Genocide
HAKKIM WONG
>This is much different than the active destruction of a culture
>which we are capable of stopping. Yes, cultures have been evolving
>and absorbing and destroying eachother for all of history. Only
>now, do humans realize that it DOESN'T have to be that way. As
>world culture evolves to a more and more homogeneous mix, the
>preservation of older cultures has become more important. So,
>while you may argue that cultural evolution requires some cultures
>to die for the greater good, I may argue that world culture has
>evolved to the point that it realizes the importance of the
>preservation of what is best in older (and usually minority) cultures
>thus placing a value of "right or wrong" on the issue.
Would you get the heck out of San Diego and let the native Indians
and Mexicans have their land and culture back??
Talking about cultures in danger of extinction, save the Chinese
culture first!!!!!
Since the 1840's, Europeans and their descendants in the Americas had
constantly trying to eliminate Chinese culture.
First, 1st Opium War
Second, Tai-Ping rebellion
Third, second Opium War
Fourth, the concessions of Europeans and Americans in China.
Fifth, the Catholic and Protestants who had extra-teresstial rights
Sixth, the Ba-guo-lian-jun
Seventh,..................
Americans supported Chang kai-shek, because his wife is US educated
and they are Christians, although Chinese dislike them.
Russians supported Mao because he was a Communist.
Unfortunately, none of these are Chinese.
If you talk about saving a culture, you should save Chinese culture
first!!!!
Y.Wu
P. Chau <pc...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>What do we lose from letting Tibet go, I ask you? Certainly nothing of
>economic importance, and nothing of strategic importance either.
Absolutely nearsighted! When America bought Alaska from Russia,
there were aslo such cries as what economic importance and strategic
importance of that ice-covered useless land has. Time has proven it
is a pice of invalueble land, and some people in Russia now is talking
about reclaim this land whenever possible (see alt.current-event.russia).
Y.Wu
John McDonald <jm...@mintaka.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>Y.Wu (zge...@alpha.qmw.ac.uk) wrote:
>: Different cultures appear and disappear all the time. For any particular
>: culture it will disappear anyway, either because of other culture's
>: invasion or because of its own invasion to others, or because of the
>: evolution of itself. It is the way our human being develops, no one can
>: change it. For those thing which will inevitably happen, you cannot argue
>: whether it is right or wrong. Just like spring will follow winter and
>: day will be followed by night, can you say any righ or wrong with
>: that?
>
>This is much different than the active destruction of a culture
>which we are capable of stopping.
>
>
No, unfortunately you are not capable of stopping the disappearing of
Tibet culture. Do you think you can stop it by posting something on
USENET. As I said, even if Tibet became independent and current Dalai
Lama went back there as you wish, Tibet religious and Tibet culture
would still disappear.
Wing Ng
>In article <maozhuxiC...@netcom.com> maoz...@netcom.com (Jun Hong) writes:
>.In article <danieleC...@netcom.com> dan...@netcom.com (Daniele Colajacomo) writes:
>.> In article <maozhuxiC...@netcom.com> maoz...@netcom.com (Jun Hong) writes:
>.> .In article <deaneCF...@netcom.com> de...@netcom.com (Dean Edwards) writes:
>.> .>
>.> .> I think that it would be useful to openly and frankly discuss
>.> .> what is at the heart of the issue. Does the Chinese invasion
>.> .> and subsequent actions in Tibet constitute a systematic attempt
>.> .> to destroy a people or their culture.
>.> .
>.> .As no such "Chinese invasion" has occurred, this question is meaningless.
>.>
>.> Hi, since your affirmation that there has not been a Chinese invasion is
>.> one I haven't heard yet, could you please elaborate on it? I thought that the
>.> Chinese called the invasion "liberation", is that what you are referring
>.> to?
>.
>.I don't know what you mean by "the invasion". Something that happened
>.in the thirteenth century can perhaps be termed an invasion; perhaps
>.that is what you have in mind.
>.
>
>Well, and this is my subjective point of view, by invasion I mean a
>foreign army entering the territory of a country recognized by the majority
>of the international community as a sovereign state, without being
>invited in by the current heads of that state.
>
>Ie. The US "invaded" Panama and Grenada (nobody who had any authority to do so
> invited them).
>Ie. the US did not invade Kuwait (they were invited).
>
>When I say invasion I talk about the entrance of chinese forces
>on tibetan soil in 1950, without them being asked in by the head of
>Tibet.
>
Chinese forces entered Chinese territory of Tibet in 1950.
The "head of Tibet" was the head of the local government.
When federal U.S. forces entered Atlanta, that was not an "invasion".
Wing
>Do you have other definitions? To me, the US may "justify" and invasion,
>and China has all the right to justify its, but they are still invasions.
>Are they not?
>
>Sorry if I couldn't make myself any clearer.
>
>thanks,
>d
>--
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Daniele Colajacomo, 925 N. Vista street, Los Angeles, CA 90046
> e-mail: dan...@netcom.com or da...@disney.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
P. Chau
P.-L. Chau
University of Cambridge
P. Chau
Alaska was almost uninhabited. Now we are doing something against human
rights if we want to force the Tibetans into China. I do not know what the
Tibetans want (there never was a vote), but to just mumble on "Tibet is part
of China" does not solve the problem. Surely it is up to the Tibetans
themselves to decide what they want to do?
P. Chau
only the religion. The religion may change, but the language, the life-
style will remain. And then no culture stays the same over time; cultures
evolve. But if the Chinese are going on with their policy, then the
Tibetan language, the religion, etc. will disappear. This is far more
serious than just changing the religion.
Incidentally, when John McDonald used the word "we", I presume he meant
"human beings". I think you misunderstood him by retorting that he cannot
do anything about it.
Jeffrey B. Green
>In article <2bjn54$m...@pandora.sdsu.edu>,
>John McDonald <jm...@mintaka.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>>Y.Wu (zge...@alpha.qmw.ac.uk) wrote:
>>
>>
>>This is much different than the active destruction of a culture
>>which we are capable of stopping.
>>
>>John
>>
>
>No, unfortunately you are not capable of stopping the disappearing of
>Tibet culture. Do you think you can stop it by posting something on
>USENET. As I said, even if Tibet became independent and current Dalai
>Lama went back there as you wish, Tibet religious and Tibet culture
>would still disappear.
>
Fini. Wu has spoken.
If it is already determined then whatever you say has no effect
one way or the other. I assume that you are then participating in this
newsgroup to help us poor lost souls with concern for the Tibetan
culture see the light.
If you are trying to say that "things" change, then I agree, but
that is a little different (actually alot different) than what
you _did_ say.
-- Jeff
Scott Ma
>
>I am a Han Chinese, but I support the independence movement of Tibet.
>Cultural diversity is to be respected, and if the CCP cannot even
>treasure our own Han culture, it would be a vain hope to expect them
>to respect other people's culture.
>
You are a HanJian in Chinese or you are a jerk in Chinese. Today, you support
the independence of Tibet because some of Tibetan want independence. How
about Taiwan? You definitely support the independence of Taiwan because
several Taiwanese want independence? How about Xinjiang? You definitely
support its independence because there is few sperationests there. How about
Mancush (Three provinces in the northeast of China)? You might also support
its independence because there used to be an independent country. You
desperatly want to split China into small pieces of lands. You want U.S.
plane flying in the sky of PRC freely like Iraqe, don't you. You are a stupid
idiot in Chinese.
Y.Wu
P. Chau <pc...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <2bl47j$p...@alpha.qmw.ac.uk>, zge...@alpha.qmw.ac.uk (Y.Wu) writes:
>|> In article <2bjn54$m...@pandora.sdsu.edu>,
>|> John McDonald <jm...@mintaka.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>|> >This is much different than the active destruction of a culture
>|> >which we are capable of stopping.
>|> >
>|> >John
>|> >
>|>
>|> No, unfortunately you are not capable of stopping the disappearing of
>|> Tibet culture. Do you think you can stop it by posting something on
>|> USENET. As I said, even if Tibet became independent and current Dalai
>|> Lama went back there as you wish, Tibet religious and Tibet culture
>|> would still disappear.
>|>
>That is not true. Tibetan culture, as we understand it, includes not
>only the religion. The religion may change, but the language, the life-
>style will remain. And then no culture stays the same over time; cultures
>evolve. But if the Chinese are going on with their policy, then the
>Tibetan language, the religion, etc. will disappear. This is far more
>serious than just changing the religion.
Language and the life style will change with time as well. The core
of Tibet culture is its religious. After its religious disappear,
its culture will disappear inevitably.
One life-style of Tibet: slavery system. Do you want to remain this
unchanged?
Another life-style of Tibet: Only one son of a family can get married,
and the others compulsory became monks, Do you also want to remain this?
As for the Tibet language, possibly you have watched recent BBC report
about Tibet, it dose be taught in Tibet schools, but the real threaten
is no-one really use it after school especially in cities like Lahsia,
etc. which I found from BBC's report is modernising rapidly and will soon
like any other modern cities, as Shanghai, Beijing (quote BBC's comments).
When a language becomes useless, it will die. That is the course of
nature. no-one can reverse it.
>
>Incidentally, when John McDonald used the word "we", I presume he meant
>"human beings". I think you misunderstood him by retorting that he cannot
>do anything about it.
>
OK, then, "we" (in the sense of JM) can not do anything to stop the
disappearing of Tibet culture. Could you and JM give "us" (also in the sense
of JM) some effective ways to stop that?
Cheh Goh
I think all the people arguing for the Chinese government and the CCP's
role in Tibet know the shameful history of China since the Opium war well.
So, I share the rise in temperature of the blood when people talk about
saving a culture. However, so many simply have a tunnel vision about their
own culture, and are unable to appreciate the need for the preservation of
another culture, such as the Hopis Indians' and the Tibetan culture.
So many argue that Tibet is no more than any other province in PRC.
They simply forget one thing: if these Chinese go to Tibet, they will not
be able to recognize even a single Tibetan word, let alone speaking the
language. Likewise, they will be totally lost in Mongolia, where an
entirely different language exists. Should they go to Kwandong, for example, if they don't know a single pronounced word, they can certainly READ the character, so this is the definition of being CHINESE.
Sure, after so many hundreds of years being neighbours, there are cross cultural influences among Tibetans, Mongolians, Qing, Han and so on,
but these three--as example--are three different cultures,
different kingdoms (as in the past) and three different countries.
If they chose to form a federation along the line of the European Community, that is fine; but it is a mutual agreement of co-operation.
It is ridiculous to say that since the Europeans was able to bully
China into submission in the Opium War, getting concessions like in
ShangHai and HongKong years ago, that the Europeans now also HAVE A
RIGHT TO CONTROL OVER ANY PART OF THE TERRITORY OF CHINA. Similarly,
since the Tibetans have been bullied into submitting to the Qing, to
the Mongolian, and then to the Han, does not mean that China has the
legitimate right to own Tibet, or to destroy its DISTINCT culture.
China may want to do so because of the central government's idealogical
inclination, but that is another matter.
>
> If you talk about saving a culture, you should save Chinese culture
> first!!!!
This is in fact necessary. If you look at the way the western idea of a
good life is invading the south of China, in one or two decade, the traditional understanding of Dao, morality, goodness and well being,
and all other priceless tradictions and heritage will be taken over by
the western technology and materialistic tendencies. The destruction
unfortunately will come from WITHIN the Chinese themselves, and not a
terrible eradication such as the destruction of temples by the PLA in
Tibet!
>
>
--
Cheh
Zhiqi Zuo
>|> Absolutely nearsighted! When America bought Alaska from Russia,
>|> there were aslo such cries as what economic importance and strategic
>|> importance of that ice-covered useless land has. Time has proven it
>|> is a pice of invalueble land, and some people in Russia now is talking
>|> about reclaim this land whenever possible (see alt.current-event.russia).
>|>
>Yes, but what the U.S. did was legal in international law, and in those days
Yes on their papers.
Alaska was not a deserted land! There were forests, animals and
(most importantly) human beings. The natives were Eskimos(?).
There was no vote among them.
Y.Wu
Although I disagree with Chau in most part, I don't like above words,
especially "Hanjian", "jerk" and "idiot". Hope people will not use
such words again.
Try to be clever, not ruder, to gain up hand in debate.
Dong Xiao
>In article <CFzG5...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> xi...@ibm17.scri.fsu.edu (Dong Xiao) writes:
>> [Deleted]
>>
>> The biggest mistake the communists made, in post-Dalai era, was to undermine
>>the religious tradition of Tibet, based on the ridiculous belief originated
>>from Karl Marx that there is exist no God
>
>The irony of this is that Buddhism does not prescribe belief in or worship
>of an omnipotent god. The emphasis is on self-salvation. I suspect that
>the Chinese government's view of Tibetan culture and religious practices
>was superficial and inaccurate and that they did not have the interest to
>take the time necessary to gain a more thorough and accurate understanding.
The Tibetan Buddhism is different than maybe the Buddhism you studied.
It does not worship the one and only omnipotent god, but the "living Buddhas"
are worshiped. So there are similarities compared with the God that the
communist ancesters disbelieved. :-)
yt...@opal.tufts.edu
>
>>|> Absolutely nearsighted! When America bought Alaska from Russia,
>>|> there were aslo such cries as what economic importance and strategic
>>|> importance of that ice-covered useless land has. Time has proven it
>>|> is a pice of invalueble land, and some people in Russia now is talking
>>|> about reclaim this land whenever possible (see alt.current-event.russia).
>>|>
>>Yes, but what the U.S. did was legal in international law, and in those days
> ^^^^^
>
> Yes on their papers.
>
> Alaska was not a deserted land! There were forests, animals and
> (most importantly) human beings. The natives were Eskimos(?).
> There was no vote among them.
>
>>Alaska was almost uninhabited. Now we are doing something against human
What do you mean, "almost uninhabited"? who are the Eskimos,
Aleutians, and the Tingilits (the tribes living in Eastern
Alaska, if my memory serves me right)? And there were also
Russian immigrants. Must there be a set
number of inhabitants per sq. km to make a place "inhabited"?
>>rights if we want to force the Tibetans into China. I do not know what the
>>Tibetans want (there never was a vote), but to just mumble on "Tibet is part
>>of China" does not solve the problem. Surely it is up to the Tibetans
I think this is double standard. You were defensive on the Alaska
issue. To your opinion, is Alska part of the United States?
There has been a vote on statehood, but did the vote representing
the will of native people? The decision has never been up to the
native people.
>>themselves to decide what they want to do?
Not so sure to my opinion. The local affairs should be up to the
local people, but not the independence issue, because the
consequence will involve not only the Tibetan people.
Dong Xiao
>In article <lefty-051...@lefty.apple.com> le...@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>
>>Did Tibet not declare itself independent of China in 1912?
>>Do you disagree that Tibet was, by any realistic measure, independent of
>>China from that time until 1949?
>
>If you trace history, you will find that there have been many times
>different parts of China claimed independence. In fact, the opening
>sentence of the most famous China novel "The Three Countries" is:
>
>"The heavenly law is: divide and merge, merge and divide".
>(Hau4 Shuo1 Tian1 Xia4 Ta4 Shi: Feng1 Jiu3 Bi4 He2, He Jiu3 Bi Feng)
>
>The history also told us that whenever the country divided, there was
>war. To have peace, richness and pride, it is best to have the country
>as one piece.
It is not correct. The most prosperous time of Chinese culture was
during the Zhou Dynasty when the whole China was divided into many countries.
And without the fact of the division, many great thinkers, strategists
and politicians would not emerge.
To put it another way, Confucious will be serving a 15 year sentence
in a Chinese jail if he is alive today. Don't you agree?
The reason for it is very simple, the division encourages competition,
and the "unification" leads to oppression, historically. The only thing
that unification is good for is an economic boom, which is natural in any
post-war period anyway.
So, for Tibetan Buddhism to be prosperous, it is better to have a divided
China, with Tibetan an independent country.
Zhiqi Zuo
>|> Tibet culture. Do you think you can stop it by posting something on
>|> USENET. As I said, even if Tibet became independent and current Dalai
>|> Lama went back there as you wish, Tibet religious and Tibet culture
>|> would still disappear.
I don't know how the disapperance can be defineded. Can we say Chinese
culture is disapperaing for the open-door policies?
>That is not true. Tibetan culture, as we understand it, includes not
>only the religion. The religion may change, but the language, the life-
>style will remain. And then no culture stays the same over time; cultures
>evolve. But if the Chinese are going on with their policy, then the
>Tibetan language, the religion, etc. will disappear. This is far more
>serious than just changing the religion.
What is the "their policy"? Are there mandatory measures to force
Tibetans to learn the other language? The monasteries are receiving money
from the government, as both CTN and Chinese sources are indicating.
The culures and the religions were being destroyed during the Culture
Revolution. Isn't it fair to discuss the consequences in ISOLATED ways?
BTW, I imagine that you learned English for PRACTICAL REASONS: you want
to know more and... Now, you are absorbing a lot of western ideas. And
you had complained about other Chinese' English. What would you say, if
similar things are happening to Tibetans? Do you think this kind of trends
are inhuman in one case, and not in another?
Zhiqi Zuo
>So many argue that Tibet is no more than any other province in PRC.
>They simply forget one thing: if these Chinese go to Tibet, they will not
>be able to recognize even a single Tibetan word, let alone speaking the
>language. Likewise, they will be totally lost in Mongolia, where an
>entirely different language exists. Should they go to Kwandong, for
>example, if they don't know a single pronounced word, they can certainly
:-)
What is the definition of AMERICAN?
A person may not understand Spanish, Chinese, Asian Indian languages,
American Indian languages... and English.
Daniele Colajacomo
.>
.>Did Tibet not declare itself independent of China in 1912?
.>Do you disagree that Tibet was, by any realistic measure, independent of
.>China from that time until 1949?
.
.If you trace history, you will find that there have been many times
.different parts of China claimed independence. In fact, the opening
.sentence of the most famous China novel "The Three Countries" is:
Do you mean they tried and were repressed so many times that nobody
can believe they really want to be independent anymore?
.
.The history also told us that whenever the country divided, there was
.war. To have peace, richness and pride, it is best to have the country
.as one piece.
.
ops, I am sure you don't wish to poll Tibetans scattered all over the
world on if they feel at peace, rich and full of pride at being part of
China!
Daniele Colajacomo
.
. If you talk about saving a culture, you should save Chinese culture
. first!!!!
.
.
And why is that? Why not all the ones we can become aware of, in a spirit
of world brotherhood? Why Chinese first?
Daniele Colajacomo
.>
.>When I say invasion I talk about the entrance of chinese forces
.>on tibetan soil in 1950, without them being asked in by the head of
.>Tibet.
.>
.
.Chinese forces entered Chinese territory of Tibet in 1950.
.
.The "head of Tibet" was the head of the local government.
.
.When federal U.S. forces entered Atlanta, that was not an "invasion".
.
.Wing
.
I think you're being sarcastic, and I'll take it that way.
I think the South of the US should have had any right to secession.
Daniele Colajacomo
.
.I don't want to argue it is right or wrong about eliminate a culture or
.whether it is happenning in Tibet or not.
.
.The fact is that the history has proven that to eliminating ethnic
.disputing, the only effective way is that strong ethnic group eliminate
.weak ethnic group either peacefully or by force. If Qing Dynasty
.had had been strong enough to conquer the geographic diffuclties and
.eliminate Tibet totally as it did to many ethnic groups, would we
.have Tibet problem today? If CCP is indeed destorying Tibet culture and
.moving Han people to Tibet like what you said, CCP is really clever than
.Qing in terms of eliminating ethnic dispute there for good. After 50 years,
.there will be no Tibet at all, who will still ask for Tibet independence?
.Sound cruel, isn't it? but this is the way of history. Looking at how
.America was developing to its present size, you will accept such rule when
.playing in the stage of history.
.
By the same token, you're advocating that the United States and all
so-called democratic world try to kill all Chinese to get rid of their
human rights violations and totalitarian regime. That would mean you should
be considered an enemey and at the very least be driven back to your
country. On which grounds you advocate freedom for yourself while genocide
for fellows human beings?
You're talking like a slave owner only because you own slaves... I wish you
could raise a bit over the conquering mentality because ultimately
you're doomed to fail, no matter how hard you fight.
d
yt...@opal.tufts.edu
> In article <CG35q...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> xl...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) writes:
>>In article <lefty-051...@lefty.apple.com> le...@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>>
>>The history also told us that whenever the country divided, there was
>>war. To have peace, richness and pride, it is best to have the country
>>as one piece.
>
> It is not correct. The most prosperous time of Chinese culture was
> during the Zhou Dynasty when the whole China was divided into many countries.
Well, your opinion only. I would say Tang-Song is the time
when Chinese Culture reached pinnacle.
> And without the fact of the division, many great thinkers, strategists
> and politicians would not emerge.
This is argueable. Let's assume it was right for now. But have you
noticed that it is always when people in general are suffering and
the society has a lot of problems, that "greater thinkers,
strategists, and politicians (I would use the world statesman, no
great politician whatsoever.)" emerge?
>
> To put it another way, Confucious will be serving a 15 year sentence
> in a Chinese jail if he is alive today. Don't you agree?
I don't know. But I definitely don't agree with your grammar and
spelling.
>
> The reason for it is very simple, the division encourages competition,
> and the "unification" leads to oppression, historically. The only thing
> that unification is good for is an economic boom, which is natural in any
> post-war period anyway.
I agree that division encourages competition. However, through
history people used war as the major means of competition.
I don't think you would be happy if you were one of the 400,000
Zhao4 soldiers or the 200,000 Qin2 soldiers got buried alive. That
is competition, too. I agree that unification has problems, too.
But "liang3 hai4 xiang1 quan2 quu3 qi2 qing1" (choose the less
harmful one when you have to make a choice between two hazards.),
I will definitely choose unification.
>
> So, for Tibetan Buddhism to be prosperous, it is better to have a divided
> China, with Tibetan an independent country.
"With a devided China", huh, so you agree that Tibet is a part of
China, right?
Paul
931108
>
yangze
> It is not correct. The most prosperous time of Chinese culture was
>during the Zhou Dynasty when the whole China was divided into many countries.
>And without the fact of the division, many great thinkers, strategists
>and politicians would not emerge.
> To put it another way, Confucious will be serving a 15 year sentence
>in a Chinese jail if he is alive today. Don't you agree?
> The reason for it is very simple, the division encourages competition,
>and the "unification" leads to oppression, historically. The only thing
>that unification is good for is an economic boom, which is natural in any
>post-war period anyway.
> So, for Tibetan Buddhism to be prosperous, it is better to have a divided
>China, with Tibetan an independent country.
I don't think one can say that Zhou is the most 'properous' time of
China, my impression is that people didn't have a wealthy life at
that time. Though it is true that a lot of great people were
produced in the chaotic social situation. Yes, if one's purpose
is to produce great people, then put the society into chaos.
I would say Tang is the most properous time of China.
Latter half of Zhou is a chaotic society, so to speak, the society
has a greater need for great 'strategists and politicians' or philosophers.
Tibet's succesion is not going to creat a free competition because
the western culture is too strong, China's emerge probably will.
Lefty
WONG) wrote:
> In article <lefty-051...@lefty.apple.com> le...@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >Did Tibet not declare itself independent of China in 1912?
>
> Every single Provinces in China declared independence in 1912.
And so?
> >Do you disagree that Tibet was, by any realistic measure, independent of
> >China from that time until 1949?
>
> If you know anything about Chinese history, you should know China was
> basically broken down into many self-ruled rpovinces from 1911 to
> 1949.
You're supporting my argument, which is fine with me, but perhaps not what
you intended. Regardless of its earlier status, Tibet without question
existed as an independent state for more than a generation.
Larger countries should not invade neighboring, independent smaller
countries.
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa] (le...@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
xiao-lin li
>can believe they really want to be independent anymore?
No, what I meant is that they have experienced so many times of
independence and war. It should be for their well being not to
divide again.
>ops, I am sure you don't wish to poll Tibetans scattered all over the
>world on if they feel at peace, rich and full of pride at being part of
>China!
To be objective, I don't think those who have left Tibet want to
go back. Many of them have already been citizens of other countries
such as India and America. The future of China including Tibet is
to be decided by those who still live there. Some outsiders, since they
no longer live in the place, would love to see chaos where they never want
live again. So when I say peace, richness and pride, I meant the
people who still live there and consider the place as home.
I do think a Han man who was born and grew up in Tibet should have
more right to live in Tibet than those who were scattered all over the
world, just as I also think a Tibetan is more Chinese than those Han CSPAers
(sorry, I am in no position to denounce CSPAers, I was once a
supporter, I am just stating the fact). One example
is that I think a Tibetan will be recruited as a Chinese soldier,
but a CSPAer will not. Those scattered former Tibetan residents
will not either.
John McDonald
: > Every single Provinces in China declared independence in 1912.
: > If you know anything about Chinese history, you should know China was
: > basically broken down into many self-ruled rpovinces from 1911 to
: > 1949.
Tibet has always pretty much considered itself a seperate entity
from China. Another example:
"...the people of Lhasa, who had never regarded with a pleased
eye the presence of the Chinese in the country..."
"Besides, for some time past, the two Chinese Mandarins (ambans)
had given umbrage to the Tibetans; they interfered every day,
more and more, in the affairs of the state and openly encroached
on the rights of the Dalai Lama."
These comments are excerpted from a discussion of a Tibetan rebellion
against Chinese in their country from the book: "Travels in Tartary,
Tibet, and China, During Years 1844-5-6" by Evariste Regis Huc,
published in 1898. The author goes on to comment on brutal Tibetan
acts against Chinese in their country, and the ordering of Chinese
troops to put down the rebellion. It included comments on areas of
Tibet that remained off limits, "...their entrance thither being
strictly forbidden."
John
Joseph C Wang
>So many argue that Tibet is no more than any other province in PRC.
>They simply forget one thing: if these Chinese go to Tibet, they will not
>be able to recognize even a single Tibetan word, let alone speaking the
>language. Likewise, they will be totally lost in Mongolia, where an
>entirely different language exists. Should they go to Kwandong, for example,
>if they don't know a single pronounced word, they can certainly READ the
>character, so this is the definition of being CHINESE.
On the other hand, there isn't much reason why Hanzi could not be
adapted for use in Tibetan, Korean, English, or whatever.
>This is in fact necessary. If you look at the way the western idea of a
>good life is invading the south of China, in one or two decade, the
>traditional understanding of Dao, morality, goodness and well being,
>and all other priceless tradictions and heritage will be taken over by
>the western technology and materialistic tendencies.
Doubtful. What is likely to happen is that things will become too
materialistic, and they people will try to be idealistic. Then things
will be too idealistic and people will try to be materialistic. Etc.
Etc.
As for Western technology, I'm not too worried about Chinese culture
being destroyed by Western technology. A writer for the Atlantic
mentioned that when most countries modernize, then lose their local
distinctness, but as China modernizes, it is becoming more Chinese.
Joseph C Wang
>As for the Tibet language, possibly you have watched recent BBC report
>about Tibet, it dose be taught in Tibet schools, but the real threaten
>is no-one really use it after school especially in cities like Lahsia,
>etc. which I found from BBC's report is modernising rapidly and will soon
>like any other modern cities, as Shanghai, Beijing (quote BBC's comments).
On the other hand, things move in waves. People in Scotland and Wales
are trying very hard to learn Gaelic and Welsh even though no one in
their family has known the language for decades.
Joe Huang
>
>On the other hand, there isn't much reason why Hanzi could not be
>adapted for use in Tibetan, Korean, English, or whatever.
>
use as a phonetic system for any other language, since one would be
tied to a limited set of Chinese syllables. Anybody who's tried to make
out non-Chinese words from Hanzi should know that the results are often
not understandable. Ai-li-sha-ba Tai-le for Elizabeth Taylor ???
Chinese linguists implicitly acknowledge this in using romanization
for transcribing Zhuang and other nonliterate "minority" languages.
Based on what I know of Korean, using Hanzi would be guaranteed to
produce ghibberish, which is probably why the Koreans developed ommun
and Hangul in the first place !
Joe Huang
Hui Zhu
|> So many argue that Tibet is no more than any other province in PRC.
|> They simply forget one thing: if these Chinese go to Tibet, they will not
|> be able to recognize even a single Tibetan word, let alone speaking the
|> language.
Don't try to confuse the concept of ethnic Chinese and Chinese nationals.
You certainly don't have to be able to speak a certainly language to be
a citizen of that country. The direct ananlog is in USA many US citizens
don't even understand English, but they still enjoy the rights of US citizens.
|> Likewise, they will be totally lost in Mongolia, where an
|> entirely different language exists. Should they go to Kwandong, for example,
|> if they don't know a single pronounced word, they can certainly READ the
|> character, so this is the definition of being CHINESE.
Then, by you definition, if someone in Guangdong who can not read, then he is not
a Chinese? -:) Give me a break!
Joseph C Wang
>so-called democratic world try to kill all Chinese to get rid of their
>human rights violations and totalitarian regime.
I don't think that Y. Wu was advocating any action by that article.
He seemed to be indicating that his view of history is that the only
way of getting rid of an ethnic dispute is by getting rid of an
ethnicity. I don't think that in that article he was arguing that
this is a "good thing."
Actually, I disagree. I can think of a number of cases in which
different ethnic groups have gotten along. Generally, this seems to
happen when there is a "higher loyalty" to which ethnic differences
are subsumed. For example, English and Scottish get along because
they are both British. Irish and Italians in the United States get
along because both can appeal to the idea of "American."
I am hoping that the idea of "Chinese" can be defined so that Tibetans
can be fully Chinese without giving up any of their native cultures
and traditions.
>On which grounds you advocate freedom for yourself while genocide
>for fellows human beings?
There is a difference between "advocacy" and "description."
Joseph C Wang
>.different parts of China claimed independence. In fact, the opening
>.sentence of the most famous China novel "The Three Countries" is:
>
>Do you mean they tried and were repressed so many times that nobody
>can believe they really want to be independent anymore?
No. It's that parts of China, tried to be independent, succeeded, and
life was a total mess afterwards. After a few thousand years of this
happening, people developed a strong aversion to the idea of
independence and a strong liking to the concept of a unified China.
Part of the reason is that climatic conditions in China are such that
without a central government to keep the water works going and grain
reserves full, people starve. Also the climatic conditions of China
are also such that it was in constant danger of being overrun by
nomadic tribes without a central government to raise an army.
Strangely enough, modified versions of arguments still apply today. A
central government is still needed to provide capital accumulation for
infrastructure and national defense, and there is another argument
that a central government is needed to maintain a large free trade
zone.
>ops, I am sure you don't wish to poll Tibetans scattered all over the
>world on if they feel at peace, rich and full of pride at being part of
>China!
If you polled them during the Imperial period, I'm sure they would
have approved.
Joseph C Wang
>
>I think the South of the US should have had any right to secession.
I don't. We disagree. Why do you think that the Southern U.S. states
have a right to secession, or that a right to secession is a good
thing?
Jim Cochrane
Actually, Tibetan Buddhism is what I have studied. I think it is very easy
to misunderstand the iconography of Tibetan buddhism and have the impression
that it represents the worship of beings who are gods. Buddha was a human
being, and any representations of buddhas and bodhisatvas and other such
beings are simply reminders that human beings have attained enlightenment
(that is, become fully awake, without delusions) and that any human being
is capable of attaining enlightenment. It may appear to an outsider that
a god is being worshiped with an expectation that this being will save
the worshiper, but this kind of attitude is considered to be a serious
mistake in buddhist practice, including Tibetan buddhism.
Another point of my previous posting, which I didn't make very well, is
that any cultural and/or religious tradition of a people should be
respected and not interfered with by people outside that culture.
Unfortunately, this is often not the case; and my own country has
its own shameful history of cultural destruction and genocide.
Jim Cochrane
j...@csn.org
Joseph C Wang
>of world brotherhood? Why Chinese first?
I think Mr. Wong is pointing out a double standard. When a Tibetan
needs to learn Mandarin Chinese to participate in national politics,
it's labeled cultural genocide, but when a Beijinger needs to learn
English to participate in world affairs and likes to listen to
Madonna, there is no objection to it.
Also I find it curious that people who scream about cultural genocide
are happy that the Tibetan government in exile are adopting Western
institutions of government (i.e. parliaments, democracy, and
elections).
Western is not necessarily better (it's also not necessarily worse).
After all the government that caused the mess in Tibet did so under a
Western philosophy. If the government had followed the traditional
Chinese method of dealing with Tibet (i.e. benign neglect), I'm sure
we wouldn't have any of these problems. In that sense, I disagree
with Y. Wu, the problem isn't Qing policy toward Tibet, the problem is
CCP policy toward Tibet.
If you want to argue that a right to secession is a good thing, you
can't simply argue that it's good because the West thinks it's a good
idea right now. And it's also a bad idea to assume it's a good idea
because it seems to be the most "progressive." Finally, it's a bad
idea to assume that the only alternative to idea A is evil, horrible,
despicable idea B.
So why do you think that there should be a right to secession?
Here are some ideas for deriving this sort of right:
The best way of doing it is for an appeal to humanity, and if you
convince me that all alternatives to the right to secession are
fundamentally inhumane, then I'll agree to it.
Alternatively, you can try to derive a right to secession by showing
that it must follow from rights that I agree with (i.e. speech, press,
peaceful association). Mark Sheldon tried to do this a few years ago,
and tried show how an area can secede by simply exercising rights that
I agree with. He failed because any government will eventually have
to do things that are not protected rights (i.e. tax and raise an
army).
Since the genocide debate is going nowhere (i.e. no one has tried to
counteract my argument that the actions of the Chinese government, as
bad as they are, do not fall under genocide as defined by the 1948
U.N. convention on the subject) perhaps discussing whether or not a
right to secession exists would prove interesting.
I'm especially interested in what the Indian netters think, since
there are only two strong and one weak secession movements in China,
but there are dozens in India.
Tingli Pan
Joseph C Wang <j...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU> wrote:
>In article <danieleC...@netcom.com> dan...@netcom.com (Daniele Colajacomo) writes:
>>of world brotherhood? Why Chinese first?
>
>needs to learn Mandarin Chinese to participate in national politics,
>it's labeled cultural genocide, but when a Beijinger needs to learn
>English to participate in world affairs and likes to listen to
>Madonna, there is no objection to it.
>
women. The speaker mentioned the language for the minority people. Shed
said to involve in the local politics, the minority mainly speak their
own language. But when involving something beyond their own area,
Chinese is important.
>Also I find it curious that people who scream about cultural genocide
>are happy that the Tibetan government in exile are adopting Western
>institutions of government (i.e. parliaments, democracy, and
>elections).
>
It is realy hard to say about the cultural genocide. I don't think that
some scholars in universities or a few gift shops is the way to keep the
culture. Unless the culture is totally isolated with outside world, it
is impossible to keep the culture. I might say the Hollywood is the worst
enemy for a culture.
>Western is not necessarily better (it's also not necessarily worse).
>After all the government that caused the mess in Tibet did so under a
>Western philosophy. If the government had followed the traditional
>Chinese method of dealing with Tibet (i.e. benign neglect), I'm sure
>we wouldn't have any of these problems. In that sense, I disagree
>with Y. Wu, the problem isn't Qing policy toward Tibet, the problem is
>CCP policy toward Tibet.
>
Nowadays it is impossible, since the world has been changed a lot in the
last centery.
>If you want to argue that a right to secession is a good thing, you
>can't simply argue that it's good because the West thinks it's a good
>idea right now. And it's also a bad idea to assume it's a good idea
>because it seems to be the most "progressive." Finally, it's a bad
>idea to assume that the only alternative to idea A is evil, horrible,
>despicable idea B.
>
I agree. The future is hard to predict. Bosnia is an example, nobody
would think today's Bosnia even a couple years ago.
>So why do you think that there should be a right to secession?
>
>Here are some ideas for deriving this sort of right:
>
>The best way of doing it is for an appeal to humanity, and if you
>convince me that all alternatives to the right to secession are
>fundamentally inhumane, then I'll agree to it.
>
I think a good way is in a Chinese way, follow the nature.
>Alternatively, you can try to derive a right to secession by showing
>that it must follow from rights that I agree with (i.e. speech, press,
>peaceful association). Mark Sheldon tried to do this a few years ago,
>and tried show how an area can secede by simply exercising rights that
>I agree with. He failed because any government will eventually have
>to do things that are not protected rights (i.e. tax and raise an
>army).
>
>Since the genocide debate is going nowhere (i.e. no one has tried to
>counteract my argument that the actions of the Chinese government, as
>bad as they are, do not fall under genocide as defined by the 1948
>U.N. convention on the subject) perhaps discussing whether or not a
>right to secession exists would prove interesting.
>
>I'm especially interested in what the Indian netters think, since
>there are only two strong and one weak secession movements in China,
>but there are dozens in India.
>
Let them worry their problem, and we to ours.
Tingli Pan
Chien-Chung Chen
:
:Actually, Tibetan Buddhism is what I have studied. I think it is very easy
:to misunderstand the iconography of Tibetan buddhism and have the impression
:that it represents the worship of beings who are gods. Buddha was a human
:being, and any representations of buddhas and bodhisatvas and other such
:beings are simply reminders that human beings have attained enlightenment
:(that is, become fully awake, without delusions) and that any human being
:is capable of attaining enlightenment. It may appear to an outsider that
:a god is being worshiped with an expectation that this being will save
:the worshiper, but this kind of attitude is considered to be a serious
:mistake in buddhist practice, including Tibetan buddhism.
Originally, I held similar impression on Buddhism. But after discussing
with some buddhists, I realize Buddhism does encourage buddhists to worship
Buddha and Bodhisattva. There are more than one way to attain enlightenment
in Buddhism. Worshiping is one if them, but is still very often in itself
inadequate.
-- Chien-Chung Chen
Bruce R. Holloway
>It does not worship the one and only omnipotent god, but the "living Buddhas"
>are worshiped. So there are similarities compared with the God that the
>communist ancesters disbelieved. :-)
I thought you were going to mention all of those dieties which are
personifications of qualities such as wisdom or compassion and subjects
of meditative visualization. The lamas I have heard speak generally
begin by prostrating themselves before an altar representing the dharma,
or teachings of Buddhism. Certainly lamas are revered and serve as
inspirational models, just as Buddha was. But we create our own karma;
it is not necessary for some deity to do something to you.
You might also consider the similarities between China's present
government with totalitarian bureaucratic dynasties of the past.
Regards, bruceh
Cheh Goh
> |> So many argue that Tibet is no more than any other province in PRC.
> |> They simply forget one thing: if these Chinese go to Tibet, they will not
> |> be able to recognize even a single Tibetan word, let alone speaking the
> |> language.
>
> Don't try to confuse the concept of ethnic Chinese and Chinese nationals.
>
> You certainly don't have to be able to speak a certainly language to be
> a citizen of that country. The direct ananlog is in USA many US citizens
> don't even understand English, but they still enjoy the rights of US citizens.
I think your grasp my point well. It is very true that they don't
understand English and are still a US citizen. That is possibly because they do not have a desire NOT to belong to the USA. Elsewhere I mentioned the European community, because it is conceivable that the EC becomes a confederation of some sort, because it is mutually benefitial for all participants, and so they come together. Some other posting has already very nicely explained that UK, for example, did not get what they want and became a noted "separatist". But there is a choice, is there not?
>
> |> Likewise, they will be totally lost in Mongolia, where an
> |> entirely different language exists. Should they go to Kwandong, for example,
> |> if they don't know a single pronounced word, they can certainly READ the
> |> character, so this is the definition of being CHINESE.
>
> Then, by you definition, if someone in Guangdong who can not read, then he is not
> a Chinese? -:) Give me a break!
>
As I have lamented, student from MIT ought to understand simple reasoning, and yet this person is clearly unwilling to demonstrate this skill.
Culture involves language written and spoken, philosophy, religion, arts... and the history associated with it. Is it not a show of ignorance to
say that when Qin Xe Wang (?) created a set of Han characters and generally used by China hundreds of years ago, there is a distinction between the words (characters) used? Of course, regional variation exists, even between villages 5 km apart, but there is mapping of words to written characters most of the time. Not between spoken Mongolian to chinese character as
such though.
I think Hui Zhu really means the smiley. NO PERSON CAN possibly be so stupid. Just a joke which I failed to understand.
--
Cheh
Y.Wu
Daniele Colajacomo <dan...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>By the same token, you're advocating that the United States and all
>so-called democratic world try to kill all Chinese to get rid of their
>human rights violations and totalitarian regime.
Yes, if you can. Actually you wanted to do so 150 years ago. Unfortunately
China is too big for you to swallow.
>You're talking like a slave owner only because you own slaves... I wish you
>could raise a bit over the conquering mentality because ultimately
>you're doomed to fail, no matter how hard you fight.
>
Possibly those TI are doomed to fail, no matter how hard they fight.
Do you really think Tibet can be independent?
Y.Wu
>
>> It is not correct. The most prosperous time of Chinese culture was
>>during the Zhou Dynasty when the whole China was divided into many countries.
>>And without the fact of the division, many great thinkers, strategists
>>and politicians would not emerge.
>
>> To put it another way, Confucious will be serving a 15 year sentence
>>in a Chinese jail if he is alive today. Don't you agree?
>
>> The reason for it is very simple, the division encourages competition,
>>and the "unification" leads to oppression, historically. The only thing
>>that unification is good for is an economic boom, which is natural in any
>>post-war period anyway.
>
"East Zhou" and the period following it is also called "Spring Autumn and
Fighting Countries". The name may give you so hint about how this period
looked like. There might appear some great thinkers during such fighting
periods (As did so in the year of Fighting Countries). The ordinary people
in such fighting period must suffer a great deal. Do you perfer having
some great thinkers to having better peaceful live for not-so-great
ordinary people? As a not-so-great ordinary people, I prefer peaceful
life.
Y.Wu
But can they find any use of Gaelic in realy daily life? Can they find
any job if they only speak Gaelic not English? So far I haven't found any
Shope in Scotland price goods in Gaelic and any street sign in Gaelic.
Y.Wu
>
>I don't think that Y. Wu was advocating any action by that article.
>He seemed to be indicating that his view of history is that the only
>way of getting rid of an ethnic dispute is by getting rid of an
>ethnicity. I don't think that in that article he was arguing that
>this is a "good thing."
>
The real threaten to Tibet culture is not the force used by Chinese
Government towards those Tibet independists. The real threaten comes
from the evolution and mixture of Tibet culture with Han culture.
According to some most recent reports about Tibet (BBC, Times and
Economist, etc), Tibet cities are rapidly turning into modern cities
like any other Chinese cities. Highrise buildings, wild streets, department
stores, banks, coffee bar, cinemas, Sony Adverts boards, etc, etc, are
all rapidly appearing in Lahsa. The young generation of Lahsa, like any
other youth of elsewhere, also want to find jobs in banks, in large
department stores, in entertainments. They also like any other
youth of elaewhere like pop-music, like disco, like hollewood films.
Although Tibet language is still taught in schools, no young people really
use it. Although temples are still openning for people coming into
worship, very few young people really bother to go there. If this
trend contiues, in less then 20 year, Tibet culture will disappear,
or become something totally different. If Dalai Lama come back then,
he will not understand Tibetans living there, nor will he be understood
by Tibetans living there.
That worries Dalai Lama most and also that gives the confidence to
Chinese Government towards Dalai Lama.
"Chinese Government no longer regards Dalai Lama as any real
threaten and no longer attack Dalai Lama as furiously as before,
but just simply ignore his exitence, which makes Dalai Lama feel
desperate and almost to the point of giving up any condition
as long as he can go back to Tibet _now_ as a religiou lead."
(quote Economist, maybe not word precious)
Can you say such culture mixture and evolution is right or wrong?
When you pull tons of Cococla into a country, when you sell hundreds of
pop-music CDs into a country as well as computers, cars, planes, guns,
missils, etc, etc, you are actually change a culture, or in some
sense you are actually destroy a culture. Can you say it is right
or wrong?
Maybe it is not a good thing. But it is how history developes, and
it is inevitable like night following day and winter followed by
spring. Maybe winter is not good, (at least for me), but I
don't think I can say "winter replaces autumn" is against human right
because I and many poor people lack of heavy clothes and can't affort
heating bill (one be basic human right: free from hunger and cold).
Feng Cao
>.different parts of China claimed independence. In fact, the opening
>.sentence of the most famous China novel "The Three Countries" is:
>
>Do you mean they tried and were repressed so many times that nobody
>can believe they really want to be independent anymore?
It is obvious that those who advocate TI, or any other forms of independence
of any part of China, do not know and do not care to know enough of the
country. The new dogma to these new-age advocates is democracy, it is the
ideology of the new West, a West which has seen democary rose and has seen
it shattered when it reached its excessive high point. If inmeddiate and
absolute democracy is the solution to most of human problems one should be
witnessing a world united by the Greeks, a world conquered by Rome.
However, it is not to say that there is no natural human right boundaries
and no sound levels of individual participation when the natural conditions
are ripe.
Think about it, be intelligent, and read more before shout,
Thank you for your attention,
Dr. Cal Cao Feng
Jeffrey B. Green
Worship is not a good word to describe that situation. It implies
duality. Identification is probably a better one. In any case,
this discussion probably should go to soc.religion.eastern where much
better informed feedback can be given.
-- Jeff
J.B.Green (gre...@cs.clemson.edu)
Hui Zhu
|> You're supporting my argument, which is fine with me, but perhaps not what
|> you intended. Regardless of its earlier status, Tibet without question
|> existed as an independent state for more than a generation.
Wrong. Tibet was, indeed, out of the control of the Chinese central
government direct control for a while. But still this does not equal
to independence. In another words, this so-called "independence" declared
by ex-Dalai Lama is invalid legally. This action may actually made him a
criminal according to the law at that time.
Also interesting, when this ex-DL declare independence, did he have a
"vote" or general "referendum" among people in Tibet? Obviously NOT.
|> Larger countries should not invade neighboring, independent smaller
|> countries.
If Tibet had been really independent, as you thought, then what the hell
this ex-DL did for by declaring independence? -:)
Hui Zhu
|> In article <2bn5cl$i...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, zh...@athena.mit.edu (Hui Zhu) writes:
|> > |> So many argue that Tibet is no more than any other province in PRC.
|> > |> They simply forget one thing: if these Chinese go to Tibet, they will not
|> > |> be able to recognize even a single Tibetan word, let alone speaking the
|> > |> language.
|> >
|> > Don't try to confuse the concept of ethnic Chinese and Chinese nationals.
|> >
|> > You certainly don't have to be able to speak a certainly language to be
|> > a citizen of that country. The direct ananlog is in USA many US citizens
|> > don't even understand English, but they still enjoy the rights of US citizens.
|>
|> I think your grasp my point well. It is very true that they don't
|> understand English and are still a US citizen. That is possibly because
|> they do not have a desire NOT to belong to the USA. Elsewhere I mentioned
|> the European community, because it is conceivable that the EC becomes a
|> confederation of some sort, because|> it is mutually benefitial for all
|> participants, and so they come together. Some other posting has already
|> very nicely explained that UK, for example, did not get what they want
|> and became a noted "separatist". But there is a choice, is there not?
Choice? Nice to hear that. -:)
Were native American granted a choice when white men grabbed their land
and extincted their races?
Were US south granted a choice when they want an independence?
Oh, come on, I know they had this choice: war. -:)
|> > |> Likewise, they will be totally lost in Mongolia, where an
|> > |> entirely different language exists. Should they go to Kwandong,
|> > |> for example,
|> > |> if they don't know a single pronounced word, they can certainly READ the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> > |> character, so this is the definition of being CHINESE.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >
|> > Then, by you definition, if someone in Guangdong who can not read,
|> > then he is not
|> > a Chinese? -:) Give me a break!
|> >
|>
|> As I have lamented, student from MIT ought to understand simple reasoning,
|> and yet this person is clearly unwilling to demonstrate this skill.
Hi, dude, still remember you the lesson I taught you last time? No personal
attack, adhere to the facts and adhere to the points. Otherwise, it is
an insult to the intelligence of your own, undersatnd? -:)
Now read the underlied words by your own, and tell me, according to your own
"definition", if someone in China can not read, is he still your so-called
"Chinese"? Budd, be logic. No personal attack, understand? -:)
|> Culture involves language written and spoken, philosophy, religion, arts...
|> and the history associated with it. Is it not a show of ignorance to
|> say that when Qin Xe Wang (?) created a set of Han characters and
|> generally used by China hundreds of years ago, there is a distinction
|> between the words (characters) used? Of course, regional variation exists,
|> even between villages 5 km apart, but there is mapping of words to
|> written characters most of the time. Not between spoken Mongolian to
|> chinese character as
|> such though.
Isn't this irrelevant? As I mentioned, people of different cultures, languages,
and even races, can still exist in the same area and form the same country.
Then who cares all those differences when talking about nationality?
|> I think Hui Zhu really means the smiley. NO PERSON CAN possibly
|> be so stupid. Just a joke which I failed to understand.
Good. Before you doubt other people's intelligence, doubt your own first. -:)
But keep in mind: no personal attack. Undersatnd?
Dong Xiao
I just sent another followup about the difference between Zhou culture
and Tong-Song culture. Just one more note, if people prefer Tong-Song culture
and think China should promote those kind of crap, people should be reminded
what happened after the Tong-Song "pinnacle". It was half a millennium of
invasions and dominations of foreign (at that time) cultures.
Maybe it's a good thing for Tibetans to set up an empire over China in
the near future (although Tibetans are not really "foreign"), but again,
it is definitely not good for the preservation of its culture.
Dong Xiao
I don't know why we are arguing. Look, in Tibet, human beings are
worshipped. OK? And it doesn't matter what the ideology teaches, most
of people can not master and do not have the time and energy to master
true Buddhism, so people thought a faster way was to be blessed by those
who mastered it. And that, I said, is similar to the worship of God
in other religions.
To put it another way, not all Buddhism believers are Buddhists.
And as a true Buddhist, you don't kick those blind believers out of the
door. (Or do you? There was once a guy named Jan Isley who thought he
was a Buddhist and did a lot of kicking. :-) )
>Another point of my previous posting, which I didn't make very well, is
>that any cultural and/or religious tradition of a people should be
>respected and not interfered with by people outside that culture.
>Unfortunately, this is often not the case; and my own country has
>its own shameful history of cultural destruction and genocide.
Well, that is definitely a Buddhist thinking. :-) But an isolated
society has it's shortcomings, you should know that.
Lefty
wrote:> >When I say invasion I talk about the entrance of chinese forces
> >on tibetan soil in 1950, without them being asked in by the head of
> >Tibet.
>
> Chinese forces entered Chinese territory of Tibet in 1950.
>
> The "head of Tibet" was the head of the local government.
>
> When federal U.S. forces entered Atlanta, that was not an "invasion".
Regardless whether secession was or was not justifiable, the Union Army did
not wait forty years to do something about the secession of the South.
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa] (le...@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Dong Xiao
>In article <CG6qo...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> xi...@ibm17.scri.fsu.edu (Dong Xiao) writes:
>>
>> The Tibetan Buddhism is different than maybe the Buddhism you studied.
>>It does not worship the one and only omnipotent god, but the "living Buddhas"
>>are worshiped. So there are similarities compared with the God that the
>>communist ancesters disbelieved. :-)
>
>I thought you were going to mention all of those dieties which are
>personifications of qualities such as wisdom or compassion and subjects
>of meditative visualization. The lamas I have heard speak generally
>begin by prostrating themselves before an altar representing the dharma,
>or teachings of Buddhism. Certainly lamas are revered and serve as
>inspirational models, just as Buddha was. But we create our own karma;
>it is not necessary for some deity to do something to you.
I am alarmed that I might have insulted people unintentionally.
If it is unacceptable to make that comarison, then I take it back.
It is not such a big deal anyway. :-) I was talking about a culture
that has worship as it's integrated part. Now if you don't worship,
good for you.
>You might also consider the similarities between China's present
>government with totalitarian bureaucratic dynasties of the past.
Oh yes, they are all totalitarian and bureaucratic. Who is out there
disputing that?
Dong Xiao
It's not personal but that is why China didn't advance fast enough,
isn't it? By the way, most of the great thinkers, who made the foundation
of Chinese culture, were not living in the warring times towards the end
of Zhou Dynasty, butin the more or less peaceful and division times.
Daniele Colajacomo
.
.I do think a Han man who was born and grew up in Tibet should have
.more right to live in Tibet than those who were scattered all over the
.world, just as I also think a Tibetan is more Chinese than those Han CSPAers
.(sorry, I am in no position to denounce CSPAers, I was once a
.supporter, I am just stating the fact). One example
.is that I think a Tibetan will be recruited as a Chinese soldier,
.but a CSPAer will not. Those scattered former Tibetan residents
.will not either.
.
I think that a Han has at the most the same right as those who fled the
chinese troops to preserve for example the tibetan tradition and religion
and still consider Tibet home (my meditation master is one of them). I say
at the "most" because some Chinese leaving in Tibet today may have been
responsible of some atrocious acts, and it takes a big hart to forgive.
Many Chinese settlers, however, are most surely truly attached to the land
and respectful of the tibetan people and traditions. The sense of belonging
is in the hart and mind, not in the laws or the geographical position.
d
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniele Colajacomo, 925 N. Vista street, Los Angeles, CA 90046
e-mail: dan...@netcom.com or da...@disney.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniele Colajacomo
.In article <danieleC...@netcom.com> dan...@netcom.com (Daniele Colajacomo) writes:
.>By the same token, you're advocating that the United States and all
.>so-called democratic world try to kill all Chinese to get rid of their
.>human rights violations and totalitarian regime.
.
.I don't think that Y. Wu was advocating any action by that article.
.He seemed to be indicating that his view of history is that the only
.way of getting rid of an ethnic dispute is by getting rid of an
.ethnicity. I don't think that in that article he was arguing that
.this is a "good thing."
.
In any case I apologize to Y. Wu . The concepts he expressed, wether
objective or subjective points of views, have shaken me to the point
of loosing my temper. I'm sorry.
Daniele Colajacomo
.In article <danieleC...@netcom.com> dan...@netcom.com (Daniele Colajacomo) writes:
.>.If you trace history, you will find that there have been many times
.>.different parts of China claimed independence. In fact, the opening
.>.sentence of the most famous China novel "The Three Countries" is:
.>
.>Do you mean they tried and were repressed so many times that nobody
.>can believe they really want to be independent anymore?
.
.No. It's that parts of China, tried to be independent, succeeded, and
.life was a total mess afterwards. After a few thousand years of this
.happening, people developed a strong aversion to the idea of
.independence and a strong liking to the concept of a unified China.
.
I agree. I also think that eventually the ex-soviet republics will come
to an understanding that union is better. But there's a difference
between free countries uniting themselves and countries united against
their will. Just look at Jugoslavia!
Daniele Colajacomo
.In article <danieleC...@netcom.com> dan...@netcom.com (Daniele Colajacomo) writes:
.>I think you're being sarcastic, and I'll take it that way.
.>
.>I think the South of the US should have had any right to secession.
.
.I don't. We disagree. Why do you think that the Southern U.S. states
.have a right to secession, or that a right to secession is a good
.thing?
.
In my mind, the right to secession, within a democratic process thought,
is like being free to go. Things change, and just like I am happy that
there's the right to divorce between couples, I think countries, regions,
people in general will come together and by the same token later may feel
the need to separate.
An argument can be made for both situations. Ie a marriage: if you can
divorce, you may end up divorcing too easily instead of working out
your differences. If you can't divorce, you may end up exploding and
killing your all family out of desperation, or abusing your children.
For my point of view, a right to divorce is like a possibility that take
some of the pressure off: "yes I know I can divorce, but now, do I really
want to do that? What is really going on? Can't we work this out?"
working out problems becomes more the choice of a free person rather than
the only way, which is kind of constrictive.
Daniele Colajacomo
.In article <danieleC...@netcom.com>,
.Daniele Colajacomo <dan...@netcom.com> wrote:
.>
.>By the same token, you're advocating that the United States and all
.>so-called democratic world try to kill all Chinese to get rid of their
.>human rights violations and totalitarian regime.
.
.Yes, if you can. Actually you wanted to do so 150 years ago. Unfortunately
.China is too big for you to swallow.
.
I, personally? 150 years ago?
.>You're talking like a slave owner only because you own slaves... I wish you
.>could raise a bit over the conquering mentality because ultimately
.>you're doomed to fail, no matter how hard you fight.
.>
.
.Possibly those TI are doomed to fail, no matter how hard they fight.
.Do you really think Tibet can be independent?
There's a failure much bigger than the political one, and it is that of
the spirit. War and violence in my opinion are a very crude attempt at
gaining happiness, and cannot ever hope to succeed, that's what I meant.
Daniele Colajacomo
.
.Can you say such culture mixture and evolution is right or wrong?
.When you pull tons of Cococla into a country, when you sell hundreds of
.pop-music CDs into a country as well as computers, cars, planes, guns,
.missils, etc, etc, you are actually change a culture, or in some
.sense you are actually destroy a culture. Can you say it is right
.or wrong?
.
.Maybe it is not a good thing. But it is how history developes, and
.it is inevitable like night following day and winter followed by
.spring. Maybe winter is not good, (at least for me), but I
.don't think I can say "winter replaces autumn" is against human right
.because I and many poor people lack of heavy clothes and can't affort
.heating bill (one be basic human right: free from hunger and cold).
DO you really think history is inevitable? Do you think we as individuals
cannot change what is around us? Do you think that if all individuals
changed what is around them things would still be the same?
Well, I have taken action and changed a few things in my life, and with
me a lot more people have. For example, I switched to organic food.
Right now, because of the organic food movement, hundreds of thousands
of acres of farmable land in the US are switching to sustainable
farming. Because there's a market for it.
I have started reciclying. Reciclyng is now a business, people can actually
make money with it.
Maybe these and other things will not ultimately make a difference. It does
not mean you are right. It only means not enough people believed in
their power to make a difference. That is all it means. All I can do is try.
Winter following spring is not inevitable. Just wait a few more years.
d
Jun Hong
>
> Chinese linguists implicitly acknowledge this in using romanization
> for transcribing Zhuang and other nonliterate "minority" languages.
What do you mean, "nonliterate"? There's plenty of literature in
Zhuang. It's among the most widely used languages in Chinese
publications.
--Hong Jun
--
Hong2jun1 bu2 pa4 yuan3 zheng1 nan2, Wan4 shui3 qian1 shan1 zhi3 deng3xian2.
Wu3 ling3 wei1yi2 teng2 xi4 lang4, Wu1meng2 pang2bo2 zou3 ni2 wan2.
Jin1sha1 shui3 "po6" yun2 yai2 nuan3, Da4du4 qiao2 heng2 tie3 suo3 han2.
Geng4 xi3 Min2shan1 qian1 li3 xue3, San1 jun1 guo4 hou4 jin4 kai1 yan2.
Dong Xiao
>In article <CG6rA...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, xi...@ibm17.scri.fsu.edu (Dong Xiao) writes:
>> In article <CG35q...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> xl...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) writes:
>>>In article <lefty-051...@lefty.apple.com> le...@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>>>
>>>The history also told us that whenever the country divided, there was
>>>war. To have peace, richness and pride, it is best to have the country
>>>as one piece.
>>
>> It is not correct. The most prosperous time of Chinese culture was
>> during the Zhou Dynasty when the whole China was divided into many countries.
>
> when Chinese Culture reached pinnacle.
The present day Chinese culture is essentially formed during Zhou
Dynasty. The Zhou culture was a creative culture, going upward, while
Tang-Song culture is an aristocratic culture, going downhill (reached
pinnacle? :-)).
>> And without the fact of the division, many great thinkers, strategists
>> and politicians would not emerge.
>
> This is argueable. Let's assume it was right for now. But have you
> noticed that it is always when people in general are suffering and
> the society has a lot of problems, that "greater thinkers,
> strategists, and politicians (I would use the world statesman, no
> great politician whatsoever.)" emerge?
So you prefer a stable and rotten society, what can I say?
>> So, for Tibetan Buddhism to be prosperous, it is better to have a divided
>> China, with Tibetan an independent country.
>
> "With a devided China", huh, so you agree that Tibet is a part of
> China, right?
>
>Paul
>931108
Of course Tibet is part of China, glad there's something you don't refuse
to agree with me. :-)
Jun Hong
> >
> About a couple months ago I went to a seminar about modern Chinese
> women. The speaker mentioned the language for the minority people. Shed
> said to involve in the local politics, the minority mainly speak their
> own language. But when involving something beyond their own area,
> Chinese is important.
Yes, this is true. All documents pertaining to local politics in Tibet
must be written in (or translated into) Tibetan. Chinese translations
are of secondary importance.
HAKKIM WONG
>You're supporting my argument, which is fine with me, but perhaps not what
>you intended. Regardless of its earlier status, Tibet without question
>existed as an independent state for more than a generation.
As always, you are wrong again!!!
Gosh, I am just wondering have you ever got anything
RIGHT????
Sorry, forgot your name is "Lefty"!!!
>Larger countries should not invade neighboring, independent smaller
>countries.
This is exactly the thing I want to tell the Presidents of the US,
from Washington to Billy "wannabe" the Kid!
Wing Ng
>In article <2bfdab$6...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, yan...@acf2.nyu.edu (yangze) writes:
>|> (too long paragraphs deleted)
>|>
>|> Tibet has peacefully been an intergral part of China for more than
>|> several hundred years. Unfortunately, conflicts have been created
>|> by western countries.
>|>
>|> (more paragraphs deleted)
>|>
>
>I think this is not entirely true. Whilst I would not argue that China
>has been badly bullied by foreign countries in the last century and the
>beginning of this, the policies adpoted by the Chinese Communist Party
>is misguided at best, and foolish at worst. Indeed Tibet has peacefully
>been an integral part of China for centuries, but the Emperors of Qing
>Dynasty had much more sensible policies than the CCP. The Imperial
>Government only asked to take over the foreign policy and military
>affairs of Tibet, and never tried to destroy their culture, their
>language and their lifestyle. The CCP tried to stamp out Buddhism,
>tried to kill off their language and then moved so many Han people there
>that the fragile ecology of the Tibetan land was badly upset. This is
My dear HK ? friend, you've lived in U.K. too long.
CCP tried to stamp out Buddhism throughout China, tried to stamp
out _all_ religion for that matter. It does not have any special
hatred for Tibetan Buddhism, except maybe because it is linked to
political power in the Tibet local govt.
How do you kill off the Tibetan language? Forbid them to speak
and read it? That's certainly not done in Tibet. On the other
hand, written Chinese of all forms were / are ? forbidden in
Indonesia. Trying to import any Chinese printed material is a
crime.
Importing Han people into "Tibet" is a distortion. Tib. indep.
advocates include all of Qinghai, much of Sichuan, Yunnan and
Gansu into their definition of Tibet, and came up with this
massive flood of Han people, into the western suburbs of Chengdu
for example. The Tibet A.R. itself has terrible altitude problems,
and even the CCP party secretaries in Tibet got bad health problems
after staying there a couple years.
Wing
>the reason, and in my humble opinion a just reason, for what Tibet is
>doing.
>
>I am a Han Chinese, but I support the independence movement of Tibet.
>Cultural diversity is to be respected, and if the CCP cannot even
>treasure our own Han culture, it would be a vain hope to expect them
>to respect other people's culture.
>
>Another thing I have observed amongst my compatriots all too often is
>when things do not go right, we have all too great a tendency to blame it
>on foreign powers. When Tibetans want independence, it is because there
>are foreign powers behind. When Beijing did not get to host the 2000
>Olympic Games, the government started to suspect the UK and the USA.
>When shall we become more introspective, and look at the way we treated
>the Tibetans and our human rights record in general? Is it indeed
>surprising that we are not welcome?
>
>P.-L. Chau
>University of Cambridge
Wing Ng
>
>In article <1993Nov7.1...@infodev.cam.ac.uk> pc...@cus.cam.ac.uk (P. Chau) writes:
>>|>
>>|> >...I am a Han Chinese, but I support the independence movement of Tibet...
>>|> >treasure our own Han culture, it would be a vain hope to expect them
>>|>
>>|> What would be the impact and consequences on the whole China and the
>>|> people? In 1920s, the warlords was fighting for lands, which had been
>>|> a major focus. Xinjiang and the northwest had been in chaos later on.
>>|> A few years ago, Soviet Union had been broken into pieces, Yugoslovakia(?)
>>|> too. New crises replaced old ones. Many of these people have been
>>|> brutally fighting, fighting and fighting to each other. For what reasons?
>>|>
>>|> China also has some such potential problems in MANY regions. Don't ignore
>>|> them.
>>|>
>>|> Once the country were in trouble, we all would have to regret. The
>>|> country should be in peace, since we had too many wars and chaos in
>>|> the past 150 years.
>>|>
>>|> But you are right in that the government should have done better in
>>|> decreasing the sentiments of all kinds to the LEAST. It is not as easy
>>|> as the pure human right talks though.
>>
>>Exactly. It is precisely I would like to avoid future bloodshed that I
>>would like Tibet to go peacefully its way. If it goes now, there are few
>>Han people around, and they can all be asked to go back to China, or, if
>>they wish, to stay there, but respecting the culture of Tibet and obeying
>>the laws of Tibet. If it stays in Chinese hands for longer, then it would
>>become a potential Northern Ireland or Estonia, where two warring factions
>>would develop, each claiming that they have the right to the country.
>
>First of all, we don't know wether most Tibetans like the idea of Tibet
>Independence. There must be many Tibetans like it, while many others don't.
>That's why some Tibetans can be arrested for their activities even in small
>towns. My guess is that some Tibetans reported such activities to the
>authorities.
>
>Secondly, the principles of human rights and democracy are often on the
>paper, when the keeping of a territory can still be maintained. Take Kashmir
>for an example, now a 400,000 (para)military force is there, while the
>population is only three million(?).
>
H.R. and democracy are separate issues from territory or political
independence. I happen to be for H.R. and dem. for all of China,
incl. Tibet, but these ideals do _not_ lead to automatic support
for political independence for any given region. Canada is by any
measure very democratic and very good in H.R., and yet the people
of Quebec (some of them) want independence, and the vast majority
of Canadians outside Quebec oppose independence for Quebec. This
does not make the non-quebecois Canadians imperialists, colonialists,
tyrants, dictators, or anything like that.
Wing
>Thirdly, masses can never be controlled when a drastic change happens.
>These phenomena are happening in the examples that I had shown. Boundary
>areas are always the places that people have to take where-to-go decisions.
>A quick division often causes confusions among people. The international
>community is having trouble to control the situation
>
>Lastly, even the government might have difficulty to let Tibet go soon,
>if you consider the idea is so strong in China that Tibet has been of
>China. This idea is quite lasting when you consider that Chinese think
>Tibet is a part of China when KMT was in power.
>
>>What would be the impact and consequences on the whole of China and her
>>people? None, except for nationalists who dream of a huge Chinese Empire.
>
>No, it is not this simple. People are not all so stupid. If you look at
>the noways warring situations around the boundary of the Soviet republics
>and Bosnia. Past neighbors and friends are turning against each other just
>for their ethnic identities and for lands. Along the thousands-of-miles-long
>"boundary", ethnic groups are quite mixed.
>
>>What do we lose from letting Tibet go, I ask you? Certainly nothing of
>>economic importance, and nothing of strategic importance either.
>
>Maybe nothing economic, but not nothing strategic.
>
>>On the other hand, we become a less uncivilized people who respect the
>>rights of minorities (modern Chinese are a far cry from our ancestors,
>>and I must admit I am rather ashamed of many things we do in China and abroad).
>
>In recent years, more and more people are flowing from their birth places
>to other places. I found Tibetans can be more and more located in "inner land".
>I don't think isolation of Tibet is a good idea. Separating people according to
>ethnic identities can lead to racism trend. I hope people can be more mixed
>than before, so as to understand each other.
>
>>Incidentally, I do not see the connection between Xinjiang in the 1920's
>>and present-day Tibet. Could you possibly enlighten me on that count?
>
>Ethnic resentments between exist/existed in some aprts of both places.
>Radical people can triggerd the situations to the worse.
>
Joe Huang
>
>Importing Han people into "Tibet" is a distortion. Tib. indep.
>advocates include all of Qinghai, much of Sichuan, Yunnan and
>Gansu into their definition of Tibet, and came up with this
>massive flood of Han people, into the western suburbs of Chengdu
There seems to be a difference in what the Chinese (Han) and Tibetans
consider Tibet. The Tibetans in Qinghai, Sichuan, etc., are linked
with those in the TAR by religion, history, language, and culture.
The current Dalai Lama was originally from the northeast corner
of Qinghai. The 1959 revolt started in the Kham areas of Sichuan
and spread to Lhasa. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that the Tibetans,
particularly those in exile, would not abide the provincial borders
borders imposed by China when speaking of "Tibet". I wouldn't call
this a distortion as much as a difference in definition.
There is a good parallel here with Mongolia. During the Qing Empire,
the Manchus divided the Mongol area into Outer and Inner Mongolia.
This imposed division was resented by the Mongols, who never refer
to themselves as Inner or Outer Mongols.
>for example. The Tibet A.R. itself has terrible altitude problems,
^^^^^^^^
DO you mean "attitude problems" ? :-)
>and even the CCP party secretaries in Tibet got bad health problems
>after staying there a couple years.
I don't think Tibetans who grew up in Tibet would have any such
problems with the altitude. What you're implying is that these CCP
party secretaries are all outsiders, i.e., non-Tibetans.
Joe Huang
Bruce R. Holloway
>Government towards those Tibet independists. The real threaten comes
>from the evolution and mixture of Tibet culture with Han culture.
>According to some most recent reports about Tibet (BBC, Times and
>Economist, etc), Tibet cities are rapidly turning into modern cities
>like any other Chinese cities. Highrise buildings, wild streets, department
>stores, banks, coffee bar, cinemas, Sony Adverts boards, etc, etc, are
>all rapidly appearing in Lahsa. The young generation of Lahsa, like any
>other youth of elsewhere, also want to find jobs in banks, in large
>department stores, in entertainments. They also like any other
>youth of elaewhere like pop-music, like disco, like hollewood films.
That's Han culture? I've never been to China. You make it sound like
anywhere else.
>Although Tibet language is still taught in schools, no young people really
>use it.
Clearly this is an exaggeration. No one uses it to talk to you.
>Although temples are still openning for people coming into
>worship, very few young people really bother to go there. If this
>trend contiues, in less then 20 year, Tibet culture will disappear,
>or become something totally different.
These things are true in my community & culture, as well. I've lived
in Northern California all my life. There is a Tibetan Buddhist
retreat center in my town, though, that was not there 20 years ago.
Tibet was a crucible of Buddhism for over a thousand years and with
the Chinese invasion, the crucible has been shattered and Tibetan
Buddhism spread all over the world.
>If Dalai Lama come back then,
>he will not understand Tibetans living there, nor will he be understood
>by Tibetans living there.
I think he is quite urbane. Perhaps he understands the Chinese
living there better than they understand themselves.
Regards, bruceh
Joseph C Wang
>Government towards those Tibet independists. The real threaten comes
>from the evolution and mixture of Tibet culture with Han culture.
The curious thing about Chinese culture is that no matter what it is,
people still think of it as Chinese. You can have high rise
buildings, department stores, people dressed in Western outfits
learning English buying stocks, etc. etc. and through it all still be
thoroughly Chinese. Part of the reason for this is that if you ask a
hundred different people, what is Chinese culture? you will get a
hundred different answers. Hence it's possible for China to take
anything from the outside and yet still view it as Chinese.
I'd be interested in how Tibetans feel about reconciling traditional
Tibetan culture with the emerging global culture. A person in
Shanghai can point to a stock market, a satellite dish, a Big Mac at
McDonalds, rock music and say this is all part of the new Chinese
culture.
I'm wondering if a Tibetan in Lhasa can react in a analogous way.
Y.Wu
Jeffrey B. Green <gre...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>In article <2bl47j$p...@alpha.qmw.ac.uk> zge...@alpha.qmw.ac.uk (Y.Wu) writes:
>>In article <2bjn54$m...@pandora.sdsu.edu>,
>>John McDonald <jm...@mintaka.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>>>Y.Wu (zge...@alpha.qmw.ac.uk) wrote:
>>
>>No, unfortunately you are not capable of stopping the disappearing of
>>Tibet culture. Do you think you can stop it by posting something on
>>USENET. As I said, even if Tibet became independent and current Dalai
>>Lama went back there as you wish, Tibet religious and Tibet culture
>>would still disappear.
>>
>
>If it is already determined then whatever you say has no effect
>one way or the other. I assume that you are then participating in this
>newsgroup to help us poor lost souls with concern for the Tibetan
>culture see the light.
>
>-- Jeff
>
Yes, I do want to help you poor lost souls to see some light.
If you realy care about Tibet culture and you want it last a bitter
longer (I still think it will die anyway, like any individual culture),
you should give up your advocate for Tibet independent first and begin
talk about real Tibet culture now.
Have you noticed almost all Chinese netters against Tibet independence?
Without the sympathies and supports from Chinese living outside China, let
alone Chinese living inside China, in Tibet, how can you save Tibet
culture? Be realistic! In this sense, I say you can do nothing about at all.
Like any Chinese, I don't like CCP and I also strongly oppose those
violent culture-destory actions taken by CCP or encouraged by CCP
towards the Tibet Culture as well Han Culture itself during culture
revolution. But when I noticed that the real motivation under the
words of "keeping Tibet Culture" is "Tibet Independence", I switched
the side to CCP because I don't like China being splitted apart
and being in the midst of civil war.
You may not care what China might become (fair enough, you are not a
Chinese), also there are some Chinese, like the one who sniffs at
his country fellows, do not care . But I care, most Chinese care,
No matter where we from, mainland, Taiwan, Hongkong or somewhere else,
we want China become better off or worse off. We don't want Chinese
living in the middle of civil war like those in Bosnia, Georgia,
Arminia, etc. etc.
That is why most Chinese stand at CCP side when talking about Tibet
issues although most of them are opposing CCP in many aspects.
Although keeping a culture and prevent separation are not contradicts
towards each other. But if you insist that the only way to preserve
Tibet cultrue is Tibet independence, Chinese would say the only way to
prevent Tibet Independenec is eliminate Tibet Cultrue (And history has
proven it is indeed an effective way, good or right? It's the way of history).
The reality is Tibet is a part of China _now_. Can you do anything to that?
Form a "crussade" to "free" Tibet from China? No you are unfortunately
uncapable of doing so. All you can do are just post something advocate
Tibet independence on USENET or at best write something in papers which
actually push CCP to eliminate Tibet culture fast.
So begin talk about real Tibet culture now. You will get the supports
from all Chinese. Actually most Han Chinese don't think Tibet culture is
an evil culture and should be destoried, Most Han Chinese regard Tibet
culture as good as Han's culture and are willing to discuss how to
preserve it, to make it last a little bit longer. Remember it is
Chinese who first suggested having newsgroup S.C.T. That is only effective
way you can do.
Cheh Goh
> |>
> |> I think your grasp my point well. It is very true that they don't
> |> understand English and are still a US citizen. That is possibly because
> |> they do not have a desire NOT to belong to the USA. Elsewhere I mentioned
> |> the European community, because it is conceivable that the EC becomes a
> |> confederation of some sort, because|> it is mutually benefitial for all
> |> participants, and so they come together. Some other posting has already
> |> very nicely explained that UK, for example, did not get what they want
> |> and became a noted "separatist". But there is a choice, is there not?
>
> Choice? Nice to hear that. -:)
> Were native American granted a choice when white men grabbed their land
> and extincted their races?
> Were US south granted a choice when they want an independence?
Good, Hui Zhu thinks that the whites in USA are not a good example of how
human beings should behave. I agree entirely. I just wonder if secretely
Hui Zhu likes the idea: "see how awful the American whites behave...so the
Han Chinese can do what they like..." Of course, this is contrary to
good Chinese concept of "checking oneself in order not to commit the same
errors as others."
Why do people like to copy unscrupulous politician's behaviour by saying "Such and such also did this, so my atrocity is justified?" If it is bad,
it is bad, regardless of who did it.
>
> Oh, come on, I know they had this choice: war. -:)
Well, you are right. And of course, the white American immigrants, like the PLA of China, dutifully fought and wiped the entire local Indian population out...because they have superior weapons, etc.
>
> Hi, dude, still remember you the lesson I taught you last time? No personal
When people are desparate, they become rude. This is time to not to talk
to them, as no reason is likely to come forth from them.
>
> |> Culture involves language written and spoken, philosophy, religion, arts...
> |> and the history associated with it. Is it not a show of ignorance to
> |> say that when Qin Xe Wang (?) created a set of Han characters and
> |> generally used by China hundreds of years ago, there is a distinction
> |> between the words (characters) used? Of course, regional variation exists,
> |> even between villages 5 km apart, but there is mapping of words to
> |> written characters most of the time. Not between spoken Mongolian to
> |> chinese character as
> |> such though.
>
> Isn't this irrelevant? As I mentioned, people of different cultures, languages,
> and even races, can still exist in the same area and form the same country.
Yes, only if they WANT to. Strange, Hui Zhu simply ignored the example of
the European community. I have read many poems and literature about the
agony of Chinese being ruled by the Mongolians in Yuen and by the ManQi in
Qing. Remember how all Chinese had been FORCED into cutting their hair to
form a pig tail? How humiliating! From the point of view of Tibetans,
not to be able to believe in what they worship is possibly just as bad.
There was no choice for the Han Chinese when they have to have a hair cut
that is laughed at by the western world for many many years. Yet, the Han
Chinese are not able to be compassionate to avoid inflicting similar
sufferings on others. This is just human nature, some have good heart,
some don't.
> Then who cares all those differences when talking about nationality?
>
--
Cheh
Y.Wu
Bruce R. Holloway <bru...@sgi.com> wrote:
>In article <2bo48p$3...@alpha.qmw.ac.uk> zge...@alpha.qmw.ac.uk (Y.Wu) writes:
>>
>>The real threaten to Tibet culture is not the force used by Chinese
>>Government towards those Tibet independists. The real threaten comes
>>from the evolution and mixture of Tibet culture with Han culture.
>>According to some most recent reports about Tibet (BBC, Times and
>>Economist, etc), Tibet cities are rapidly turning into modern cities
>>like any other Chinese cities. Highrise buildings, wild streets, department
>>stores, banks, coffee bar, cinemas, Sony Adverts boards, etc, etc, are
>>all rapidly appearing in Lahsa. The young generation of Lahsa, like any
>>other youth of elsewhere, also want to find jobs in banks, in large
>>department stores, in entertainments. They also like any other
>>youth of elaewhere like pop-music, like disco, like hollewood films.
>
>That's Han culture? I've never been to China. You make it sound like
>anywhere else.
Yes, Han culture is actually like anywhere else or approach anywhere else
rapidly if not totally like yet.
>
>>Although Tibet language is still taught in schools, no young people really
>>use it.
>
>Clearly this is an exaggeration. No one uses it to talk to you.
>
I quote BBC's report. Sorry, I should make it clear the report was
focused on today's life in Lhasa. For countryside, thing might be
different.
>>Although temples are still openning for people coming into
>>worship, very few young people really bother to go there. If this
>>trend contiues, in less then 20 year, Tibet culture will disappear,
>>or become something totally different.
>
>These things are true in my community & culture, as well. I've lived
>in Northern California all my life. There is a Tibetan Buddhist
>retreat center in my town, though, that was not there 20 years ago.
>Tibet was a crucible of Buddhism for over a thousand years and with
>the Chinese invasion, the crucible has been shattered and Tibetan
>Buddhism spread all over the world.
>
>>If Dalai Lama come back then,
>>he will not understand Tibetans living there, nor will he be understood
>>by Tibetans living there.
>
>I think he is quite urbane. Perhaps he understands the Chinese
>living there better than they understand themselves.
>
>Regards, bruceh
He want tibetans understand him as a Dalai Lama, not an urbanelised
politician. And he want to understand tibetans as his slavers not
urbanelise citizens.
Martin Hofmann
>advocates include all of Qinghai, much of Sichuan, Yunnan and
>Gansu into their definition of Tibet, and came up with this
>massive flood of Han people, into the western suburbs of Chengdu
>for example. The Tibet A.R. itself has terrible altitude problems,
>and even the CCP party secretaries in Tibet got bad health problems
>after staying there a couple years.
>
>Wing
>
health problems but that hasn't stopped many other Chinese from moving
into the high altitudes of Tibet. Everything that I have read
claims that in fact Han people (and other Chinese) are migrating to all
regions of Tibet, Tibet A.R. included. For example, the Chinese population
in Lhasa now outnumbers the Tibetan population. This may be an extreme case
but there are certainly significant numbers of Chinese in all Tibetan regions.
These facts are supported by personal observations in Lhasa, Shigatse and other
Tibetan towns, as well as regions in Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghai. I am willing
to believe that some areas of the other provinces may have had significant
numbers of Chinese previously, but I can't believe that of Tibet A.R.
--
The world is sacred. You cannot improve it. | Martin Hofmann, U of Toronto
If you try to change it, you will ruin it. | mar...@zoo.toronto.edu
If you try to hold it, you will lose it. | mar...@zoo.utoronto.ca
Lao Tsu, "Tao Te Ching" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!martin
xiao-lin li
>chinese troops to preserve for example the tibetan tradition and religion
>and still consider Tibet home (my meditation master is one of them). I say
>at the "most" because some Chinese leaving in Tibet today may have been
>responsible of some atrocious acts, and it takes a big hart to forgive.
You forget many Han people served as medical doctors and construction
workers, algricultural experts, science teachers in Tibet. It was their
hard work who has brought from a primitive society to the modern
rich society today. My mother-in-law was in a medical team in Tibet
for four years. She saved many patients in Tibet. She said the medical
condition in Tibet was terrible before. She still had many presents
given by native Tibetans.
>Many Chinese settlers, however, are most surely truly attached to the land
>and respectful of the tibetan people and traditions. The sense of belonging
>is in the hart and mind, not in the laws or the geographical position.
You are wrong. No matter what sense you have, you are out if you
don't live there and participate. Look at American immigration law,
a green card is no longer valid if the holder leave the country
for more than half year in a year. A foreign born child of American
parents is not automatically considered as American citizen.
If you are an outsider, you are considered as a friend if you bear good will.
You will be an outside agitator if otherwise.
Joseph C Wang
>I agree. I also think that eventually the ex-soviet republics will come
>to an understanding that union is better. But there's a difference
>between free countries uniting themselves and countries united against
>their will. Just look at Jugoslavia!
Actually, Yugoslavia was created largely with the consent of the
Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes after World War I. The problem with
Yugoslavia was that in the late 1980's, the old socialists in the
Yugoslav Communist Party were replaced by younger members who
championed the cause of Serb nationalism. Also you had economic
problems as the state-industries of Serbia received resources from
privatizing Croatia and Slovenia.
Joseph C Wang
>In my mind, the right to secession, within a democratic process thought,
>is like being free to go. Things change, and just like I am happy that
>there's the right to divorce between couples, I think countries, regions,
>people in general will come together and by the same token later may feel
>the need to separate.
One must be very careful in drawing analogies between relationships
between individuals and relationships between groups of people. A lot
of things are different. (To name few things, there are generally
more than two parties involved in secession. An individual generally
has something close to a single will, but a group of people may have
several conflicting wills etc. etc.)
>An argument can be made for both situations.
The trouble is that the institutions of marriage and the institutions
of government are fundamentally different things. One big difference
is that a marriage should not be based on coercion, whereas the use or
threat of coercion is the basis for any and all governments. I don't
pay my taxes completely out of free will, but partly because I will
end up in jail if I don't.
>If you can't divorce, you may end up exploding and
>killing your all family out of desperation, or abusing your children.
Another difference is that it is not inherently wrong to kill a
government. If not being able to "divorce" (i.e. secede) forces you
kill your partner (i.e. a government) in this case, so what?
>For my point of view, a right to divorce is like a possibility that take
>some of the pressure off: "yes I know I can divorce, but now, do I really
>want to do that? What is really going on? Can't we work this out?"
The another trouble with letting people secede whenever they want to
is that it lets a small minority hold the majority hostage. If you
postulate a right to secede, then one side can say "If I don't get
exactly what I want, I'm leaving." Once you elevate secession to a
right (i.e. a group can exercise it whenever they feel like it) then
there's very little incentive for the seceding group to "work things
out" rather than leave at the first sign of problems.
>working out problems becomes more the choice of a free person rather than
>the only way, which is kind of constrictive.
What is this necessarily a good thing?
Lefty
(xiao-lin li) wrote:
>
> To be objective, I don't think those who have left Tibet want to
> go back.
My experience would differ with this. Virtually all of the Tibetans I know
personally would like to return to a Tibet free of Communist autoritarian
rule.
> Many of them have already been citizens of other countries
> such as India and America. The future of China including Tibet is
> to be decided by those who still live there.
Of course, the people of Tibet do not get a direct say in the future of
their own country. The people of Tibet cannot even express their opinions
with impunity.
> Some outsiders, since they
> no longer live in the place, would love to see chaos where they never want
> live again. So when I say peace, richness and pride, I meant the
> people who still live there and consider the place as home.
Right. The people who regularly stage protests against the occupiers of
their land, in spite of the severe penmalties associated with such actions.
Lefty
(Joseph C Wang) wrote:
>
> On the other hand, there isn't much reason why Hanzi could not be
> adapted for use in Tibetan, Korean, English, or whatever.
This comment fairly reeks of cultural imperialism. Why on earth should any
Tibetan want to adapt Hanzi for use in Tibetan?
I could just as easily say that you should _all_ cut to the chase and
simply learn to speak English.
Lefty
(Joseph C Wang) wrote:
>
> >ops, I am sure you don't wish to poll Tibetans scattered all over the
> >world on if they feel at peace, rich and full of pride at being part of
> >China!
>
> If you polled them during the Imperial period, I'm sure they would
> have approved.
I wouldn't be so sanguine. Someone else has already quoted Abbe Huc's
statements to the contrary. There are certainly many, many
counter-examples to this assertion of yours.
Lefty
Zhu) wrote:
> In article <lefty-081...@lefty.apple.com>, le...@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> |> You're supporting my argument, which is fine with me, but perhaps not what
> |> you intended. Regardless of its earlier status, Tibet without question
> |> existed as an independent state for more than a generation.
>
> Wrong. Tibet was, indeed, out of the control of the Chinese central
> government direct control for a while. But still this does not equal
> to independence.
I suggest that you have a little sit-down witrh Mr. Dictionary and attempt
to discover the meaning of the word "independence". Clearly, you have some
sort of odd idea about its definition.
If Tibet was "out of the control of the Chinese central government", and
did not _depend_ on that government, then clearly Tibet _was_ independent
in any meaningful sense of the word.
> In another words, this so-called "independence" declared
> by ex-Dalai Lama is invalid legally. This action may actually made him a
> criminal according to the law at that time.
Beg pardon? What law? Chinese law? It doesn't apply. Tibet was
independent of China, remember?
> Also interesting, when this ex-DL declare independence, did he have a
> "vote" or general "referendum" among people in Tibet? Obviously NOT.
As it happens, Tibet was neither a democracy nor a republic at the time.
Moreover, even in a democratic republic, the chief executive is allowed to
take various kinds of action without the necessity of holding a vote or a
general referendum.
> |> Larger countries should not invade neighboring, independent smaller
> |> countries.
>
> If Tibet had been really independent, as you thought, then what the hell
> this ex-DL did for by declaring independence? -:)
Clarifying the situation. Apparently many other people at the time must
have been as easily confused as you seem to be.
Karen Lofstrom
: Have you noticed almost all Chinese netters against Tibet independence?
: Without the sympathies and supports from Chinese living outside China, let
: alone Chinese living inside China, in Tibet, how can you save Tibet
: culture? Be realistic! In this sense, I say you can do nothing about at all.
World opinion CAN have an effect, if it is accompanied by internal unrest.
Take, for instance, South Africa. World opinion was against the white
South Africans, while blacks inside S. Africa rioted, struck, committed
terrorist acts, etc. Eventually, the white S. Africans had to give in.
Perhaps Tibet will take the same course ... world opinion condemns China
for colonialism, while Tibetans themselves lose their Buddhist inhibitions
against violence and strike out at the Hans occupying Tibet. It could be
ugly. China might have a lot to gain by giving Tibet a larger degree of
autonomy now, and assuring that it has an ally rather than a bitter enemy
in the years to come.
: But when I noticed that the real motivation under the
: words of "keeping Tibet Culture" is "Tibet Independence", I switched
: the side to CCP because I don't like China being splitted apart
: and being in the midst of civil war.
Countries don't necessarily come apart in blood and fire. There is no
longer any Czechoslovakia, but there was no Czech-Slovak war. Just an
election and then a peaceful divorce. I believe that Puerto Rico, the US
posssession, will soon be voting as to whether it wants statehood or
independence. Perhaps this latter is a better analogy for Tibet, since,
as a US citizen, I have no strong concern over what the Puerto Ricans
choose. They are far away, they speak a different language, they have
their own history and culture.
It's true that China does have a compelling interest in keeping Tibet
friendly. No country wants a hostile power on its flank. However, it
seems that this would be best handled by making friends with the Tibetans,
rather than ruthlessly suppressing them.
BTW, I changed the header so that this will only be posted in t.p.t.
Perhaps the good people in soc.culture.china will appreciate having the
Tibet discussion confined to this newsgroup.
--
--- Karen Lofstrom lofs...@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.edu
K.Lofstrom on GEnie
Eddie Cheng
Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
>
>World opinion CAN have an effect, if it is accompanied by internal unrest.
>Take, for instance, South Africa. World opinion was against the white
>South Africans, while blacks inside S. Africa rioted, struck, committed
>terrorist acts, etc. Eventually, the white S. Africans had to give in.
But are you happy to see what is happening in South Africa
right now? How long would it take to recover from the total economic
collapse, if ever?
Eddie
xiao-lin li
>
>My experience would differ with this. Virtually all of the Tibetans I know
>personally would like to return to a Tibet free of Communist autoritarian
>rule.
Do you mean free of Communist autoritarian rule or free of Han Chinese?
If it is former, don't worry, just wait for several years when the
people in China become rich, the "Communist autoritarian rule" will
soon gone. However if it is latter, I don't believe it is realistic,
I only consider it as an excuse not to return.
>Of course, the people of Tibet do not get a direct say in the future of
>their own country. The people of Tibet cannot even express their opinions
>with impunity.
I don't have direct say for independence of my Jiangsu country either.:-)
>Right. The people who regularly stage protests against the occupiers of
>their land, in spite of the severe penmalties associated with such actions.
If the protest is aimed at burning stores of Han and stoning Muslim
traders, I don't think high of these protests.
Karen Lofstrom
: But are you happy to see what is happening in South Africa
: right now? How long would it take to recover from the total economic
: collapse, if ever?
No, I don't think what's happening in S. Africa is a good idea. I wish
the whites had been sensible from the beginning, so that a lot of the
current unrest could have been avoided. I don't, however, think that we
should support repressive governments and repressive policies simply
because we're afraid of disorder (something I wish the US government could
understand). Rectification postponed leads to greater disorder in the end.
Jun Hong
> (Joseph C Wang) wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, there isn't much reason why Hanzi could not be
> > adapted for use in Tibetan, Korean, English, or whatever.
>
> This comment fairly reeks of cultural imperialism. Why on earth should any
> Tibetan want to adapt Hanzi for use in Tibetan?
Your removal of the context does indeed put Joseph's comment in a
different light. Unfortunately for you, anyone who read his original
article knows that he was not advocating the use of Hanzi in Tibetan
or any other language but just making a statement of fact.
Daniele Colajacomo
.In article <danieleC...@netcom.com> dan...@netcom.com (Daniele Colajacomo) writes:
.>I agree. I also think that eventually the ex-soviet republics will come
.>to an understanding that union is better. But there's a difference
.>between free countries uniting themselves and countries united against
.>their will. Just look at Jugoslavia!
.
.Actually, Yugoslavia was created largely with the consent of the
.Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes after World War I. The problem with
.Yugoslavia was that in the late 1980's, the old socialists in the
.Yugoslav Communist Party were replaced by younger members who
.championed the cause of Serb nationalism. Also you had economic
.problems as the state-industries of Serbia received resources from
.privatizing Croatia and Slovenia.
.
.
That's exactly it! Conditions change, and for a nation to provide the
democratic means for secession is a way to make its citizens feel
freer, its government feel a bit more pressure to perform in a
spirity of equality. There's more and more talk of secession in Italy
these days: the north feels like they can do better by themselves,
and otherwise smart politicians are starting to talk about taking up
arms. People talk about coup d'etates, killing each other. It's
ridicolous. I would become part of the poorer part of the country,
and it may be easy for me to talk since I'm really living in sunny
California (which by the way is facing a proposal by the north to
split the state in two...!). But if only we could understand that
life is not money, is not power, is not politics. In a lighter vein,
I think most of what we do is because we don't get complete, total,
all-pervading sexual satisfaction.
I approved 100% when, after the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, one of the
women Italian members of parliament offered her sexual services to
S.Hussein in exchange for Kuwait's freedon: he obviously has major sexual hang
-ups!
d
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniele Colajacomo, 925 N. Vista street, Los Angeles, CA 90046
e-mail: dan...@netcom.com or da...@disney.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hui Zhu
|> > Choice? Nice to hear that. -:)
|> > Were native American granted a choice when white men grabbed their land
|> > and extincted their races?
|> > Were US south granted a choice when they want an independence?
|>
|> Good, Hui Zhu thinks that the whites in USA are not a good example of how
|> human beings should behave. I agree entirely.
Did I? Please find evidence to back up your claim. Otherwise, you got to
acknowledge your mistake here.
All I wrote above are just simpe facts without any comments. Pure and simple.
|> I just wonder if secretely
|> Hui Zhu likes the idea: "see how awful the American whites behave...so the
|> Han Chinese can do what they like..." Of course, this is contrary to
|> good Chinese concept of "checking oneself in order not to commit the same
|> errors as others."
Haha, I am just NOT such a good guy to check myself. -:) Don't you remeber,
according to the Bible, human is evil in nature? So I have NO such secret
"great" idea. -:)
|> Why do people like to copy unscrupulous politician's behaviour by saying
|> "Such and such also did this, so my atrocity is justified?" If it is bad,
|> it is bad, regardless of who did it.
Hmm, sounds a good point. But didn't you notice that the most unscrupulous
politicians always have the loudest voice on democracy and human rights? -:)
|> > Oh, come on, I know they had this choice: war. -:)
|>
|> Well, you are right. And of course, the white American immigrants,
|> like the PLA of China, dutifully fought and wiped the entire local Indian
|> population out...because they have superior weapons, etc.
But please note: A. Lincoln is remembered and honor for his great role
in defending the unification of USA!
Also I want to make this clear: Chinese central government's control over one of its provience XiZhang
has nothing similar to your so-called "wiped the entire local Tibetan".
The truth is that the Tibetan population in Xizhang significant increased since 1959.
|> When people are desparate, they become rude. This is time to not to talk
|> to them, as no reason is likely to come forth from them.
Good to see you stopped bashing my educational background even when you got
desparate this time. -:)
|> Yes, only if they WANT to. Strange, Hui Zhu simply ignored the example of
|> the European community. I have read many poems and literature about the
|> agony of Chinese being ruled by the Mongolians in Yuen and by the ManQi in
|> Qing. Remember how all Chinese had been FORCED into cutting their hair to
|> form a pig tail? How humiliating! From the point of view of Tibetans,
|> not to be able to believe in what they worship is possibly just as bad.
Again, the truth is: In XiZhang, Tibetans are fully enjoying their rights
of religious believing.
Also I have to pointed out: Anyone in China who don't want to be a Chinese
citizen can certainly give up his citizenship if they WANT to.
|> There was no choice for the Han Chinese when they have to have a hair cut
|> that is laughed at by the western world for many many years. Yet, the Han
|> Chinese are not able to be compassionate to avoid inflicting similar
|> sufferings on others. This is just human nature, some have good heart,
|> some don't.
No Tibetans are forced to give up their own religion in China right now.
Chien-Chung Chen
Hui Zhu <zh...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>Also I have to pointed out: Anyone in China who don't want to be a Chinese
>citizen can certainly give up his citizenship if they WANT to.
??? How? Not paying the tax?
-- Chien-Chung Chen
Jim Cochrane
>In article <CG7Lt...@csn.org> j...@teal.csn.org (Jim Cochrane) writes:
>>In article <CG6qo...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> xi...@ibm17.scri.fsu.edu (Dong Xiao) writes:
>>>In article <CG341...@csn.org> j...@teal.csn.org (Jim Cochrane) writes:
>>>>In article <CFzG5...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> xi...@ibm17.scri.fsu.edu (Dong Xiao) writes:
>>>>> [Deleted]
>>>>>
>>>>> The biggest mistake the communists made, in post-Dalai era, was to undermine
>>>>>the religious tradition of Tibet, based on the ridiculous belief originated
>>>>>from Karl Marx that there is exist no God
>>>>
>>>>[Stuff deleted]
>>> The Tibetan Buddhism is different than maybe the Buddhism you studied.
>>>It does not worship the one and only omnipotent god, but the "living Buddhas"
>>>are worshiped. So there are similarities compared with the God that the
>>>communist ancesters disbelieved. :-)
>>>
>>
>>Actually, Tibetan Buddhism is what I have studied. I think it is very easy
>>to misunderstand the iconography of Tibetan buddhism and have the impression
>>that it represents the worship of beings who are gods. Buddha was a human
>>[stuff deleted]
>
> I don't know why we are arguing.
Are we arguing? I thought we were discussing :-)
>Look, in Tibet, human beings are
>worshipped. OK? And it doesn't matter what the ideology teaches, most
>of people can not master and do not have the time and energy to master
>true Buddhism, so people thought a faster way was to be blessed by those
>who mastered it. And that, I said, is similar to the worship of God
>in other religions.
>
There are actually 2 or 3 issues here, and if we want to discuss it
further, it probably would be better to take the discussion to
soc.religion.eastern (I think that's the correct newgroup name), since
we're talking about buddhism here and not really Tibetan politics.
But, just so that I don't leave you hanging, the issues are: 1) that
buddhism (especially vajrayana buddhism) is sometimes misunderstood as
involving worship of external beings; 2) that the notion of devotion
in vajrayana buddhism could be perceived as worship of an external savior,
which is not really what devotion is about; and 3) it's possible that
some Tibetans do misunderstand buddhism and the importance of self-salvation.
> To put it another way, not all Buddhism believers are Buddhists.
>And as a true Buddhist, you don't kick those blind believers out of the
>door. (Or do you? There was once a guy named Jan Isley who thought he
>was a Buddhist and did a lot of kicking. :-) )
>
I hope not! Actually, a true buddhist would respect all religions and
not consider his way the only way.
[The first time I tried to post this, my rn process crashed -- my
apologies if I actually ended up posting it twice.]
Jim Cochrane
j...@csn.org
Chien-Chung Chen
>
>: Have you noticed almost all Chinese netters against Tibet independence?
>: Without the sympathies and supports from Chinese living outside China, let
>: alone Chinese living inside China, in Tibet, how can you save Tibet
>: culture? Be realistic! In this sense, I say you can do nothing about at all.
>
>World opinion CAN have an effect, if it is accompanied by internal unrest.
>Take, for instance, South Africa.
If you want to talk about how to improve Tibetans' human rights, I'm
on your side, Karen. But if you are trying to make Tibet independence
happen, I think you already interfere with China's internal affair.
And you know China is unlikely to let this happen without doing anything.
If you are concerned about human rights, press the Chinese government
on the human rights, instead of Tibet independence.
>Countries don't necessarily come apart in blood and fire. There is no
>longer any Czechoslovakia, but there was no Czech-Slovak war. Just an
>election and then a peaceful divorce. I believe that Puerto Rico, the US
>posssession, will soon be voting as to whether it wants statehood or
>independence. Perhaps this latter is a better analogy for Tibet, since,
>as a US citizen, I have no strong concern over what the Puerto Ricans
>choose. They are far away, they speak a different language, they have
>their own history and culture.
What about the native Americans? Do they have hope to get all their
lands back and form independent countries?
>It's true that China does have a compelling interest in keeping Tibet
>friendly. No country wants a hostile power on its flank. However, it
>seems that this would be best handled by making friends with the Tibetans,
>rather than ruthlessly suppressing them.
I hope (and think) Chinese government is making friends with the Tibetans.
As to suppression, if some Michigan residents suddenly riot for Michigan
independence and refuses to pay federal tax, what do you think they'll
get from the US federal government? Friend-making or suppression? I say
so not to justify suppression, but to point out that to make Tibetans
suffer less, don't try to stir up unrest in Tibet because the CCP is not
wimpy, as you've already seen from the 6.4 event.
>BTW, I changed the header so that this will only be posted in t.p.t.
>Perhaps the good people in soc.culture.china will appreciate having the
>Tibet discussion confined to this newsgroup.
By doing so, perhaps less obnoxious Chinese will post. :)
-- Chien-Chung Chen
Y.Wu
>> by ex-Dalai Lama is invalid legally. This action may actually made him a
>> criminal according to the law at that time.
>
>Beg pardon? What law? Chinese law? It doesn't apply. Tibet was
>independent of China, remember?
>
But before Tibet declared itself "independence" from China (1912), it was
a part of China (otherwise this was no sense to declare "independence" from
China. Do Canada need declare itself independent from America today?) and
hence then-Chinese-Law applied to then Dalai Lama.
P. Chau
Linguistics, ah, how very interesting. Much research has been done on the
relationship between the writing system and the language. I think it is
fair to say that Hanzi (Chinese characters) cannot be conveniently used
for non-isolating languages. Tibetan, if I remember correctly (Craig
Jamieson will correct me if I am wrong), is an agglutinative language.
Hanzi would be extremely unwieldy for Tibetan. In fact, if one looks at
the difficulty caused to the Japanese and the Koreans when they use
Chinese characters, and bearing in mind that these two writing systems
have not wholly used characters but have their own syllabary, one could
only throw up one's hands in horror when one tries to use solely Chinese
characters for other languages.
This is not an argument based on any politics; it is purely a linguistic
argument. Those who are interested in more detailed discussions are
encouraged to read Florian Coulmas' book "Writing Systems of the World".
The book to avoid is I.J.Gelb's "A History of Writing", which is very
alphabeto-centric. Gelb never really considered the intricate inter-
relationship between the writing and the language, whilst Coulmas did
it succinctly. Having said this, maybe I am expecting too much from most
people here to read what I wrote, let alone check up references that I
quote.
P.-L. Chau
University of Cambridge
Hui Zhu
Isn't that simple question? -:) Go to GongAnJu and tell them what you
want. They certainly will do you a favor. But keep in mind: you are then
under no protection by Chinese law. -:)
Interesting thing is: some people did give up their Chinese citizenship
even here in US. Why donot you ask them?
Hui Zhu
|> Zhu) wrote:
|> > Wrong. Tibet was, indeed, out of the control of the Chinese central
|> > government direct control for a while. But still this does not equal
|> > to independence.
|>
|> I suggest that you have a little sit-down witrh Mr. Dictionary and attempt
|> to discover the meaning of the word "independence". Clearly, you have some
|> sort of odd idea about its definition.
Well, this is a easy problem. If your dictionary equals "out of control of
the central government for a while" to "independent country", then I can
tell you: Tibet now is NOT an independent country, also by the same
Mr. Lefty Dictionary. -:)
|> If Tibet was "out of the control of the Chinese central government", and
|> did not _depend_ on that government, then clearly Tibet _was_ independent
|> in any meaningful sense of the word.
And it _is NOT_ independent in any meaningful sense of the world now. -:)
|> > In another words, this so-called "independence" declared
|> > by ex-Dalai Lama is invalid legally. This action may actually made him a
|> > criminal according to the law at that time.
|>
|> Beg pardon? What law? Chinese law? It doesn't apply. Tibet was
|> independent of China, remember?
Remember the time sequence? Before its "declaration of independence"
in 1913 by ex-DL, it was still subject to China's law then. It did
apply. And this "declaration" was illegal and thus should be prosecuted.
|> > Also interesting, when this ex-DL declare independence, did he have a
|> > "vote" or general "referendum" among people in Tibet? Obviously NOT.
|>
|> As it happens, Tibet was neither a democracy nor a republic at the time.
|> Moreover, even in a democratic republic, the chief executive is allowed to
|> take various kinds of action without the necessity of holding a vote or a
|> general referendum.
Then why couldn't China's central government at that time invalid
his "declaration" by the same token?
Why is it necessary that Chinese government NOW have to give a referendum
to Tibetan as requested by DL regime?
|> > |> Larger countries should not invade neighboring, independent smaller
|> > |> countries.
|> >
|> > If Tibet had been really independent, as you thought, then what the hell
|> > this ex-DL did for by declaring independence? -:)
|>
|> Clarifying the situation. Apparently many other people at the time must
|> have been as easily confused as you seem to be.
I guess not so many people are as confused as you are:
The ex-DL's declaration of independence was illegal and thus invalid.
Eddie Cheng
Hui Zhu <zh...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>Interesting thing is: some people did give up their Chinese citizenship
>even here in US. Why donot you ask them?
Nothing unusual. PRC does not recognize duo-citizenship. So
if you applied for and got a U.S. citizenship, you automatically gave
up your Chinese citizenship.
Taiwan (ROC) however does recognize duo-citizenship. I have
heard that it is an extreme hassle, if not impossible, to give up
a ROC citizenship even if you want to. :)
Eddie
xiao-lin li
>
>Interesting thing is: some people did give up their Chinese citizenship
>even here in US. Why donot you ask them?
A true story. 1989, I still had my office at NYU, the year of
turbulence in Chinese politics. Everyone was emotional.
Mr. Li (not Xiaolin Li, serious) was a NYU student organizing
the Washington protest. In the morning of 6.4, another emotional
protest in front of Chinese NY consulate. Mr. Li burnt his passport
in public.
Later Mr. Li had to extend his visa, he went to the Taiwan Consulate
also in NYC and wished that he would receive a passport of ROC. He
was disappointed. Later IFCSS fought so that he didn't have to have
a passport to extend his visa. He was happy.
September, 1990, Mr. Li got a postdoc position in a university.
But he was diagnosed of having throat cancer. Mr Li was very
depressed and homesick. He went back home. He was not prosecuted.
He died in the warm home of his mother.
One year later, I met a friend and asked about Mr. Li. I was told the
story. I had my tears.
Karen Lofstrom
: If you want to talk about how to improve Tibetans' human rights, I'm
: on your side, Karen. But if you are trying to make Tibet independence
: happen, I think you already interfere with China's internal affair.
: And you know China is unlikely to let this happen without doing anything.
Is it South Africa's internal affair if whites are repressing blacks? Was
it Germany's internal affair if it decided to kill all the Jews? Human
concerns do not stop at national borders. Moreover, I would point out
that I am "interfering with Chinese internal affairs" by speaking my
mind -- as I am free to do, and you are free to do. Perhaps you have a
problem with the idea of free speech?
: What about the native Americans? Do they have hope to get all their
: lands back and form independent countries?
As a matter of fact, Native Americans do have their own countries.
Reservations. Too small, too barren, the land the whites didn't want --
but nevertheless theirs. They control the land, the mineral resources,
and can control who lives there. If the PRC were to declare Tibet a
reservation, on the Native American model, I'm sure this would go far
towards satisfying many Tibetan concerns!
I live in the state of Hawai'i. Many native Hawaiians are pushing for a
similar resolution of native Hawaiian land claims. I am active in a small
political party that is working for Hawaiian rights, among other things.
: I hope (and think) Chinese government is making friends with the Tibetans.
If so, why do so many Tibetans living in the TAR hate Hans and agitate for
the return of the Dalai Lama? Hans claim their colonialism is justified
by the medieval squalor of the pre-1950 Tibetan state. But if things were
so terrrible then, and Hans have improved conditions in Tibet so much, why
aren't Tibetans grateful?
I suggest that no one wants to be "uplifted" by foreigners who condescend
to the "natives", refuse to allow political and religious freedom, and
dominate the economy for their own benefit. This was exactly the kind of
treatment that Westerners meted out to many countries -- exploiting them
while claiming the highest motives. Interesting that the PRC can wax so
indignant about Western imperialism, then do exactly the same thing to
Tibetans. Reminds me of children who are beaten and abused, and grow up
to do the same thing to their own children.
: As to suppression, if some Michigan residents suddenly riot for Michigan
: independence and refuses to pay federal tax, what do you think they'll
: get from the US federal government? Friend-making or suppression?
Your analogy presupposes that Tibet is to China as Michigan is to the US,
an analogy which I would regard as misleading. Allow me to point you to a
better analogy: Hawai'i. Formerly an independent country, annexed by
force. There are indeed people here who agitate for independence from the
US. They speak freely. Their views are published in the papers. They
are not suppressed. Of course, the US government isn't worried, since
they are a tiny tiny minority. IF the majority of the people in Hawai'i
wanted to be independent, I would certainly support our right to secede
from the US. I don't know how the US government would react to that, but
I can't imagine a campaign of terror and repression such as the PRC is
conducting in Tibet.
: I say
: so not to justify suppression, but to point out that to make Tibetans
: suffer less, don't try to stir up unrest in Tibet because the CCP is not
: wimpy, as you've already seen from the 6.4 event.
How familiar this sounds. During the great civil rights campaigns in
America, Southern leaders were saying, "We don't need you outside
agitators here in the South. We treat our niggers right and they're happy
niggers. They wouldn't be making a fuss if it weren't for you outsiders.
You just better go back where you came from, coz you're just making misery
for those niggers". Southern sheriffs and clansmen weren't wimpy either.
They were perfectly willing to arrest and maim and kill in defense of
their white privileges.
I wrote:
: >BTW, I changed the header so that this will only be posted in t.p.t.
: >Perhaps the good people in soc.culture.china will appreciate having the
: >Tibet discussion confined to this newsgroup.
And Chien-Chung Chen replied:
: By doing so, perhaps less obnoxious Chinese will post. :)
Mr. or Ms. Chen is perhaps unaware that it is simple netiquette to try to
reduce cross-posting and newsgroup noise, and interprets my attempt at
politeness as an anti-Chinese gesture. How sad.
Steven Lin
process. There are many examples in Jewish people. Many of them went
to Israel for military training, some even went into a war. However, as
long as they are not violated the US laws, who can kick them out.
Nobody knows you are naturelized to Nation A or B. Many people even have
more than 3 citizenships. What is truth? Find out!
But, a naturelized Chinese going on mainland does not get treatment as
foreign people, except paying more money for everything.
Joe Huang
>>
>It is not required to surrender your citizenship in the naturelization
>process. There are many examples in Jewish people. Many of them went
>to Israel for military training, some even went into a war. However, as
>long as they are not violated the US laws, who can kick them out.
>
I think U.S. recognition of dual citizenship in the case of
Jews is an exception rather than the rule. For other ethnic
and national backgrounds, the U.S. does NOT recognize dual
citizenship. In other words, if you're a U.S. citizen, the U.S.
will not permit you to also be a citizen of the PRC or the ROC.
Of course you could do so surreptitiously, but that goes
anything, doesn't it ?
>Nobody knows you are naturelized to Nation A or B. Many people even have
>more than 3 citizenships. What is truth? Find out!
>But, a naturelized Chinese going on mainland does not get treatment as
>foreign people, except paying more money for everything.
>
But Steve, you misunderstood the rules, which is that everything
falls to the lowest common denominator. This invariably means
down in terms of service, but up in terms of cost. When people
look at you and see a Chinese face, they will give you the
local treatment. When they find out that you're not local,
they expect you to pay foreigner's prices.
Fair (or unfair) enough ? :-)
(The above is all in jest)
Joe Huang
Joseph C Wang
>I don't, however, think that we
>should support repressive governments and repressive policies simply
>because we're afraid of disorder (something I wish the US government could
>understand).
I don't support repressive governments in the name of disorder, but I
do tolerate them. I don't like the current Chinese government, but I
am equally opposed to overthrowing it, and I do not like the idea of
sudden overnight changes. My preference is for slow gradual progress.
Things are bad, but they could easily be much worse.
>Rectification postponed leads to greater disorder in the end.
On the other so does immediate rectification.
It's a very fine tightrope that one must walk.
Marguerite Schauder and T.S. Rinzing
I suggest a book titled _Ancient Futures:Lessons from Ladakh__ by
Helena Norberg-Hodge (1991 Sierra Books). Though Ladakhis are
*politically* Indian, they are *culturally* Tibetan. _Modern
development_ came their way in 1974 when Indian built a road
through the North-western region, a road built to lay complete
political claims on the area.
Ladakh is often referred to as *Little Tibet*