World Bank loan for Tibet resettlement falls apart (UPI)
Ben Olasov
positive social change:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Bank loan for Tibet resettlement falls apart (UPI)
WASHINGTON, July 7 (UPI) - The directors of the World Bank stopped
short of approving a loan package Friday to help finance the
resettlement of thousands of Chinese farmers on to Tibetan grazing
lands, but Beijing has announced it will forge ahead with the
controversial project on its own.
The $40 million loan deal fell apart Friday in Washington when the
bank's directors refused to approve the plan in the form that the
bank staff originally recommended. The board wanted further study of
the politically charged issue before it would give its approval.
The plan, included in the bank's China Western Poverty Reduction
Project, calls for the relocation of 58,000 Chinese from their
depleted farmlands to fertile lands in the western province of
Qinghai that have traditionally been used by Tibetan herders.
"It is unacceptable to my authorities that other Bank shareholders
would insist on imposing additional conditions on management's (World
Bank's staff) recommendations -- namely coming back to the board for
approval again for a project that was already approved last year,"
China's representative, Zhu Xian, said in a statement read at
Friday's meeting. "If that is the case, China will therefore turn to
its own resources to implement the Qinghai component of the project,
and in its own way."
The overall poverty project for western China was approved by the
World Bank last year, however, the directors decided to take a closer
look at the Qinghai component in light of accusations that the
resettlement was a move by China to overwhelm the native Tibetans and
their culture.
The Dali Lama, Tibet's spiritual leader, said that he opposed the
loan during his recent speaking tour of the United States, as have
Tibetan independence advocacy groups, such as Students for a Free
Tibet. Members of the group spent nearly a week camped outside the
bank's headquarters to urge the board to reject the plan.
Zhu scolded the board for injecting political considerations into
what he said should have been purely an economic decision.
"From the very start, the whole process has been under enormous
political pressure," he said in his statement. "We believe,
therefore, it is once again necessary to bring to our shareholders'
attention, the importance in this institution of separating economic
considerations from politics."
World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn, who no longer has to deal
with the contentious issue since the deal is off, had no immediate
comment on Zhu's accusations.
"We accept the decision by the Chinese government," he told the
board. "We note that the project will be implemented by them. We look
forward to a continuation of our long-standing relationship with
China in the context of other projects."
Yu
bol...@pacbell.net wrote:
> Proof that individuals can successfully form coalitions to create
> positive social change:
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
> World Bank loan for Tibet resettlement falls apart (UPI)
>
> WASHINGTON, July 7 (UPI) - The directors of the World Bank stopped
> short of approving a loan package Friday to help finance the
> resettlement of thousands of Chinese farmers on to Tibetan grazing
> lands, but Beijing has announced it will forge ahead with the
> controversial project on its own.
I have predicted this outcome weeks ago.
USA is the biggest share holder in World Bank and is out there leading a
propaganda campaign against world bank management.
How can we expect World Bank employees to stand up for China when their
rice bowls depend so much on USA?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ltl...@mindspring.com
bol...@pacbell.net wrote:
> Proof that individuals can successfully form coalitions to create
> positive social change:
World Bnak provides loan. Not freebies.
May be the PRC have to borrow with higher interest from elsewhere to
resettle the poor citizens. The interest differential won't be that
large. The resettlement will go ahead.
The whole episode proves one thing and one thing only: The many human
rights groups and self-proclaimed human right activists do not have a
iota's concern about the welfare of Chinese.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> World Bank loan for Tibet resettlement falls apart (UPI)
>
> WASHINGTON, July 7 (UPI) - The directors of the World Bank stopped
> short of approving a loan package Friday to help finance the
> resettlement of thousands of Chinese farmers on to Tibetan grazing
> lands, but Beijing has announced it will forge ahead with the
> controversial project on its own.
>
Bill Carter
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> World Bnak provides loan. Not freebies.
> May be the PRC have to borrow with higher interest from elsewhere to
> resettle the poor citizens. The interest differential won't be that
> large. The resettlement will go ahead.
Not so sure the resettlement will go ahead, the PRC was willing to
do it with other people's money but we will see if they will do
it with their own. Maybe they could divert some funds from the
manned space program over to poverty relief measures.
> The whole episode proves one thing and one thing only: The many human
> rights groups and self-proclaimed human right activists do not have a
> iota's concern about the welfare of Chinese.
Does it prove that? Eyewitness observers on the ground reported
that those Chinese weren't so poor and the place they are currently
living was not so bad after all. There were a lot of legitimate
objections to the project, the World Bank should be required to
follow its own rules.
--
time...@austin.rr.com
Please remove the anti-spam "-X" from return address...
ltl...@mindspring.com
timef...@austin.rr.com wrote:
>
>
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > World Bnak provides loan. Not freebies.
> > May be the PRC have to borrow with higher interest from elsewhere to
> > resettle the poor citizens. The interest differential won't be that
> > large. The resettlement will go ahead.
>
> Not so sure the resettlement will go ahead, the PRC was willing to
> do it with other people's money but we will see if they will do
> it with their own. Maybe they could divert some funds from the
> manned space program over to poverty relief measures.
PRC officials stated they will go ahead.
>
> > The whole episode proves one thing and one thing only: The many
human
> > rights groups and self-proclaimed human right activists do not have
a
> > iota's concern about the welfare of Chinese.
>
> Does it prove that? Eyewitness observers on the ground reported
> that those Chinese weren't so poor and the place they are currently
> living was not so bad after all. There were a lot of legitimate
> objections to the project, the World Bank should be required to
> follow its own rules.
Eyewitness? How many of them? Stayed where and for how long? Do you
think the all World Bank personnels are blind?
Are some Chinese poor?
Are some Americans poor? American is the wealthier country in the
world. But if I remember correctly, several hundreds old people died of
heat stroke in Chicago area several years ago. For lack of electric
fans? No meoney to pay electricity? In America? Please tell how many
long time Chicago residents had predicted the tragedies?
No, if you want to say that China as a whole is not so poor, you are
right. China is currently far from the bottom. Her public health care
is not so bad either. But China is a large country, many rich and
relatively well to do people are not in contracdiction with many poor
people in dire situations.
If you suggest Chinese should take care of their own poor people, I
would also agree with you. However, to deny a loan because it will be
used to move a group of poor people from one part of Qinghai to another
part of Qinghai such that they can have better lives is totally
nonsensical. Inhumanly nonsensical. To justify the inhumanity by
labeling the poverty reduction program as genocidal is nothing but a
cruel joke.
Human right groups and Tibetan right activitists. Go ahead and
celebrate. Go ahead and celebrate your inhumanity toward some poor
Chinese who believed in International understanding and good will. Go
ahead and celebrate you had taught those poor Chinese a lesson.
>
> --
> time...@austin.rr.com
> Please remove the anti-spam "-X" from return address...
>
Yu
timef...@austin.rr.com wrote:
>
>
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Does it prove that? Eyewitness observers on the ground reported
> that those Chinese weren't so poor and the place they are currently
> living was not so bad after all.
The eye witness observer must be Gabriel Lafitte who wrote several
articles on the subject for the Asian Wall Street Journal.
He is the National Research Officer for the Australia-Tibet Council.
That showed how objective he is.
There are two very unsual things about Asian Wall Street Journal.
1) It introduces Gabriel Lafitte as an East Asian scholar and left out
his connection with the Tibet activistc.
2) In a matter of a few days the Wall Street Journal went out of the
way to publish two articles on the same subject by the same author.
This is not even an important subject affecting the economy.
In my opinion there is someone orchestrating all these.
Bill Carter
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> PRC officials stated they will go ahead.
Talk is cheap, we'll see what they really do after a year or so.
> Eyewitness? How many of them? Stayed where and for how long? Do you
> think the all World Bank personnels are blind?
The World Bank personnel are involved in the project, they aren't
unbiased observers. The report from an independent panel revealed
that WB people violated their own rules in several ways, clearly
they are not completely trustworthy. If the PRC sincerely feels the
area has been misrepresented they should formally invite all the
NGO's to send teams of observers with video cameras to film the
vicinity and then compose a TV documentary so we can see for ourselves.
> If you suggest Chinese should take care of their own poor people, I
> would also agree with you. However, to deny a loan because it will be
> used to move a group of poor people from one part of Qinghai to another
> part of Qinghai such that they can have better lives is totally
> nonsensical. Inhumanly nonsensical. To justify the inhumanity by
> labeling the poverty reduction program as genocidal is nothing but a
> cruel joke.
You act like moving those people to that one specific area is the
only alternative. Seems to me they could be moved to a different area,
surely this Dulan Country isn't the only place left to go in all of
the PRC. Maybe the next time the World Bank will do adequate environmental
studies, carefully poll the current residents of the move-in area, and
follow all their own procedures correctly.
> Human right groups and Tibetan right activitists. Go ahead and
> celebrate. Go ahead and celebrate your inhumanity toward some poor
> Chinese who believed in International understanding and good will. Go
> ahead and celebrate you had taught those poor Chinese a lesson.
To me the project didn't seem like such a bad idea originally, but
the objections do appear to be reasonable ones. Maybe the PRC could
come up with a different solution for the problem instead of throwing
such a nasty fit over it.
Bill Carter
Yu wrote:
> The eye witness observer must be Gabriel Lafitte who wrote several
> articles on the subject for the Asian Wall Street Journal.
> He is the National Research Officer for the Australia-Tibet Council.
> That showed how objective he is.
Some problem with that organization?
> In my opinion there is someone orchestrating all these.
You must be laboring under the impression that someone is interested
in your conspiracy theories. If a person has ever had anything to do
with any non-PRC organization interested in Tibet you conclude that
he is some kind of CIA spy. If there is a question about the
situation in any of these regions of the PRC there is a very simple
solution. Anyone who wants it should be given unrestricted access
with videocameras and the world can make a clear judgement based
on the results. If the investigators are followed around or interrogated
by PRC security goons we will know the real truth immediately.
Yu
It is important when we read a "first hand report" that we know as much
about the author as possible.
Gabriel Lafitte has been a Tibet Activist for a long time.
We should leave that to the readers to judge his words. yet the Asian
Wall Street Journal deliberately left that out and introduce the author
as and Asian study scholar.
In my opinion, Asian Wall Street Journal deliberately tried to misled
its readers who will definitely judge Gabriel Lafitte's article
differently if they knew he is from the activist camp.
Mark Li
>
> Yu wrote:
> > The eye witness observer must be Gabriel Lafitte who wrote several
> > articles on the subject for the Asian Wall Street Journal.
> > He is the National Research Officer for the Australia-Tibet Council.
> > That showed how objective he is.
>
> Some problem with that organization?
>
> > In my opinion there is someone orchestrating all these.
>
> You must be laboring under the impression that someone is interested
> in your conspiracy theories. If a person has ever had anything to do
> with any non-PRC organization interested in Tibet you conclude that
> he is some kind of CIA spy. If there is a question about the
> situation in any of these regions of the PRC there is a very simple
> solution. Anyone who wants it should be given unrestricted access
> with videocameras and the world can make a clear judgement based
> on the results. If the investigators are followed around or interrogated
> by PRC security goons we will know the real truth immediately.
Gabrielle Lafitte is a racist. I read one of his articles in the Tibet
Bulletin that the Han have historically used agriculture to colonize
lands, and the example he gives is Sichuan which "was colonized a
thousand years ago". This is a lie. Sichuan has been settled by the Han
for more than 4000 years. He talks crap about the Han Chinese but
doesn't say anything about the Europeans who used rape, murder,
genocide, theft, slavery, bribery, agriculture, ranching, "missionary
work", reserve dumping, and trinkets to rob and colonize half the
world's lands and seas only a few hundred years ago.
guard...@my-deja.com
once again, neither Sichuan, Xikang, nor Qinghai was part of Tibet. In
the case of Qinghai, even the proDharamsala "International Commission
of Jurist" was forced to admit that Han was majority BEFORE the
establishment of PRC.[ICJ: In 1933, the Tibetan locality even signed an
inter-provincial treaty with Qinghai, reaffirming the Tibetan-Qinghai
Interprovincial Boundary[which was firstly determined by Beijing
central government in 1731]. Since 1948 the Tibetans has recognized
Qinghai as a Han Chinese province[Goldstein, 1989]
Sources:
Tibet: Human Rights and the Rule of Law[Geneva: International
Commission of Jurists, 1997]
Melvyn C. Goldstein, A History of Modern Tibet: 1913-1951[UC Press,
1989], p625
Guardiangel
"Dharamsala 's leaders had misjudged [...] their own leverage
and....historical differences and current political realities make the
creation of a Greater Tibet extremely improbable"
-M.C. Goldstein, 'The Snow Lion and the Dragon'
guard...@my-deja.com
It should read "before the establishment of PRC the Han population had
been the majority in Qinghai" [ICJ: 1997]
Guardiangel
p.s. In trying to sum up the historical events of Qinghai Province, it
is easy to find out that Dharamsala's attacks on PRC policies regarding
QH are groundless, selfcontradictory and ridiculous.
*****
ltl...@mindspring.com
timef...@austin.rr.com wrote:
>
>
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > PRC officials stated they will go ahead.
>
> Talk is cheap, we'll see what they really do after a year or so.
>
> > Eyewitness? How many of them? Stayed where and for how long? Do you
> > think the all World Bank personnels are blind?
>
> The World Bank personnel are involved in the project, they aren't
> unbiased observers. The report from an independent panel revealed
> that WB people violated their own rules in several ways, clearly
> they are not completely trustworthy. If the PRC sincerely feels the
> area has been misrepresented they should formally invite all the
> NGO's to send teams of observers with video cameras to film the
> vicinity and then compose a TV documentary so we can see for
ourselves.
Are there any evidences that the World Bank was conspiring to do harm
to any Tibetans at any time? Who was disputing the World Bank figures?
>
> > If you suggest Chinese should take care of their own poor people, I
> > would also agree with you. However, to deny a loan because it will
be
> > used to move a group of poor people from one part of Qinghai to
another
> > part of Qinghai such that they can have better lives is totally
> > nonsensical. Inhumanly nonsensical. To justify the inhumanity by
> > labeling the poverty reduction program as genocidal is nothing but a
> > cruel joke.
>
> You act like moving those people to that one specific area is the
> only alternative. Seems to me they could be moved to a different area,
> surely this Dulan Country isn't the only place left to go in all of
> the PRC.
Dulan county is part of Qinghai which is part of China.
Yes, moving the poor folks to Mahattan would be better. To bad
Mahattan, New York is not part of China. In addition, some Dutch will
protest because New York was New Rotterdam and traditionally Dutch land.
> Maybe the next time the World Bank will do adequate environmental
> studies, carefully poll the current residents of the move-in area, and
> follow all their own procedures correctly.
>
> > Human right groups and Tibetan right activitists. Go ahead and
> > celebrate. Go ahead and celebrate your inhumanity toward some poor
> > Chinese who believed in International understanding and good will.
Go
> > ahead and celebrate you had taught those poor Chinese a lesson.
>
> To me the project didn't seem like such a bad idea originally, but
> the objections do appear to be reasonable ones. Maybe the PRC could
> come up with a different solution for the problem instead of throwing
> such a nasty fit over it.
What I can't understand is why human right and tibetan right activists
celebrate this gesture of inhumanity.
1. Such percieved hostility toward the poor farmers will not improve
the relations between the Tibetans and other ethnic minorities. Is this
what they want?
2. China is stilling going ahead to resettle the farmers. May be the
World Bank is not prefect. But the World Bank's input on many social
and environment issues is better than no input if they don't trust PRC
in the beginning. Now PRC gets to do whatever she wants under possibly
a smaller budget. Is this the goal of the human and Tibetan's right
groups?
3. If the human and Tibetan's right groups don't care and in no
position to care what PRC does by herself, all their complaints are
based on false premises. What are they celebraing for?
4. Qinghai as Tibetan land may have buyers from some history ignorant
Westerners. Not all people will swallow the cultural genocide story
line, hook, and sinker. Implication: HHDL's compassion will be
questioned in many quarters of the world. Is this what they want?
> --
> time...@austin.rr.com
> Please remove the anti-spam "-X" from return address...
>
Bill Carter
Mark Li wrote:
> Gabrielle Lafitte is a racist. I read one of his articles in the Tibet
> Bulletin that the Han have historically used agriculture to colonize
> lands, and the example he gives is Sichuan which "was colonized a
> thousand years ago". This is a lie. Sichuan has been settled by the Han
Provide a link to the article or quote it completely here and I'll
decide for myself if it is racist. You have seem quite biased
to me so your personal interpretation is not so interesting.
Bill Carter
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Are there any evidences that the World Bank was conspiring to do harm
> to any Tibetans at any time? Who was disputing the World Bank figures?
I don't know if there is any evidence like that, I didn't accuse them
of any conspiracy to do harm. I suggested that since they are a party
to the project they are not objective, therefore some independent third
parties should assist us to ascertain the truth. Why didn't you respond
to my suggestion?
I checked into this a little more, it turns out that the PRC had claimed
that the area was open to investigation;
http://www.tibetinfo.net/news-updates/nu250899.htm
"The Chinese authorities told the World Bank in June that foreign visitors
who wanted to explore the World Bank project site would be given
access to the county in Haixi prefecture."
But then two men and their translator who travelled to Qinghai to look
things over were arrested and interrogated at length before being ejected
from the country. "Tsering Dorje, Gabriel Lafitte and Daja Meston were
detained by 12 security personnel who entered their hotel room at 7.15 am
on 15 August". You have to wonder why it took 12 security men to pick
these guys up but apparently there was something to hide.
> > You act like moving those people to that one specific area is the
> > only alternative. Seems to me they could be moved to a different area,
> > surely this Dulan Country isn't the only place left to go in all of
> > the PRC.
>
> Dulan county is part of Qinghai which is part of China.
> Yes, moving the poor folks to Mahattan would be better. To bad
> Mahattan, New York is not part of China. In addition, some Dutch will
> protest because New York was New Rotterdam and traditionally Dutch land.
Too bad Manhattan isn't part of China? That's a revealingly imperialistic
remark. Are you saying that Dulan county is the only place that actually
is in China that these people could be moved to? I'm thinking maybe you
have no interest in alternatives.
> 1. Such percieved hostility toward the poor farmers will not improve
> the relations between the Tibetans and other ethnic minorities. Is this
> what they want?
"The Environmental Impact Assessment published by the Bank states that
100% of farmers and herdsmen interviewed in different areas in the move-in
region
(Balong township, Chasuhe, Qingshuihe and Yikegaoli) worry that "the cutting
of
vegetation will destroy the ecological environment and the wild animal
and plant resources". Twenty-one per cent of the farmers and herdsmen of
different nationalities interviewed worry that the influx of immigrants and
the
increase in population "will cause more social unrest", according to the
World Bank report."
They made these statement even though they were aware that "to object to
government policies is illegal".
> 2. China is stilling going ahead to resettle the farmers. May be the
> World Bank is not prefect. But the World Bank's input on many social
> and environment issues is better than no input if they don't trust PRC
> in the beginning. Now PRC gets to do whatever she wants under possibly
> a smaller budget. Is this the goal of the human and Tibetan's right
> groups?
I think the goal was to prevent the countries who contribute to the
World Bank from assuming culpability for the damage brought on by the
project. Personally I expect the PRC to wimp out on the whole thing
now in spite of the defiant rhetoric but time will tell.
> 4. Qinghai as Tibetan land may have buyers from some history ignorant
> Westerners. Not all people will swallow the cultural genocide story
> line, hook, and sinker. Implication: HHDL's compassion will be
> questioned in many quarters of the world. Is this what they want?
I will refer you to Bud Swanson's recent post in the "POPULATION OF
QINGHAI" thread for a rebuttal of the argument about the history of
the area. The PRC failed to convince the "many quarters of the world"
that the project was appropriate for all parties.
Bud Swanson
>In article <39678649...@austin.rr.com>,
> timef...@austin.rr.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
<snip>
.
>
>If you suggest Chinese should take care of their own poor
people, I
>would also agree with you. However, to deny a loan because it
will be
>used to move a group of poor people from one part of Qinghai to
another
>part of Qinghai such that they can have better lives is totally
>nonsensical. Inhumanly nonsensical. To justify the inhumanity by
>labeling the poverty reduction program as genocidal is nothing
but a
>cruel joke.
>
>celebrate. Go ahead and celebrate your inhumanity toward some
poor
>Chinese who believed in International understanding and good
will. Go
>ahead and celebrate you had taught those poor Chinese a lesson.
>
I'm no authority on the world Bank project but in defense of us
Tibet activists I hope we can keep the issue in perspective:
'....[World Bank president] Wolfensohn states: "The Qinghai
component is, after all, a $40 million piece of a $160 million
loan - just a small part of the project itself, and an even
smaller part of [China's] overall poverty reduction effort." (21
June 2000).....The President's comments reflect a sensitivity to
the disproportionate level of international controversy over the
Qinghai component of the proposed project given the relatively
small amount of funding proposed - $40 million. In June 2000
alone the World Bank agreed to US$909 million worth of loans to
China for four projects that will affect millions of people....'
(From: World Bank Management continues to back controversial
Qinghai resettlement project, TIN News Update / 5 July 2000)
So far as I know the death of the Qinghai resettlement project
does not affect the other funding mentioned above.
Speaking from myself, I personally DO care about China and hope
it carrys on developing...I just don't want Tibet and its
culture to be steamrolled in the process.
Bud Swanson
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Mark Li
>
> Mark Li wrote:
> > Gabrielle Lafitte is a racist. I read one of his articles in the Tibet
> > Bulletin that the Han have historically used agriculture to colonize
> > lands, and the example he gives is Sichuan which "was colonized a
> > thousand years ago". This is a lie. Sichuan has been settled by the Han
>
> Provide a link to the article or quote it completely here and I'll
> decide for myself if it is racist. You have seem quite biased
> to me so your personal interpretation is not so interesting.
I've decided myself. You call me biased, but you and your comrade
Gabrielle seem very biased yourself. Don't be such a hypocrite. We're
all biased, not just people who diagree with your Holiness. You're a
Tibet activist and I thought you would read such publications. It's not
on the net, it's in the Tibet Bulletin. I will try and find it again, as
I'll have to go through all the editions. Even if you read it, I doubt
you'd consider it racist. I judge it racist. You may not, but who cares?
I did not make this up. He said "the Chinese have a history of using
agriculture to colonize lands", and the example he gave is Sichuan
(which has a population of over 100 million) which he said was
"colonized a thousand years ago". It was actually settled 4000 years
ago. He then fails to mention what the Europeans have done and acts all
righteous like the Europeans haven't done anything in the last few
years. That seems pretty racist and biased to me. Yu and I may be
biased, but so is Gabriel and yourself. Your defense of Gabriel is very
uninteresting.
ltl...@mindspring.com
timef...@austin.rr.com wrote:
>
>
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > Are there any evidences that the World Bank was conspiring to do
harm
> > to any Tibetans at any time? Who was disputing the World Bank
figures?
>
> I don't know if there is any evidence like that, I didn't accuse them
> of any conspiracy to do harm.
If you are not disputing the World Bank figure on the make up of the
population. Please tell why do you think the resettlement constitute
cultural genocide?
> I suggested that since they are a party
> to the project they are not objective, therefore some independent
third
> parties should assist us to ascertain the truth. Why didn't you
respond
> to my suggestion?
You answer you suggestion yourself.
>
> I checked into this a little more, it turns out that the PRC had
claimed
> that the area was open to investigation;
> http://www.tibetinfo.net/news-updates/nu250899.htm
>
> "The Chinese authorities told the World Bank in June that foreign
visitors
> who wanted to explore the World Bank project site would be given
> access to the county in Haixi prefecture."
>
> But then two men and their translator who travelled to Qinghai to look
> things over were arrested and interrogated at length before being
ejected
> from the country. "Tsering Dorje, Gabriel Lafitte and Daja Meston
were
> detained by 12 security personnel who entered their hotel room at
7.15 am
> on 15 August". You have to wonder why it took 12 security men to pick
> these guys up but apparently there was something to hide.
I responded to the arrest of the two men last year.
Briefly, they entered China under false premises. They were asked
before entering China whethere they were visiting as the World Bank
observers. They said no. They then presented themselves as official
World Bank representatives in Qinghai to gain access.
Different visa entails different restrictions. Those guys entered China
under false pretense. They are dishonest. May be you think Westerners
have a God given right to lie to Chinese officials. I disagree.
Do you think PRC is the only country who imposes visa related
restrictions? Not so. Entering US under different Visa also entails
different restrictions. For instance, a student visa requires that you
study full time in a specified college or university. You cannot change
school without prior approval. In addition, foreign students cannot
seek job under a student visa without prior approval. I believe some
students were detained by INS while seeking job. What did they do? None
other than talking to local folks.
I was also told that USSR scientists attending conferences in San Deigo
were only allowed to travel on one side of Interstate 5.
> > > You act like moving those people to that one specific area is the
> > > only alternative. Seems to me they could be moved to a different
area,
> > > surely this Dulan Country isn't the only place left to go in all
of
> > > the PRC.
> >
> > Dulan county is part of Qinghai which is part of China.
> > Yes, moving the poor folks to Mahattan would be better. To bad
> > Mahattan, New York is not part of China. In addition, some Dutch
will
> > protest because New York was New Rotterdam and traditionally Dutch
land.
>
> Too bad Manhattan isn't part of China? That's a revealingly
imperialistic
> remark. Are you saying that Dulan county is the only place that
actually
> is in China that these people could be moved to? I'm thinking maybe
you
> have no interest in alternatives.
I only use the Mahattan example because I don't know any alternatives.
Obviously my suggestion is totally unacceptible. But do you have any
better suggestion? Or should I conclude you have no interest in
alternatives too.
Basically, we are going back to the original question. Do you or any
one have evidences that either the World Bank and/or PRC intend to harm
the Tibetans? If no, we have to assume that both the World Bank and PRC
are doing the best to help the poor farmers.
>
> > 1. Such percieved hostility toward the poor farmers will not improve
> > the relations between the Tibetans and other ethnic minorities. Is
this
> > what they want?
>
> "The Environmental Impact Assessment published by the Bank states
that
> 100% of farmers and herdsmen interviewed in different areas in the
move-in
> region
> (Balong township, Chasuhe, Qingshuihe and Yikegaoli) worry that "the
cutting
> of
> vegetation will destroy the ecological environment and the wild animal
> and plant resources".
Bill Carter breathing will contribute to the green house effect too. I
don't think such general statement is of any use. Such opinion poll is
hardly ecological assessment.
> Twenty-one per cent of the farmers and herdsmen of
> different nationalities interviewed worry that the influx of
immigrants and
> the
> increase in population "will cause more social unrest", according to
the
> World Bank report."
Again, "will cause more social unrest" is too general to be of any use.
Any human born "will cause more social unrest." The question is not
between will or will not, but how likely and how much.
Your quotes above actually demonstrate the extreme position of the
opposition.
If the "cutting of vegetaion ..." and "will cause more social unrest"
are the criteria, no housing project in America will pass.
> They made these statement even though they were aware that "to object
to
> government policies is illegal".
The above statement "to object to government policies is illegal" is
outright lies. No other way to put it.
>
> > 2. China is stilling going ahead to resettle the farmers. May be the
> > World Bank is not prefect. But the World Bank's input on many social
> > and environment issues is better than no input if they don't trust
PRC
> > in the beginning. Now PRC gets to do whatever she wants under
possibly
> > a smaller budget. Is this the goal of the human and Tibetan's right
> > groups?
>
> I think the goal was to prevent the countries who contribute to the
> World Bank from assuming culpability for the damage brought on by the
> project. Personally I expect the PRC to wimp out on the whole thing
> now in spite of the defiant rhetoric but time will tell.
Sound like you have a hot line to high ranking Chinese officials. Do
you? Please tell the logic underlying your expection. Please tell your
level of confidence.
Do you care and in what way you are in a position to care further PRC
action in resettlement?
> > 4. Qinghai as Tibetan land may have buyers from some history
ignorant
> > Westerners. Not all people will swallow the cultural genocide story
> > line, hook, and sinker. Implication: HHDL's compassion will be
> > questioned in many quarters of the world. Is this what they want?
>
> I will refer you to Bud Swanson's recent post in the "POPULATION OF
> QINGHAI" thread for a rebuttal of the argument about the history of
> the area.
I don't know how is Bud Swanson post relevant. Qinghai is Chinese
terrority, then it is Chinese territory no matter who lives there.
(Actually there is no Tibet current. But that is OT).
The question is on what basis are you or anyone going to determine the
resettlement constitutes cultural genocide? The resettlement is
voluntary. The government is not forcing anyone out or forcing anyone
in.
> The PRC failed to convince the "many quarters of the world"
> that the project was appropriate for all parties.
I don't know exactly how many shares of US and Germany have. But with
US is the largest share holder and German the third, it does not take a
lot to torpedo the project.
>
> --
> time...@austin.rr.com
> Please remove the anti-spam "-X" from return address...
>
Yu
> > timef...@austin.rr.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> <snip>
> Speaking from myself, I personally DO care about China and hope
> it carrys on developing...I just don't want Tibet and its
> culture to be steamrolled in the process.
>
> Bud Swanson
In Dulan county the ethnic Tibetan proposion of population drop from
22% to 17% after the settlement. Nobody is taken away, everybody stays.
There will be better roads there will be electricity, water supply for
everybody.
Does mixing different cultures means cultural genocide?
There must be 100's of US cities that has similar mixing of cultures.
Tibet activists and US gov just want to create trouble for China.
They see wetern China as China's weak spot and there is an exile holyman
willing to serve them. So why not seize the oppotunity. The trouble with
many people is they need to find all kind of camouflage for their evil
act.
Bill Carter
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> If you are not disputing the World Bank figure on the make up of the
> population. Please tell why do you think the resettlement constitute
> cultural genocide?
I didn't ever say it was cultural genocide. You aren't turning into
one of these guys that likes to put words in other people's mouth
I hope. Personally I think "genocide" is an exaggeration. I think the
indigent cultures would be severely diluted and their way of life
might well be destroyed. According to TIN the initial influx of settlers
mainly began about 80 years ago and this would be a continuation.
> Briefly, they entered China under false premises. They were asked
> before entering China whethere they were visiting as the World Bank
> observers. They said no. They then presented themselves as official
> World Bank representatives in Qinghai to gain access.
Please cite your source of information on this. A web link would be good.
The TIN reports claimed they were travelling under tourist visas. If
they pretended to be World Bank representatives they would have been
given official-purpose visas rather than tourist. But even if you don't
trust those observers the only rational solution would be to have
reliable third parties investigate the areas.
> Do you think PRC is the only country who imposes visa related
> restrictions? Not so. Entering US under different Visa also entails
> different restrictions. For instance, a student visa requires that you
What is there to hide in Qinghai? Representatives of various NGO's
attempted to obtain official visas for inspection purposes but were
denied. People who did go look around were arrested and ejected. This
seriously weakens the story of the World Bank and the PRC about the
status of Qinghai and the move-in area and gives credibility to the
eyewitnesses.
> I only use the Mahattan example because I don't know any alternatives.
> Obviously my suggestion is totally unacceptible. But do you have any
> better suggestion? Or should I conclude you have no interest in
> alternatives too.
My interest is in the fact that apparently no alternatives were
explored by the people involved in the project.
> Basically, we are going back to the original question. Do you or any
> one have evidences that either the World Bank and/or PRC intend to harm
> the Tibetans? If no, we have to assume that both the World Bank and PRC
> are doing the best to help the poor farmers.
Aha, I see. Things are all black or all white. There's a long distance
between intending to harm people and doing your best for them. Gross
negligence easily fits into that space.
> Bill Carter breathing will contribute to the green house effect too. I
> don't think such general statement is of any use. Such opinion poll is
> hardly ecological assessment.
The opinion of the people in the move-in area does matter to them. I
would be concerned too if a large group of people who had ruined their
land due to mismanagement and overpopulation wanted to move in to
my neighborhood.
> Again, "will cause more social unrest" is too general to be of any use.
> Any human born "will cause more social unrest." The question is not
> between will or will not, but how likely and how much.
All this hairsplitting amounts to nothing. The World Bank is obligated
to conduct the polls and the opinions of the people in Dulan had to be
taken into consideration.
> If the "cutting of vegetaion ..." and "will cause more social unrest"
> are the criteria, no housing project in America will pass.
A lot of them don't. Particularly where I live it is difficult to
put up a new building or destroy any habitat.
> Sound like you have a hot line to high ranking Chinese officials. Do
> you? Please tell the logic underlying your expection. Please tell your
> level of confidence.
>
> Do you care and in what way you are in a position to care further PRC
> action in resettlement?
I already explained all this in my previous posts. I think the whole
area should have been available for independent inspection and alternative
destinations should have also been evaluated and reported. You seem
completely uninterested in either of these so I question your interest
in resolving the problem as well. I have no confidence whatsoever in
the trustworthiness of "high ranking Chinese officials", none of whom
are accountable to any of the people involved, so I discount whatever
they might say about their intentions.
Mark Li
>
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >In article <39678649...@austin.rr.com>,
> > timef...@austin.rr.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> <snip>
> it carrys on developing...I just don't want Tibet and its
> culture to be steamrolled in the process.
I'm sure most Han Chinese would agree with you. Have you met any Han
Chinese who supports the destruction of the Tibetan culture? Places
where cultures are under much greater threat are in places like Siberia
where Slavinization is much greater than the Hananization in Tibet, with
no complain or worries from people in the West.
ltl...@mindspring.com
timef...@austin.rr.com wrote:
>
>
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > If you are not disputing the World Bank figure on the make up of the
> > population. Please tell why do you think the resettlement constitute
> > cultural genocide?
>
> one of these guys that likes to put words in other people's mouth
> I hope. Personally I think "genocide" is an exaggeration. I think the
> indigent cultures would be severely diluted and their way of life
> might well be destroyed. According to TIN the initial influx of
settlers
> mainly began about 80 years ago and this would be a continuation.
People move and mix through out history. Cultures remake themselves
constantly through such mixing. People's way of living is always
changing, consciously and unconsciously.
Cultural changes are inevitable, past and present. The question is
whether the residents are forced to move in and move out. The answers
are no.
>
> > Briefly, they entered China under false premises. They were asked
> > before entering China whethere they were visiting as the World Bank
> > observers. They said no. They then presented themselves as official
> > World Bank representatives in Qinghai to gain access.
>
> Please cite your source of information on this. A web link would be
good.
> The TIN reports claimed they were travelling under tourist visas. If
> they pretended to be World Bank representatives they would have been
> given official-purpose visas rather than tourist.
> But even if you don't
> trust those observers the only rational solution would be to have
> reliable third parties investigate the areas.
>
> > Do you think PRC is the only country who imposes visa related
> > restrictions? Not so. Entering US under different Visa also entails
> > different restrictions. For instance, a student visa requires that
you
>
> What is there to hide in Qinghai? Representatives of various NGO's
> attempted to obtain official visas for inspection purposes but were
> denied.
Which representatives of various NGO's were denied official visas for
inspection purposes?
> People who did go look around were arrested and ejected. This
> seriously weakens the story of the World Bank and the PRC about the
> status of Qinghai and the move-in area and gives credibility to the
> eyewitnesses.
>
> > I only use the Mahattan example because I don't know any
alternatives.
> > Obviously my suggestion is totally unacceptible. But do you have any
> > better suggestion? Or should I conclude you have no interest in
> > alternatives too.
>
> My interest is in the fact that apparently no alternatives were
> explored by the people involved in the project.
What make you think alternatives were not explored before they decided
on the move-in area. Can you realistically suggest any alternatives? Or
do you fashion the question following Marie Antonette?
>
> > Basically, we are going back to the original question. Do you or any
> > one have evidences that either the World Bank and/or PRC intend to
harm
> > the Tibetans? If no, we have to assume that both the World Bank and
PRC
> > are doing the best to help the poor farmers.
>
> Aha, I see. Things are all black or all white. There's a long
distance
> between intending to harm people and doing your best for them. Gross
> negligence easily fits into that space.
No. Things are not all black or all white. But if you are going to have
any position, you need some supporting evidences. Assuming all black
based on your quoted criticisms is not reasonable. Those criticisms are
too broad. No housing projects anywhere in the world except North Pole
can pass under those criteria.
>
> > Bill Carter breathing will contribute to the green house effect
too. I
> > don't think such general statement is of any use. Such opinion poll
is
> > hardly ecological assessment.
>
> The opinion of the people in the move-in area does matter to them. I
> would be concerned too if a large group of people who had ruined their
> land due to mismanagement and overpopulation wanted to move in to
> my neighborhood.
If privately owned land were used for public purpose, they will be
compensated. Anyway, the World Bank had an environmental protection
plan. It may not be prefect. It is not true that the people simply move
in without any environmental precaution.
> > Again, "will cause more social unrest" is too general to be of any
use.
> > Any human born "will cause more social unrest." The question is not
> > between will or will not, but how likely and how much.
>
> All this hairsplitting amounts to nothing. The World Bank is obligated
> to conduct the polls and the opinions of the people in Dulan had to be
> taken into consideration.
>
> > If the "cutting of vegetaion ..." and "will cause more social
unrest"
> > are the criteria, no housing project in America will pass.
>
> A lot of them don't. Particularly where I live it is difficult to
> put up a new building or destroy any habitat.
You are joking if you propose one can build a house without "cutting of
vegetation..." and etc. As long as human does not live on trees,
building new houses always entails destroying plant and/or animal
habitat. Again, I have to emphasize that your quoted objection
demonstrated clearly that the opposition needed to take extreme and
unreasonable positions to discredit the project.
>
> > Sound like you have a hot line to high ranking Chinese officials. Do
> > you? Please tell the logic underlying your expection. Please tell
your
> > level of confidence.
> >
> > Do you care and in what way you are in a position to care further
PRC
> > action in resettlement?
>
> I already explained all this in my previous posts. I think the whole
> area should have been available for independent inspection and
alternative
> destinations should have also been evaluated and reported.
Programs are waiting to be implemented. Poor farmers are waiting
eagerly. If it is in black and white that any borrower have to
subjected to unlimited further independent inspection and alternative
destinations should always be evalutated and reported at any time
without limit, it is a matter of policy. Post-facto add on requirements
have only one explanation: bias against PRC and Chinese.
> You seem
> completely uninterested in either of these so I question your interest
> in resolving the problem as well. I have no confidence whatsoever in
> the trustworthiness of "high ranking Chinese officials", none of whom
> are accountable to any of the people involved, so I discount whatever
> they might say about their intentions.
Unless you believe you are a China expertise first class. You have to
admit that what you think about the "high ranking Chinese officials" is
likely to have very little bearing with reality.
The question then remain: What are the human and tibetan right groups
celebrating for? Are they doing any human groups any good? Are they
celebrating their act of inhumanity?
Phipps
>
> Bill Carter wrote:
> >
> > Yu wrote:
> > > The eye witness observer must be Gabriel Lafitte who wrote several
> > > articles on the subject for the Asian Wall Street Journal.
> > > He is the National Research Officer for the Australia-Tibet Council.
> > > That showed how objective he is.
> >
> > Some problem with that organization?
> >
> > > In my opinion there is someone orchestrating all these.
> >
> > You must be laboring under the impression that someone is interested
> > in your conspiracy theories. If a person has ever had anything to do
> > with any non-PRC organization interested in Tibet you conclude that
> > he is some kind of CIA spy. If there is a question about the
> > situation in any of these regions of the PRC there is a very simple
> > solution. Anyone who wants it should be given unrestricted access
> > with videocameras and the world can make a clear judgement based
> > on the results. If the investigators are followed around or interrogated
> > by PRC security goons we will know the real truth immediately.
> ---
Well, then: in all probability, so are you. You have set the bar so low
that the label 'racist' can stick to you, too.
You have the option of falling into the trap devised by PRC's cadres,
which equates criticism of the Politburo's Republic of China with
racism. Unless you can establish a pattern of systematic denigration by
Lafitte of ethnic Chinese in general - including those in Taiwan, HK,
Macao, Singapore, and the diaspora outside Asia: you might better assume
that Lafitte has an axe to grind with PRC, and that could be entirely
political.
> I read one of his articles in the Tibet
> Bulletin that the Han have historically used agriculture to colonize
> lands, and the example he gives is Sichuan which "was colonized a
> thousand years ago".
You should have a little sympathy. "Gabrielle" clearly is a woman's
name.
Lafitte might simply have been referring, however obliquely, to the
displacement of swidden agriculture-practicing peoples (such as the
Hmong,) by the far more productive agricultural practices of the Han.
> This is a lie.
How the hell would you know???
A lie is the deliberate telling of a falsehood, in the knowledge that it
is false. Would you care to inform us just how you have come to know
what's in Lafitte's mind?
> Sichuan has been settled by the Han
> for more than 4000 years. He talks crap about the Han Chinese but
> doesn't say anything about the Europeans who used rape, murder,
> genocide, theft, slavery, bribery, agriculture, ranching, "missionary
> work", reserve dumping, and trinkets to rob and colonize half the
> world's lands and seas only a few hundred years ago.
I totally missed the bit about colonizing the seas. Last I checked, they
continue to be open and unpopulated. You might have a point in arguing
that the Dutch colonized the seas when they formed polders... but they
didn't get very far with that. By your own criteria, such as they are,
that makes you a liar.
And before you get too sanctimonious, you might care to remember that
the Han certainly colonized Taiwan, displacing its aboriginal
population... some of which, fortunately, remains even to this day.
You might choose to maintain the pretence that the Han never brought
down calamity upon less technologically developed peoples, and no doubt
that shall come as a comfort. Enjoy the fantasy, for as long as you can.
ltl...@mindspring.com
The singular effect of Lafitte's report is adding a voice of inhumanity
in obstructing some poor Qinghai farmers from getting a better life.
Whether one wants to call such behavior 'racist' is a matter of
definition or/and fashion/political correctness.
>
> You have the option of falling into the trap devised by PRC's cadres,
> which equates criticism of the Politburo's Republic of China with
> racism. Unless you can establish a pattern of systematic denigration
by
> Lafitte of ethnic Chinese in general - including those in Taiwan, HK,
> Macao, Singapore, and the diaspora outside Asia: you might better
assume
> that Lafitte has an axe to grind with PRC, and that could be entirely
> political.
>
> > I read one of his articles in the Tibet
> > Bulletin that the Han have historically used agriculture to colonize
> > lands, and the example he gives is Sichuan which "was colonized a
> > thousand years ago".
>
> You should have a little sympathy. "Gabrielle" clearly is a woman's
> name.
>
> Lafitte might simply have been referring, however obliquely, to the
> displacement of swidden agriculture-practicing peoples (such as the
> Hmong,) by the far more productive agricultural practices of the Han.
No matter what is the technical definition of colonization, one of
colonization's salient characteristic is the dennying the locals
citizenship and associated benefits. Colonization is a policy. This is
why American's taking over of Philipine was colonization and Britain's
taking over of Hong Kong was colonization. America and Britain did not
give full citizenship to her Philipinoes and her Chinese subjects as a
matter of policy. In contrast, Tibet is not a colony of China. Tibetans
get full Chinese citizenship.
> > This is a lie.
>
> How the hell would you know???
>
> A lie is the deliberate telling of a falsehood, in the knowledge that
it
> is false. Would you care to inform us just how you have come to know
> what's in Lafitte's mind?
No mind reading is required here. History reading is required.
Conclusions on history have to be based on historical facts. What China
did is a matter of historical facts. Not a matter of personal opinion.
Displacement of inefficient locals was not colonization policy.
If no historical evidences support China had a history of colonization,
then stating China had a history of coloniziation is lying.
>
> > Sichuan has been settled by the Han
> > for more than 4000 years. He talks crap about the Han Chinese but
> > doesn't say anything about the Europeans who used rape, murder,
> > genocide, theft, slavery, bribery, agriculture,
ranching, "missionary
> > work", reserve dumping, and trinkets to rob and colonize half the
> > world's lands and seas only a few hundred years ago.
>
> I totally missed the bit about colonizing the seas. Last I checked,
they
> continue to be open and unpopulated. You might have a point in arguing
> that the Dutch colonized the seas when they formed polders... but they
> didn't get very far with that. By your own criteria, such as they are,
> that makes you a liar.
>
> And before you get too sanctimonious, you might care to remember that
> the Han certainly colonized Taiwan, displacing its aboriginal
> population... some of which, fortunately, remains even to this day.
>
> You might choose to maintain the pretence that the Han never brought
> down calamity upon less technologically developed peoples, and no
doubt
> that shall come as a comfort. Enjoy the fantasy, for as long as you
can.
>
Phipps
>
> >
> > You act like moving those people to that one specific area is the
> > only alternative. Seems to me they could be moved to a different area,
> > surely this Dulan Country isn't the only place left to go in all of
> > the PRC.
>
> Dulan county is part of Qinghai which is part of China.
> Yes, moving the poor folks to Mahattan would be better. To bad
> Mahattan, New York is not part of China. In addition, some Dutch will
> protest because New York was New Rotterdam and traditionally Dutch land.
Probably not that many Dutch. Maybe because they were not there long
enough to establish tradition, or because the present-day Dutch are not
nearly as jingoistic as many other peoples, perhaps because they are
more tolerant than most...
...but especially because New York had been New Amsterdam, not New
Rotterdam. Check it out.
In another post, you made snide references regarding History. <grin>
Mark Li
>
> Mark Li wrote:
> >
> > Bill Carter wrote:
> > >
> > > Yu wrote:
> > > > The eye witness observer must be Gabriel Lafitte who wrote several
> > > > articles on the subject for the Asian Wall Street Journal.
> > > > He is the National Research Officer for the Australia-Tibet Council.
> > > > That showed how objective he is.
> > >
> > > Some problem with that organization?
> > >
> > > > In my opinion there is someone orchestrating all these.
> > >
> > > You must be laboring under the impression that someone is interested
> > > in your conspiracy theories. If a person has ever had anything to do
> > > with any non-PRC organization interested in Tibet you conclude that
> > > he is some kind of CIA spy. If there is a question about the
> > > situation in any of these regions of the PRC there is a very simple
> > > solution. Anyone who wants it should be given unrestricted access
> > > with videocameras and the world can make a clear judgement based
> > > on the results. If the investigators are followed around or interrogated
> > > by PRC security goons we will know the real truth immediately.
> > ---
> > Gabrielle Lafitte is a racist.
>
> Well, then: in all probability, so are you. You have set the bar so low
> that the label 'racist' can stick to you, too.
>
> which equates criticism of the Politburo's Republic of China with
> racism.
Note: Gabriel wasn't criticizing the Politburo, and I wouldn't have said
anything if he did. He attacked an entire race of people. I was provoked
and only said what I thought of his argument by attacking the Europeans
and showing how hypocritical he is.
> Unless you can establish a pattern of systematic denigration by
> Lafitte of ethnic Chinese in general - including those in Taiwan, HK,
> Macao, Singapore, and the diaspora outside Asia: you might better assume
> that Lafitte has an axe to grind with PRC, and that could be entirely
> political.
---
He probably would have but he attacked the Han settlement of Sichuan.
>
> > I read one of his articles in the Tibet
> > Bulletin that the Han have historically used agriculture to colonize
> > lands, and the example he gives is Sichuan which "was colonized a
> > thousand years ago".
>
> You should have a little sympathy. "Gabrielle" clearly is a woman's
> name.
---
I didn't know.
>
> Lafitte might simply have been referring, however obliquely, to the
> displacement of swidden agriculture-practicing peoples (such as the
> Hmong,) by the far more productive agricultural practices of the Han.
>
> > This is a lie.
>
> How the hell would you know???
---
The lie I was talking about was the lie that Sichuan was colonized one
thousand years ago. That is untrue.
>
> A lie is the deliberate telling of a falsehood, in the knowledge that it
> is false. Would you care to inform us just how you have come to know
> what's in Lafitte's mind?
>
> > Sichuan has been settled by the Han
> > for more than 4000 years. He talks crap about the Han Chinese but
> > doesn't say anything about the Europeans who used rape, murder,
> > genocide, theft, slavery, bribery, agriculture, ranching, "missionary
> > work", reserve dumping, and trinkets to rob and colonize half the
> > world's lands and seas only a few hundred years ago.
>
> I totally missed the bit about colonizing the seas. Last I checked, they
> continue to be open and unpopulated. You might have a point in arguing
> that the Dutch colonized the seas when they formed polders... but they
> didn't get very far with that. By your own criteria, such as they are,
> that makes you a liar.
---
Most of the world's seas are under control by the Europeans.
>
> And before you get too sanctimonious, you might care to remember that
> the Han certainly colonized Taiwan, displacing its aboriginal
> population... some of which, fortunately, remains even to this day.
---
The proportion and their influence is much greater than the native
Americans and Australians.
>
> You might choose to maintain the pretence that the Han never brought
> down calamity upon less technologically developed peoples, and no doubt
> that shall come as a comfort. Enjoy the fantasy, for as long as you can.
---
Off course the Han have displpaced other people, but Gabriel had no
right to act righteous. I was only acting righteous in retaliation and
was provoked to say what I did. I accept it may have been racist but
that was to only show Gabriel's hypocrisy and racism. That was the point
of my reply. See how angry you got when I attacked the Europeans
nonchalantly? Now you understand my anger at Gabriel.
Mark Li
> Lafitte of ethnic Chinese in general - including those in Taiwan, HK,
> Macao, Singapore, and the diaspora outside Asia: you might better assume
> that Lafitte has an axe to grind with PRC, and that could be entirely
> political.
>
> > Bulletin that the Han have historically used agriculture to colonize
> > lands, and the example he gives is Sichuan which "was colonized a
> > thousand years ago".
>
> You should have a little sympathy. "Gabrielle" clearly is a woman's
> name.
>
> displacement of swidden agriculture-practicing peoples (such as the
> Hmong,) by the far more productive agricultural practices of the Han.
>
> > This is a lie.
>
> How the hell would you know???
>
> is false. Would you care to inform us just how you have come to know
> what's in Lafitte's mind?
>
> > Sichuan has been settled by the Han
> > for more than 4000 years. He talks crap about the Han Chinese but
> > doesn't say anything about the Europeans who used rape, murder,
> > genocide, theft, slavery, bribery, agriculture, ranching, "missionary
> > work", reserve dumping, and trinkets to rob and colonize half the
> > world's lands and seas only a few hundred years ago.
>
> I totally missed the bit about colonizing the seas. Last I checked, they
> continue to be open and unpopulated. You might have a point in arguing
> that the Dutch colonized the seas when they formed polders... but they
> didn't get very far with that. By your own criteria, such as they are,
> that makes you a liar.
>
> the Han certainly colonized Taiwan, displacing its aboriginal
> population... some of which, fortunately, remains even to this day.
>
> down calamity upon less technologically developed peoples, and no doubt
> that shall come as a comfort. Enjoy the fantasy, for as long as you can.
---
in Europe people have been displaced. England itself is a mix of all the
people that settled the land. Many customs from ethnic groups in
SE-China have been assimilated into the Han culture as well. The Han
cultures are not homogenous like many other cultures.
Mark Li
> Note: Gabriel wasn't criticizing the Politburo, and I wouldn't have said
TO rephrase, Gabriel attacked the CCP but I didn't say anything. I only
complained about his Sichuan example.
franc...@my-deja.com
bol...@pacbell.net wrote:
> Proof that individuals can successfully form coalitions to create
> positive social change:
It is a social change but is not 'necessarily' a positive social change. It
is negative to those who are affected, both the Hans and the non-Hans.
>>
> World Bank loan for Tibet resettlement falls apart (UPI)
>
> WASHINGTON, July 7 (UPI) - The directors of the World Bank stopped
> short of approving a loan package Friday to help finance the
> resettlement of thousands of Chinese farmers on to Tibetan grazing
> lands, but Beijing has announced it will forge ahead with the
> controversial project on its own.
>
> The $40 million loan deal fell apart Friday in Washington when the
> bank's directors refused to approve the plan in the form that the
> bank staff originally recommended. The board wanted further study of
> the politically charged issue before it would give its approval.
If the loans were expected to fail in the jump-start of economic development
of that area, it would have to go back to the drawing board, whether or not
it would involve Hans or non-Hans migrating anywhere.
FP.
>
> The plan, included in the bank's China Western Poverty Reduction
> Project, calls for the relocation of 58,000 Chinese from their
> depleted farmlands to fertile lands in the western province of
> Qinghai that have traditionally been used by Tibetan herders.
>
> "It is unacceptable to my authorities that other Bank shareholders
> would insist on imposing additional conditions on management's (World
> Bank's staff) recommendations -- namely coming back to the board for
> approval again for a project that was already approved last year,"
> China's representative, Zhu Xian, said in a statement read at
> Friday's meeting. "If that is the case, China will therefore turn to
> its own resources to implement the Qinghai component of the project,
> and in its own way."
>
> The overall poverty project for western China was approved by the
> World Bank last year, however, the directors decided to take a closer
> look at the Qinghai component in light of accusations that the
> resettlement was a move by China to overwhelm the native Tibetans and
> their culture.
>
> The Dali Lama, Tibet's spiritual leader, said that he opposed the
> loan during his recent speaking tour of the United States, as have
> Tibetan independence advocacy groups, such as Students for a Free
> Tibet. Members of the group spent nearly a week camped outside the
> bank's headquarters to urge the board to reject the plan.
>
> Zhu scolded the board for injecting political considerations into
> what he said should have been purely an economic decision.
>
> "From the very start, the whole process has been under enormous
> political pressure," he said in his statement. "We believe,
> therefore, it is once again necessary to bring to our shareholders'
> attention, the importance in this institution of separating economic
> considerations from politics."
>
> World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn, who no longer has to deal
> with the contentious issue since the deal is off, had no immediate
> comment on Zhu's accusations.
>
> "We accept the decision by the Chinese government," he told the
> board. "We note that the project will be implemented by them. We look
> forward to a continuation of our long-standing relationship with
> China in the context of other projects."
Phipps
> anything if he did. He attacked an entire race of people. I was provoked
> and only said what I thought of his argument by attacking the Europeans
> and showing how hypocritical he is.
So you decided indiscriminately to tar hundreds of millions of humans
with a condemnation you should have reserved for one single person, for
one incident - as subjectively and biasedly interpreted by You, on the
basis of meager "evidence". You should feel proud, shouldn't you?
>
> > Unless you can establish a pattern of systematic denigration by
> > Lafitte of ethnic Chinese in general - including those in Taiwan, HK,
> > Macao, Singapore, and the diaspora outside Asia: you might better assume
> > that Lafitte has an axe to grind with PRC, and that could be entirely
> > political.
> ---
> He probably would have but he attacked the Han settlement of Sichuan.
A very specific part, no more. What of it?
Lafitte will speak for Lafitte; I opposed IBRD funding on the basic
grounds that PRC has resources more than ample enough to cover the cost
of the program, without dunning outsiders; and indeed it had announced
that it will proceed with the project nevertheless, despite the denial
of IBRD funds.
CCP spent several times the amount of the requsted IBRD funds, in
Beijing alone, on its venal and self-serving commemoration ceremonies of
its 50th anniversary in power... and has an active independent manned
space program - something EU and Japan, both vastly more fiscally fit to
shoulder such a fiscal burden, had decided is not worth the expense...
however more easily affordable.
PRC's manned space program is an investment seeking a return in prestige
and kudos, and the wasteful expenditure on celebrations of CCP's
half-century festivities, were aligned with that goal. PRC also pumps
billions - that's with a "B", in powers of 10 ^ 9 - into SOEs, and into
banks sustaining them: for the purpose of staving off social unrest that
might lead to active opposition, and to the undermining of its
iron-fisted grip on power.
I acquiesce to the reality of CCP's totalitarian lock on effective power
in mainland China; but find no compelling reason why I should be forced
to subsidize CCP's monopolization of political power... particularly
when CCP demonstrably, demonstrately, can anyway pay for its propaganda
initiatives on its own. IBRD's resource base derives from appropriations
tansferred by its members, which generally derive them from taxation,
including mine: which gives me some right to exercise choice. Do you
disagree?
The fungibility of monetary transfers is such that relief of funding
requirements toward one line of action, thereby frees expendable funds
available to be spent on purposes essentially irrelevant to the
purpose(s) toward which those initial funds had been earmarked. If you
seek to force me through the back door to participate in the
perpetuation of CCP's persecution of alteernatives to its rule via
underwriting of IBRD with taxes I paid, do not feign indignation at my
opposition to inappropriate use of my money once it has become clear
what the Politburo's Republic is up to: i.e, diverting funds from more
desperate recipients, so as to maintain its power prerogatives.
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much..." PRC tired to hijack
international funding earmarked for the alleviation of poverty, where
CCP/PRC had diverted its own budgetary allocations away from (presumably
desperate) alleviation of poverty, for the goal of preservating its
continuance in power - in the expectation that the international
community would pay for its struggle for self-preservation.
It did not work, and it should not have. Try again.
The attempt to capture a portion of IBRD funds where these clearly were
not critical to the execution of the project, failed. If those attempts
were successful: the equivalent monetary amounts shall have become
denied to persons of an ethnicity other than your own, ones who don't
strictly live under a government whose priority bends toward its own
political survival, however pressing the needs of its charges.
You want to talk about racism: first look in your miror. Stop seeking to
kill Africans by diverting IBRD funds toward the sectarian preservation
of CCP's rule.
There is no reason why the World Bank should subsidize PRC's propaganda
effort, when it force e.g. countries in sub-Saharan Africa to go
wanting.
>
> >
> > > I read one of his articles in the Tibet
> > > Bulletin that the Han have historically used agriculture to colonize
> > > lands, and the example he gives is Sichuan which "was colonized a
> > > thousand years ago".
> >
> > Lafitte might simply have been referring, however obliquely, to the
> > displacement of swidden agriculture-practicing peoples (such as the
> > Hmong,) by the far more productive agricultural practices of the Han.
> >
> > > This is a lie.
> >
> > How the hell would you know???
> ---
> The lie I was talking about was the lie that Sichuan was colonized one
> thousand years ago. That is untrue.
That does not make it a lie. For something untrue to be a lie, it must
be told in the knowledge that it is false. Lafitte might simply have
been repeating inaccurate information. Unless you know what Lafitte knew
at the time, your accusations of racism on such flimsy "evidence" are
inappropriate, or worse.
You chose to pin the label "racist" on Lafitte, which remains dubious.
For a journalist to make a glaring error is sloppy and unprofessional,
and pointing one out should have sufficed for your purpose - without
exposing you to criticism of your overzealous criticism.
>
> >
> > A lie is the deliberate telling of a falsehood, in the knowledge that it
> > is false. Would you care to inform us just how you have come to know
> > what's in Lafitte's mind?
WELL????????
>
> >
> > > Sichuan has been settled by the Han
> > > for more than 4000 years. He talks crap about the Han Chinese but
> > > doesn't say anything about the Europeans who used rape, murder,
> > > genocide, theft, slavery, bribery, agriculture, ranching, "missionary
> > > work", reserve dumping, and trinkets to rob and colonize half the
> > > world's lands and seas only a few hundred years ago.
> >
> > I totally missed the bit about colonizing the seas. Last I checked, they
> > continue to be open and unpopulated. You might have a point in arguing
> > that the Dutch colonized the seas when they formed polders... but they
> > didn't get very far with that. By your own criteria, such as they are,
> > that makes you a liar.
> ---
> Most of the world's seas are under control by the Europeans.
An interesting statement, and one predicated on one's understanding of
what constitutes control (not to mention, what one considers
"European").
I disagree: in that over the vast majority of the maritime area of the
planet, nobody exercises control. Evergreen, Cosco, NYK, and such,
routinely send their container ships out on the high sees without let or
hindrance. PLAN does not ask anyone for permission to send its vessels
out in international waters, nor does it need to do so. Interceptions on
the high seas are exceptionally rare.
Europeans, and societies dominated by descendants of Europeans, do have
the *potential* to control much of the world's international waters; but
they are not controling much at present... although they could. They do
have an overwhelming advantage in capacity for projection of power, but
exercise of that capacity is immensely rare - and subject both to
international law, and to (potentially counterproductive and dangerous)
fractious diplomatic controversy.
That apart: control, btw, is not at all a synonym for colonization.
>
> >
> > And before you get too sanctimonious, you might care to remember that
> > the Han certainly colonized Taiwan, displacing its aboriginal
> > population... some of which, fortunately, remains even to this day.
> ---
> The proportion and their influence is much greater than the native
> Americans and Australians.
You are most likely right in the case of the indigenous population of
Australia. As far as the indigenous population of America is concerned:
they account for roughly 1.5% of the population... which, as I heard, is
not far from the percentage of aboriginals in Taiwan.
You might be underestimating the influence of indigenous Americans. In
many localities, they have a good deal of clout - they control about 1/3
of the territory of Arizona. They got the electorate of California, in a
2 separate referendum initiatives, to approve casinos on their lands.
They are very influential in the environmental movement, which itself is
has much influence in society in general, and is growing. This is not an
exhaustive treatise on the influence they have within the general
society.
Perhaps you would care to inform us what influence the indigenous people
of Taiwan have on the society of that island?
>
> >
> > You might choose to maintain the pretence that the Han never brought
> > down calamity upon less technologically developed peoples, and no doubt
> > that shall come as a comfort. Enjoy the fantasy, for as long as you can.
> ---
> Off course the Han have displpaced other people, but Gabriel had no
> right to act righteous. I was only acting righteous in retaliation and
> was provoked to say what I did.
Hmmm... did *you* then have the right to act (as you attest,) righteous?
> I accept it may have been racist but
> that was to only show Gabriel's hypocrisy and racism. That was the point
> of my reply. See how angry you got when I attacked the Europeans
> nonchalantly? Now you understand my anger at Gabriel.
No. I was not angry; if I come to respond in anger at some point, you'll
notice the difference. I was disappointed in your venting of your anger,
and AFAIK you are better than that.
There is an inherent disadvantage in expressing anger in the midst of a
polemic: arguments then get formulated along emotional lines, not along
lines of reason and logic - which leaves one vulnerable to withering
riposte by someone not so distracted.
Mark Li
>
> Mark Li wrote:
> >
> > Phipps wrote:
> > >
> > > Mark Li wrote:
> > > >
>
> > > > Gabrielle Lafitte is a racist.
> > >
> > > Well, then: in all probability, so are you. You have set the bar so low
> > > that the label 'racist' can stick to you, too.
> > >
> > > You have the option of falling into the trap devised by PRC's cadres,
> > > which equates criticism of the Politburo's Republic of China with
> > > racism.
> > ---
> > Note: Gabriel wasn't criticizing the Politburo, and I wouldn't have said
> > anything if he did. He attacked an entire race of people. I was provoked
> > and only said what I thought of his argument by attacking the Europeans
> > and showing how hypocritical he is.
>
> So you decided indiscriminately to tar hundreds of millions of humans
> with a condemnation you should have reserved for one single person, for
> one incident - as subjectively and biasedly interpreted by You, on the
> basis of meager "evidence". You should feel proud, shouldn't you?
Uhhh. You do realize that Gabriel was attacking an entire race in the
first place? Just because you don't agree with my interpretaion doesn't
I'm any more bias than you are. How would you react if I said you're
more biase than I for the simple fact that you don't agree with me?
We're all biased, including Gabriel, and yourself.
>
> >
> > > Unless you can establish a pattern of systematic denigration by
> > > Lafitte of ethnic Chinese in general - including those in Taiwan, HK,
> > > Macao, Singapore, and the diaspora outside Asia: you might better assume
> > > that Lafitte has an axe to grind with PRC, and that could be entirely
> > > political.
> > ---
> > He probably would have but he attacked the Han settlement of Sichuan.
>
> A very specific part, no more. What of it?
>
> Lafitte will speak for Lafitte; I opposed IBRD funding on the basic
> grounds that PRC has resources more than ample enough to cover the cost
> of the program, without dunning outsiders; and indeed it had announced
> that it will proceed with the project nevertheless, despite the denial
> of IBRD funds.
>
> CCP spent several times the amount of the requsted IBRD funds, in
> Beijing alone, on its venal and self-serving commemoration ceremonies of
> its 50th anniversary in power...
---
I never knew that. If that's the case then I'd agree it's wrong, but
it's for a useful and decent purpose, and the Chinese government still
used it for propaganda as well, would you object?
> and has an active independent manned
> space program - something EU and Japan, both vastly more fiscally fit to
> shoulder such a fiscal burden, had decided is not worth the expense...
> however more easily affordable.
>
> PRC's manned space program is an investment seeking a return in prestige
> and kudos, and the wasteful expenditure on celebrations of CCP's
> half-century festivities, were aligned with that goal.
---
I don't see what's the problem with China having a space program. India
has one and they're much worse off, so are you against them having one?
What about Russia?
> PRC also pumps
> billions - that's with a "B", in powers of 10 ^ 9
---
Yes, I know. I use the American "Billion" as well, not the English 10 ^
12 "Billion".
> - into SOEs, and into
> banks sustaining them: for the purpose of staving off social unrest that
> might lead to active opposition, and to the undermining of its
> iron-fisted grip on power.
>
> I acquiesce to the reality of CCP's totalitarian lock on effective power
> in mainland China; but find no compelling reason why I should be forced
> to subsidize CCP's monopolization of political power... particularly
> when CCP demonstrably, demonstrately, can anyway pay for its propaganda
> initiatives on its own. IBRD's resource base derives from appropriations
> tansferred by its members, which generally derive them from taxation,
> including mine: which gives me some right to exercise choice. Do you
> disagree?
---
Of course, but I'm sure my tax dollars also go in, so that also gives me
choice and the right to opinion, doesn't it?
>
>
> The fungibility of monetary transfers is such that relief of funding
> requirements toward one line of action, thereby frees expendable funds
> available to be spent on purposes essentially irrelevant to the
> purpose(s) toward which those initial funds had been earmarked. If you
> seek to force me through the back door to participate in the
> perpetuation of CCP's persecution of alteernatives to its rule via
> underwriting of IBRD with taxes I paid, do not feign indignation at my
> opposition to inappropriate use of my money once it has become clear
> what the Politburo's Republic is up to: i.e, diverting funds from more
> desperate recipients, so as to maintain its power prerogatives.
>
> "Methinks the lady doth protest too much..." PRC tired to hijack
> international funding earmarked for the alleviation of poverty, where
> CCP/PRC had diverted its own budgetary allocations away from (presumably
> desperate) alleviation of poverty, for the goal of preservating its
> continuance in power - in the expectation that the international
> community would pay for its struggle for self-preservation.
>
> It did not work, and it should not have. Try again.
>
> The attempt to capture a portion of IBRD funds where these clearly were
> not critical to the execution of the project, failed.
---
I was only objecting to the demonization of China and the Han people,
which this entire campaign of lies has been built on. Anyway, it deosn't
matter. Now the Chinese government will be able to move more than 60,000
people to the region and with no outisde interference either. You said
it yourself, the Chinese government doesn't need outside funds.
> If those attempts
> were successful: the equivalent monetary amounts shall have become
> denied to persons of an ethnicity other than your own, ones who don't
> strictly live under a government whose priority bends toward its own
> political survival, however pressing the needs of its charges.
---
Is there evidence to suggest that the Chinese government is using the
funding wholly for the purposes of staying in power? Do you now believe
that the PRC government will collapse because it will not receive the
funding?
>
> You want to talk about racism: first look in your miror. Stop seeking to
> kill Africans by diverting IBRD funds toward the sectarian preservation
> of CCP's rule.
---
I don't even know what you're talking about. I can call you a racist for
saying I somehow support the killing of Africans. Does this mean I can
call certain people racist when they didn't do anything in Rwanda when
more than a million Africans were killed?
>
> There is no reason why the World Bank should subsidize PRC's propaganda
> effort, when it force e.g. countries in sub-Saharan Africa to go
> wanting.
---
It's Called the "World" Bank, not "US" Bank. Sure, I have abosultely no
problem with money flowing to Sub-Saharan Africa to reduce the AIDS
epidemic. I support funding wherever necessary. I'd support it in India,
China and Thailand where AIDS is getting worse (would you deny China
funding for AIDS if it was used for propaganda purposes by the PRC as
well?).
>
> >
> > >
> > > > I read one of his articles in the Tibet
> > > > Bulletin that the Han have historically used agriculture to colonize
> > > > lands, and the example he gives is Sichuan which "was colonized a
> > > > thousand years ago".
> > >
> > > Lafitte might simply have been referring, however obliquely, to the
> > > displacement of swidden agriculture-practicing peoples (such as the
> > > Hmong,) by the far more productive agricultural practices of the Han.
> > >
> > > > This is a lie.
> > >
> > > How the hell would you know???
> > ---
> > The lie I was talking about was the lie that Sichuan was colonized one
> > thousand years ago. That is untrue.
>
> That does not make it a lie. For something untrue to be a lie, it must
> be told in the knowledge that it is false. Lafitte might simply have
> been repeating inaccurate information. Unless you know what Lafitte knew
> at the time, your accusations of racism on such flimsy "evidence" are
> inappropriate, or worse.
---
Then what about his comment that the Hans have a history of agricultural
colonization? Whether true or not, what was the point of that statement?
This is one of the points of my previous reply. It is irrelevant and it
can only be concluded that it is an argument based on race. If I were to
say the same thing about the Europeans unprovoked, I'm pretty sure I'd
be called racist and told that "it's too late", "irrelevant" etc. by a
lot of people in this newsgroup. You do accept that his argument is
irrelevant, don't you?
>
> You chose to pin the label "racist" on Lafitte, which remains dubious.
> For a journalist to make a glaring error is sloppy and unprofessional,
> and pointing one out should have sufficed for your purpose - without
> exposing you to criticism of your overzealous criticism.
>
> >
> > >
> > > A lie is the deliberate telling of a falsehood, in the knowledge that it
> > > is false. Would you care to inform us just how you have come to know
> > > what's in Lafitte's mind?
>
> WELL????????
---
His writing tells what his mind's thinking.
---
Their integration into Taiwanese society is best shown by the singer
A-mei who sang the ROC national anthem at Chen's inauguration. Many of
Taiwan's baseballers are the native ethnic groups. They don't face
discrimination and are accepted in Taiwanese society. They don't have
self-governing regions or reservations because they are so well
integrated into society and their demands will affect the entire
society. Most of them are wealthy, productive, and don't have problems
such as suicide, alcoholism, etc.
>
> >
> > >
> > > You might choose to maintain the pretence that the Han never brought
> > > down calamity upon less technologically developed peoples, and no doubt
> > > that shall come as a comfort. Enjoy the fantasy, for as long as you can.
> > ---
> > Off course the Han have displpaced other people, but Gabriel had no
> > right to act righteous. I was only acting righteous in retaliation and
> > was provoked to say what I did.
>
> Hmmm... did *you* then have the right to act (as you attest,) righteous?
---
I didn't hear you complaining about Gabriel. That was the entire point
of my reply, to show his hypocrisy.
Phipps
>
> Phipps wrote:
> >
> > Mark Li wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yu wrote:
> > > > > The eye witness observer must be Gabriel Lafitte who wrote several
> > > > > articles on the subject for the Asian Wall Street Journal.
> > > > > He is the National Research Officer for the Australia-Tibet Council.
> > > > > That showed how objective he is.
> > > >
> > > > Some problem with that organization?
> > > >
> > > > > In my opinion there is someone orchestrating all these.
> > > >
> > > > You must be laboring under the impression that someone is interested
> > > > in your conspiracy theories. If a person has ever had anything to do
> > > > with any non-PRC organization interested in Tibet you conclude that
> > > > he is some kind of CIA spy. If there is a question about the
> > > > situation in any of these regions of the PRC there is a very simple
> > > > solution. Anyone who wants it should be given unrestricted access
> > > > with videocameras and the world can make a clear judgement based
> > > > on the results. If the investigators are followed around or interrogated
> > > > by PRC security goons we will know the real truth immediately.
> > > ---
> >
> > Well, then: in all probability, so are you. You have set the bar so low
> > that the label 'racist' can stick to you, too.
> >
> > You have the option of falling into the trap devised by PRC's cadres,
> > which equates criticism of the Politburo's Republic of China with
> > racism.
> ---
> Note: Gabriel wasn't criticizing the Politburo, and I wouldn't have said
> anything if he did. He attacked an entire race of people.
Not evident, even given such a controversial concept of "race"; but I
would be interested in what specifically was written, which brought you
to that conclusion... and the reasoning - if any (after all, you were
angry) - behind your conclusion.
> I was provoked
> and only said what I thought of his argument by attacking the Europeans
> and showing how hypocritical he is.
All you will have done is to point out that Lafitte did not deviate
extraordinarily from the subject of the article - something expected
and required of journalists.
>
> > Unless you can establish a pattern of systematic denigration by
> > Lafitte of ethnic Chinese in general - including those in Taiwan, HK,
> > Macao, Singapore, and the diaspora outside Asia: you might better assume
> > that Lafitte has an axe to grind with PRC, and that could be entirely
> > political.
> ---
> He probably would have but he attacked the Han settlement of Sichuan.
Your statement seemly is predicated on a personal and biased
interpretation of one single article. Would you have arrived at the same
conclusion if you were not coming from a perspective of ethnically-based
indignation: say, if you were ethnically Amharic?
>
> >
> > > I read one of his articles in the Tibet
> > > Bulletin that the Han have historically used agriculture to colonize
> > > lands, and the example he gives is Sichuan which "was colonized a
> > > thousand years ago".
> >
> >
> > > This is a lie.
> >
> > How the hell would you know???
> ---
> The lie I was talking about was the lie that Sichuan was colonized one
> thousand years ago. That is untrue.
That does not automatically make it a lie. In order for something to be
a lie, it must not only be false, but the person telling it must know it
to be false. For example, if someone tells you a lie which you believe,
and then repeat it: you're in error, not lying.
FYI, this is established in Law: you can not be held guilty for perjury
if you believed that a false statement you made was true.
Lafitte can be blasted for sloppy journalism; but unless you know what
were the basis for the statement regarding the settlement of Sichuan -
it could be derived from a 'historical' account based on faulty
information, or even on a genuine effort to deceive - but unless you can
establish that Lafitte knew it to be false: you can not establish intent
to deceive, and therefore you can not establish that it is a lie. At
least not in English, which is the language you used to make the
accusation, and thereby under which rules, govern the semantics of the
discussion.
>
> >
> > A lie is the deliberate telling of a falsehood, in the knowledge that it
> > is false. Would you care to inform us just how you have come to know
> > what's in Lafitte's mind?
>
> >
> > > Sichuan has been settled by the Han
> > > for more than 4000 years. He talks crap about the Han Chinese but
> > > doesn't say anything about the Europeans who used rape, murder,
> > > genocide, theft, slavery, bribery, agriculture, ranching, "missionary
> > > work", reserve dumping, and trinkets to rob and colonize half the
> > > world's lands and seas only a few hundred years ago.
> >
> > I totally missed the bit about colonizing the seas. Last I checked, they
> > continue to be open and unpopulated. You might have a point in arguing
> > that the Dutch colonized the seas when they formed polders... but they
> > didn't get very far with that. By your own criteria, such as they are,
> > that makes you a liar.
> ---
> Most of the world's seas are under control by the Europeans.
That's a highly contentious statement.
First - the Europeans do not, barring exceptions, exert control over the
seas. Every day, hundreds if not thousands of ships from non-European
societies ply the world without let or hindrance. Occasionally one might
be intercepted and boarded on the high seas e.g. for inspection for
contraband; but this is very rare, and would provoke an international
incident if such interception not have sanction under international law.
There is no control where none is exercised.
Second, at any given time there are immense swathes of open ocean that
are entirely out of range of the naval assets of European and of
ethnically European-dominated societies (to your discredit, you make no
such distinction). On top of that, huge parts of the seas are under
legal control of the nearest sovereign state, up to a distance of 200
miles. That covers a lot of territory.
European and ethnically European-dominated states do enjoy a military
advantage in power projection over much of the world's seas, but that is
not synonymous to controling the seas... and is even less an indication
of colonization.
>
> >
> > And before you get too sanctimonious, you might care to remember that
> > the Han certainly colonized Taiwan, displacing its aboriginal
> > population... some of which, fortunately, remains even to this day.
> ---
> The proportion and their influence is much greater than the native
> Americans and Australians.
Indigenous Americans make up about 1.5% of the overall population of the
US; I had read some time ago that the aboriginal Taiwanese constitute
about 2% of the island's population - is either inaccurate?
Of course, you are comparing tiny part of China to the entire US. If you
accept the notion of 1 China and that Taiwan is a province of China -
your choice of PRC or ROC, if you like - in which case it would be more
appropriate to compare Taiwan with specific American States, several of
which have proportions of indigenous populations vastly higher than
Taiwan: Arizona and Alaska, for example, as well as New Mexico...
Hawaii: where the 'native' population would represent roughly twice the
proportion of indigenes in Taiwan, and where their cultural impact
pervades society as a whole to a significant extent.
In those States, the indigenous population wield significant influence
in politics, in the economy, in art... in society in general.
In the US as a whole, the indigenous cultures have had much influence
and impact on various aspects of society. They are particularly
influential among environmental activists, for starters. in California,
the Indians have persuaded the general electorate, twice, to pass
overwhelmingly referendum initiatives in their favor. That points to
significant political clout.
How about the indigenous Taiwanese? Would you care to say a few words
about how much influence they have in Taiwanese society as a whole? Tell
us a bit more about the influence of aboriginal peoples on Taiwanese
society, if you please.
If you could also spare a moment of clarity: note that you have engaged
in a comparison for which verifiable and comparable criteria are both
subjectively weightable, and anyway quite thin on the ground.
If you have the time or inclination, you might even comment on how such
easily flawed comparisons might in any way be relevant to anything.
>
> >
> > You might choose to maintain the pretence that the Han never brought
> > down calamity upon less technologically developed peoples, and no doubt
> > that shall come as a comfort. Enjoy the fantasy, for as long as you can.
> ---
> Off course the Han have displpaced other people, but Gabriel had no
> right to act righteous. I was only acting righteous in retaliation and
> was provoked to say what I did. I accept it may have been racist but
> that was to only show Gabriel's hypocrisy and racism. That was the point
> of my reply. See how angry you got when I attacked the Europeans
> nonchalantly?
I wasn't angry at you, I was disappointed. If I do get angry, you'll
swiftly be able to tell the difference.
I deplore the indiscriminate use of the term "racism". Its overuse risks
desensitizing people, and thus make it all the more difficult to
confront genuine racism where it occur.
Neither do I approve of the indiscriminate use of the word, "liar". When
"abianchen"/Liguo[?] wrote, quote:
"> eg, those genes have made
> ethnic Han Chinese look different from ethnic Irish. And the HGD is
> making efforts to identify those genes"
I replied,
"You're making this up. Nowhere does HGDP say they're doing this."
I refrained from calling him a liar, but rather said that he was making
it up: there is the possibility that he was extrapolating or guessing,
however in error or in ignorance. Much as I suspected he had a genuine
motivation to deceive, still I declined to call him a liar.
As it turns out, I got an email response from Hank Greely, a member of
the North American Committee of that Project and chair of its ethics
subcommittee, which totally debunked his contention. I reposted it today
with full permission, under the heading "Re: Anthropologists have
classified 9 racial groupss so far!"
> Now you understand my anger at Gabriel.
It is impressive that you somehow managed, as you proposed, both to be
angry, and paradoxically to reply nonchalantly... in a manner which
presumably should help me understand your anger: something which, on the
face of it, appears entirely contradictory.
Phipps
India has a space program based on satellites; I had not heard of it
having a *manned* space program. If you have any references from
credible sources that it does, pls advise.
If it does, I deplore it. Manned space programs are particularly costly.
The US space program has had commercial spinoffs, but these mostly
resulted from resolving previously unencountered problems. PRC would be
"reinventing the wheel", as it were: NASA and the Soviet space program
had solved the basic programs, leaving slim opportunities for PRC's
program to spin off new, marketable, technologies.
Sure, we got Teflon and a few other goodies from the American space
program; but a manned space program is a wasteful way of jump-starting
commercial technologies: the money would, unless very wastefully
disbursed, have yielded a better rate of return if it had been spent on
targeted r&d. The main payoff for launching humans into space is
prestige.
Russia is an interesting case. It has advanced technology coexisting
with a third world economy and political structure. Its space program...
that is, what little is left of it... is the hollowed-out remnant of the
Soviet space program, and had even decided to abandon MIR.
The Russians have an existing technological base, and invaluable
expertise in life support/longevity in space; it has the most powerful
launch vehicle with the greatest payload (the Proton rocket). It would
cost infinitely more for NASA and its associated agencies to duplicate,
rather than help maintain the existing, proven, and needed Proton.
QED.
>
> > If those attempts
> > were successful: the equivalent monetary amounts shall have become
> > denied to persons of an ethnicity other than your own, ones who don't
> > strictly live under a government whose priority bends toward its own
> > political survival, however pressing the needs of its charges.
> ---
> Is there evidence to suggest that the Chinese government is using the
> funding wholly for the purposes of staying in power? Do you now believe
> that the PRC government will collapse because it will not receive the
> funding?
No; but it should not
>
> >
> > You want to talk about racism: first look in your miror. Stop seeking to
> > kill Africans by diverting IBRD funds toward the sectarian preservation
> > of CCP's rule.
> ---
> I don't even know what you're talking about. I can call you a racist for
> saying I somehow support the killing of Africans. Does this mean I can
> call certain people racist when they didn't do anything in Rwanda when
> more than a million Africans were killed?
You can call them whatever you want and can get away with. I had read an
assessment of the Rwanda tragedy written by a military expert, who
argued quite convincingly that it would have been impossible, once the
genocide got underway, to deploy sufficient troops rapidly enough to
make any significant difference.
The situation was complex, involving a number of actors... including, if
I recall correctly, that the (Hutu) Rwandan ambassador to the UN held
the rotating presidency of the Security Council at the time. RPF had a
batallion in Kigali which was enjoying military success (including
control of the airport,) denied the genocide was occurring, and warned
off foreign troops which would have had to secure the airport by force
of arms against them.
>
> >
> > There is no reason why the World Bank should subsidize PRC's propaganda
> > effort, when it force e.g. countries in sub-Saharan Africa to go
> > wanting.
> ---
> It's Called the "World" Bank, not "US" Bank. Sure, I have abosultely no
> problem with money flowing to Sub-Saharan Africa to reduce the AIDS
> epidemic. I support funding wherever necessary. I'd support it in India,
> China and Thailand where AIDS is getting worse (would you deny China
> funding for AIDS if it was used for propaganda purposes by the PRC as
> well?).
If I were in charge of allocating funds for AIDS programs, I would be
governed by the guidelines of that organization, and need to be
sensitive to the wishes of the donors. As it is, funding levels are
grossly inadequate to cover the requirements of the most needy
recipients e.g. Zimbabwe and Botswana.
If a recipient refused funds because a condition of granting them is
that they not be used for propaganda purposes, the responsibility for
lack of funds would rest with the putative recipient. The politics of
such a tug-of-war would be interesting and unpredictable.
I would accept that it is superfluous, or redundant. I consider it
sloppy journalism, while you consider it racism.