems.
Thus, it is hard to see that Tibet is ever under Chinese occupation.
And there are of course strong reasons for the difference.
First, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced and
millions who needed to be liberated from the lamas and the
of that region when the non-producing lamas ran amok in Heinrich
Harrer's Seven Years of Tibet. And many Tibetans today can attest
to the social progress made in the region. In fact, Harrer gave
examples of the cruelty he had personally witnessed, including cases
in which he thought were more inhumane than the death penalty.
to the social progress made in the region. In fact, Harrer gave
examples of the cruelty he had personally witnessed, including cases
in which he thought were more inhumane than the death penalty.
some 26 million Soviet lives had been lost resisting or fighting the
Nazi invaders.
(The 26 million figure is taken from a Wikipedia article on losses by
Nazi invaders.
lo yeeOn
May 19, 2013, 2:59:04 AM5/19/13
to
In article <4a5ec04d-dae1-46a2...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
The Progressive Voice <thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 16, 6:54 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
The Progressive Voice <thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 16, 6:54 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>If Tibet was such a happy place for the Tibetans, then why did over a
>100 tibetans set themselves on fire to protest chinese communist rule
For as long as the US Congress is spending billions of dollars on
destabilizing Tibet each year using Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts, only
the die-hards will believe that the vulnerable children and young
mothers who went to burn themselves to death while calling for Da Lama
to return and live for ten thousand years are genuinely expressing
unhappiness. It is also such a fallacy that 100 cases of
self-immolation is any fair indication of the preference of six
million Tibetans in China. 100 cases involved 100 Tibetans. Ok, we
can all agree to that. But 100 does not equal 6,000,000! It's not
even close.
In fact, Tibetans don't want repatriation of Dalai Lama, according to
Chinese Vice Minister Cui Yuying - a prominent ethnic Tibetan Chinese
woman.
So I, as well as many others, do believe that the self-immolations are
concocted by the exiles, such as the Free Tibet die-hards and their
allies inside the TGIE and some monks with some monasteries in China,
in collaboration with their financial backers from the West.
As for your other comments, here are my responses:
Tom Jigme Wheat wrote in response to my comment (lines begin with >):
>100 tibetans set themselves on fire to protest chinese communist rule
For as long as the US Congress is spending billions of dollars on
destabilizing Tibet each year using Da Lama and his TGIE cohorts, only
the die-hards will believe that the vulnerable children and young
mothers who went to burn themselves to death while calling for Da Lama
to return and live for ten thousand years are genuinely expressing
unhappiness. It is also such a fallacy that 100 cases of
self-immolation is any fair indication of the preference of six
million Tibetans in China. 100 cases involved 100 Tibetans. Ok, we
can all agree to that. But 100 does not equal 6,000,000! It's not
even close.
In fact, Tibetans don't want repatriation of Dalai Lama, according to
Chinese Vice Minister Cui Yuying - a prominent ethnic Tibetan Chinese
woman.
So I, as well as many others, do believe that the self-immolations are
concocted by the exiles, such as the Free Tibet die-hards and their
allies inside the TGIE and some monks with some monasteries in China,
in collaboration with their financial backers from the West.
As for your other comments, here are my responses:
Tom Jigme Wheat wrote in response to my comment (lines begin with >):
> The fact that the communists successfully took over China, with
> little fighting, shows that they won by the force of logic - not by
> force of luck.
>
> So, of course, the Nationalists could afford only a token presence
> in Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it.
> little fighting, shows that they won by the force of logic - not by
> force of luck.
>
> So, of course, the Nationalists could afford only a token presence
> in Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it.
> But there is no objective reason as to why the corrupt monk system
> should not be replaced by an egalitarian one - which the communists
> brought in and eventually imposed.
> should not be replaced by an egalitarian one - which the communists
> brought in and eventually imposed.
The Tibetan masses have known that for a long time. And that's why
Cui Yuying, the prominent Tibetan political leader in China today,
recently said that most Chinese Tibetans do not want Da Lama to return
to Tibet because his political agenda is at variance with that of the
majority of the Tibetan people. Now that is a powerful testimonial
against the desperate assertion that Tibet was an egalitarian society
in feudal Tibet because Da Lama came from a peasant family.
-----
Tom Jigme Wheat responded to my previous post:
> China was able to go in because the lamas system had rotted to the
> core.
> core.
No Independent Tibet got in the way of the Imperialist designs of
the CCP. That's why they describe the old system as so corrupt. If
it was really better in Tibet under Communist rule Tibetans would'nt
be setting themselves on fire, and we would have a Tibetan Governor.
For as long as there is a massive effort to destabilize Tibet from
outside with a lot of US taxpayer money, protests and even
self-immolations are the result.
And Tibet does have a Tibetan as governor.
This has always been the case.
According to the Wikipedia, the Tibet Autonomous Region is a
province-level entity of the People's Republic of China. It is
governed by a People's Government, led by a Chairman. The current
Chairman is Losang Jamcan.
--------
Tom Jigme Wehat responded to my previous post:
the CCP. That's why they describe the old system as so corrupt. If
it was really better in Tibet under Communist rule Tibetans would'nt
be setting themselves on fire, and we would have a Tibetan Governor.
For as long as there is a massive effort to destabilize Tibet from
outside with a lot of US taxpayer money, protests and even
self-immolations are the result.
And Tibet does have a Tibetan as governor.
This has always been the case.
According to the Wikipedia, the Tibet Autonomous Region is a
province-level entity of the People's Republic of China. It is
governed by a People's Government, led by a Chairman. The current
Chairman is Losang Jamcan.
--------
Tom Jigme Wehat responded to my previous post:
> If Tibet were a reasonable "country" and if it were a matter of brute
> force on the Chinese communists' part, they would have been kicked out
> like Nazi Germany was kicked out from the Soviet Union after some 26
> million Soviet lives had been lost resisting or fighting the Nazi
> invaders.
> force on the Chinese communists' part, they would have been kicked out
> like Nazi Germany was kicked out from the Soviet Union after some 26
> million Soviet lives had been lost resisting or fighting the Nazi
> invaders.
There was 6 million Tibetans in Tibet and 400 million chinese. You can
easily do the math. The PLA overwhelmed them with numbers.
The point is: to the Tibetans, regardless of numbers, the Chinese did
nothing of the sort the Nazi Germany did to the Soviet Union. The
Soviet Union was also a much more populous country than Germany. But
Germany was the invader and slaughtered the Soviets but China has not
been an invader of Tibet and it did not slaughter the Tibetans in
any way remotely like Germany slaughtered the Soviet citizens.
Finally, Germany and the USSR were distinct countries but Tibet has
always been only a province of China - nothing more. Nothing more
because the lamas were too corrupt to assert their manhood.
-----
Tom Jigme Wehat responded to my previous post:
easily do the math. The PLA overwhelmed them with numbers.
The point is: to the Tibetans, regardless of numbers, the Chinese did
nothing of the sort the Nazi Germany did to the Soviet Union. The
Soviet Union was also a much more populous country than Germany. But
Germany was the invader and slaughtered the Soviets but China has not
been an invader of Tibet and it did not slaughter the Tibetans in
any way remotely like Germany slaughtered the Soviet citizens.
Finally, Germany and the USSR were distinct countries but Tibet has
always been only a province of China - nothing more. Nothing more
because the lamas were too corrupt to assert their manhood.
-----
Tom Jigme Wehat responded to my previous post:
> And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
> using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
> China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
> month fighting an insurgency or hiring military contractors to do it
> just as the US has.
> using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
> China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
> month fighting an insurgency or hiring military contractors to do it
> just as the US has.
>> Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it. ��But the
>> decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
>> nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
>>
>> decadence of the lamas shows through because they thought they had
>> nothing to worry about when the world was actually passing them by.
>>
Replacement of some broken paragraphs I hastily presented last time:
[China's current position in Tibet did not arise from a vacuum. It
is particularly not a result of some evil doing on China's part,
despite western rhetoric. China was able to go in because the lamas
system had rotted to the core. If Tibet were a reasonable "country"
and if it were a matter of brute force on the Chinese communists'
part, they would have been kicked out like Nazi Germany was kicked
out from the Soviet Union, even after some 26 million Soviet lives
despite western rhetoric. China was able to go in because the lamas
system had rotted to the core. If Tibet were a reasonable "country"
and if it were a matter of brute force on the Chinese communists'
part, they would have been kicked out like Nazi Germany was kicked
had been lost resisting or fighting the Nazi invaders.
(The 26 million figure is taken from a Wikipedia article on losses
by countries during WWII.)
And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
month fighting an insurgency or hiring military contractors to do it
just as the US has.
And had China been compelled to fight an insurgency war anywhere in
the world since 1950, she would have been surely and totally broke!
China has clearly neither the Nazi Germany or the US/NATO problems.
Thus, it is hard to see that Tibet is ever under Chinese occupation.
And there are of course strong reasons for the difference.
First, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced and
millions who needed to be liberated from the lamas and the
landowners. And have had a glimpse into that unspeakably dark past
And if China were using overwhelming force like the U.S. has been
using in Afghanistan and Iraq to gain control of the countries, then
China would still be spending billions, if not tens of billions, per
month fighting an insurgency or hiring military contractors to do it
just as the US has.
And had China been compelled to fight an insurgency war anywhere in
the world since 1950, she would have been surely and totally broke!
China has clearly neither the Nazi Germany or the US/NATO problems.
Thus, it is hard to see that Tibet is ever under Chinese occupation.
And there are of course strong reasons for the difference.
First, Tibet had a rotten system that had to be replaced and
millions who needed to be liberated from the lamas and the
of that region when the non-producing lamas ran amok in Heinrich
Harrer's Seven Years of Tibet. And many Tibetans today can attest
to the social progress made in the region. In fact, Harrer gave
examples of the cruelty he had personally witnessed, including cases
in which he thought were more inhumane than the death penalty.
to the social progress made in the region. In fact, Harrer gave
examples of the cruelty he had personally witnessed, including cases
in which he thought were more inhumane than the death penalty.
some 26 million Soviet lives had been lost resisting or fighting the
Nazi invaders.
(The 26 million figure is taken from a Wikipedia article on losses by
Nazi invaders.
join - in to f#@
Apr 1, 2014, 5:14:59 PM4/1/14
to
Is now and then is the same?
"lo yeeOn" wrote in message news:kn4245$9u9$1...@reader1.panix.com...
In article
<5db27a86-72b3-465d...@a10g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>,
The Progressive Voice <thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 11, 6:45仩pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>> In article <518c31f3.605891...@news.giganews.com>, 仩<hab...@anony.net>
>> Tibet despite their assertion of sovereignty over it. 仩But the
>the world鈥檚 territory has now been turned into a
>picture and what sort of caption would he give it?鈥?These
>illegal鈥攃learly shows what kind of status our people
>equally in our nomadic grasslands? Why can鈥檛 camera-holding
>鈥楾aking pictures, peeing and spitting are strictly prohibited
>here!鈥?
>
>http://www.tchrd.org/2013/05/they-treat-us-like-animals/
"lo yeeOn" wrote in message news:kn4245$9u9$1...@reader1.panix.com...
In article
<5db27a86-72b3-465d...@a10g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>,
The Progressive Voice <thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <518c31f3.605891...@news.giganews.com>, 仩<hab...@anony.net>
>bunch of soul-less slaves serving other people. My dear
>fellow-countrymen, if we cannot paint the bones of our ancestors in
>gold, the least we could do is not to throw their gray hair in the wind.
>
>Tourists visiting from surrounding areas carry cameras of different
>sizes in their hands. Crowds of monks, elderly folks and
>鈥榮ervicemen鈥?bearing horses gape at the tourists when the latter
>fellow-countrymen, if we cannot paint the bones of our ancestors in
>gold, the least we could do is not to throw their gray hair in the wind.
>
>Tourists visiting from surrounding areas carry cameras of different
>sizes in their hands. Crowds of monks, elderly folks and
>take pictures of nomadic villages and rivers. One of the
>tourists pointed his camera at the strange-looking eyes of these
>Tibetans and took their pictures. When I saw this, I wondered:
>鈥榃hen the tourist returns to his place, where would he advertize this
>tourists pointed his camera at the strange-looking eyes of these
>Tibetans and took their pictures. When I saw this, I wondered:
>picture and what sort of caption would he give it?鈥?These
>thoughts gave me intense pain and despair.
>
>Why do these tourists point their cameras on the faces of elderly
>Tibetans and take their pictures? Do these tourists not have a
>sense of ethics and morality? If we turn around and point the camera on
>their faces and take their pictures, wouldn鈥檛 they run
>
>Why do these tourists point their cameras on the faces of elderly
>Tibetans and take their pictures? Do these tourists not have a
>sense of ethics and morality? If we turn around and point the camera on
>away from us saying we are violating their rights? The fact that they
>keep taking pictures of our people, our mountains and our
>villages鈥攄espite knowing that such actions are unethical, immoral and
>keep taking pictures of our people, our mountains and our
>illegal鈥攃learly shows what kind of status our people
>enjoy. They treat us like animals lacking the ability of speech. They
>treat us as wage laborers who could be swayed in any
>direction by the lure of hard cash. They treat us as a race of ignorant
>barbarians. My dear fellow countrymen, as the saying
>goes, if sons fail to inherit the legacy of forefathers or if the
>thread fails to inherit the legacy of needles, others would keep
>trampling on our heads.
>
>What would happen if you visit a Chinese city and randomly point your
>camera on the face of a Chinese and take his picture?
>What consequences would you have to bear if you selfishly take pictures
>of homes, belongings and other precious objects of a
>city? How would the whip of laws chase you away if you trample upon the
>rights and liberties of people living in a city? Why
>can鈥檛 the standards of law and ethics of the cities be applied
>treat us as wage laborers who could be swayed in any
>direction by the lure of hard cash. They treat us as a race of ignorant
>barbarians. My dear fellow countrymen, as the saying
>goes, if sons fail to inherit the legacy of forefathers or if the
>thread fails to inherit the legacy of needles, others would keep
>trampling on our heads.
>
>What would happen if you visit a Chinese city and randomly point your
>camera on the face of a Chinese and take his picture?
>What consequences would you have to bear if you selfishly take pictures
>of homes, belongings and other precious objects of a
>city? How would the whip of laws chase you away if you trample upon the
>rights and liberties of people living in a city? Why
>equally in our nomadic grasslands? Why can鈥檛 camera-holding
>tourists riding in cars and masses on horses enjoy equal status if
>human rights have a universal resonance? Like in the cities,
>why can鈥檛 we put up signboards in nomadic grasslands declaring,
>human rights have a universal resonance? Like in the cities,
>鈥楾aking pictures, peeing and spitting are strictly prohibited
>here!鈥?
>
>http://www.tchrd.org/2013/05/they-treat-us-like-animals/
0 new messages