How to achieve Tibet independence?
Francis Y.F.Poon
Brian Jackson. It is easy to write on paper about TI, of course.
FP
chino...@my-deja.com
well, francis, speaking for myself alone, i will have to get back to
you on this after i have finished taking notes on the process currently
underway that will surely lead to the independence of east timor.
cheers,
chino
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Bruscar
Tibets identity. Tibetans are now a minority in Tibet due to Communist
policy. I am sure you know this.
Jackie
>> Any one would like to shed some light on this? How about Mike Cleven
>> or Brian Jackson. It is easy to write on paper about TI, of course.
Chino:
>well, francis, speaking for myself alone, i will have to get back to
>you on this after i have finished taking notes on the process currently
>underway that will surely lead to the independence of east timor.
Unfortunately all is not going well in East Timor right now. We can
only watch and see. Tibet will not achieve independence this way.
China will gradually become more and more democratic over the passing
of time, leaders will start to become less egotistical, weak and
paranoid; and with her opening and flowering, they will become wise to
democracy and realise the strength of its roots. In this way, Tibet
will eventually reach true autonomy. The Chinese will live happily and
be Chinese; the Tibetans will live happily and be Tibetan, and will
govern themselves.
Yes.
Jackie.
jpop
theorize, prophesize? I volunteer to lay down some
scenarios.
Scenario One: Back to good old days, which means bringing
CIA back into the game, if they are not already in, which I
have grave doubts. Sponsor something like TLA, Tibet
Liberation Army. Provoke Chinese into reacting harshly and
have an excuse for outside intervention, ala Kosovo style.
Next send two carrier battle groups into Bay of Bengal and
start bombing "military targets" in Tibet. Form an alliance
with India, Taiwan, and Japan as NATO in Asia. If China
still doesn't get it after two months of bombing, send in
82nd airborn and wipe PLA out of Tibet. Pretty simple, ain't
it? I am sure many of you have gone through this in your
mind many times, day or night, but are uncomfortable to say
it, because HHDL is opposed to violence. Well, that is not
absolutely true in any sense. They have tried it before when
it was convenient and had hopes to succeed.
Scenario Two: Use the Hollywood Jaggernaut. As Orville
Schell said, Hollywood is the second most powerful
institution in the world, just behind U.S. military. If you
are reluctant to U.S. military, why not use the second best?
Launch an all-out PR blitz on China and enlist every
Hollywood celeb you can find. It was off to a good start two
years ago with the release of movies like "Seven Years in
Tibet", "Kundun", then just fizzled. The problem was that
those movies were just as bad or even worse than some of CCP
propaganda movies I have seen and the attention span of
Hollywood stars was as durable as their marriages......,
which is, as you all know, not very long. Too bad, for a
while Tibet was in the front burner and silver screen, now
just back on cutting room floor and column 18 on page 11.
This is the reality of our age. It's hard to work people
into a frenzy. Even Hollywood has its limit. So far, Dalai
Lama's Hollywood strategy has only limit success. Of course,
he becomes a religious celebrity. Whether or not it helps
his cause remains to be seen.
Scenario Three: South African Model, i.e., international
boycott and embargo, as many countries did against South
Africa during apartheid days. This is perhaps the most
lethal one that could do damages to China that are so great
that it has no choice but abandon Tibet. The problem is who
is willing to fire the first volley. I know many legislative
bodies have passed various forms of worthless, useless,
punchless, non-biding bills addressing Tibet issue, but none
of them has teeth. Boycott or embargo is just two inches
away from declaring war. That may give a chill to many
fervous minds. However, it deserves serious consideration by
TI strategists. Act while Dalai Lama is still hot and
influential. When date of expiration arrives, many doors now
open to them will be shut.
Scenario Four: Intifada model, ala Palestine style. As you
all remembered, the Intifada by Palestinians was very
successful in the sense that it brought people's attention
to the issue and it occupied media coverage despite
tremendous Jewish presence in that field. Why not try
something similar? Do something for and by yourself, lamas
and nuns. I'm begging you. Do you seriously believe you can
drive Chinese out of Tibet by schmoozing with Hollywood
celebs, sideshowing at Beastie Boys concerts, and rubbibg
noses with popes, kings, dukes and archedukes of various
forms and denominations? Do something useful and real.Stop
jerking around. Throw some stones. Burn some tires. Take
some rubber bullets. Let the world see and believe you are
serious. Then we can really talk about Tibet
independence.............
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
guard...@my-deja.com
Can u be more specific telling us how Tibetans became minority in
Tibet???
Guardiangel
Mark Li
> the Communists have systematically wiped out
> Tibets identity. Tibetans are now a minority in Tibet due to Communist
> policy. I am sure you know this.
Evidence, please. And no bullshit evidence propagated by the CIA and the
so-called "Tibetan Government in Exile" of "2 million dead" and "Han
domination".
LONG LIVE A GREAT, UNITED AND ENLARGED CHINA!
anag...@my-deja.com
guard...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7qm9fq$fm8$1...@gxsn.com>,
> "Bruscar" <bru...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> wiped out
> > Tibets identity. Tibetans are now a minority in Tibet due to
Communist
> > policy. I am sure you know this.
> >
>
> Tibet???
>
> Guardiangel
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
the Chinese have killed at least 1/6 of Tibet's population. Secondly,
the Chinese have settled in Tibet in an attempt to breed out the
Tibetans, and lastly the Chinese have destroyed the culture of Tibet
due to their atheism campaign and their arrest and imprisonment of the
Panchen Lama, as well as many other Tibetan religious autorities.
Anagarika
guard...@my-deja.com
anag...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7qn64d$e2p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> guard...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <7qm9fq$fm8$1...@gxsn.com>,
> > "Bruscar" <bru...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > This will sadly never happen as the Communists have systematically
> > wiped out
> > > Tibets identity. Tibetans are now a minority in Tibet due to
> Communist
> > > policy. I am sure you know this.
> > >
> >
> > Can u be more specific telling us how Tibetans became minority in
> > Tibet???
> >
> > Guardiangel
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> >
> Tibetans have become a minority in Tibet due to many reasons. First
> the Chinese have killed at least 1/6 of Tibet's population.
Where this number(1/6) came from?? Does it included the Tibetans in
Qinghai(Amdo) and/or Western Sichuan(eastern Kham)????
First of all, dont tell me it is the "1.2 million" version, becus in
15th March 1998, Dalai Lama told a reporter that this number is wrong.
[Interview with the Dalai Lama, 'Spring of Beijing', May 1998]
Secondly, in a politcal forum held in New York in 3-5-98, Ngapoi Jigme
(TIer and the Director of Tibetan Services, Radio Free Asia) clearly
admitted that the number was exaggerated greatly.
In the his book "The Snow and The Dragon", M. C. Goldstein said that on
the issues of "human rights" and "genocide" the DL group always uses
the "greatly-exaggerated" version which doesnt conform the fact.
[M.C. Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon, p72~73]
Nevertheless, the TIer's statements/versions/informations are always
contradictory. I think it is not a good time to draw such conclusion
["1/6 of Tibetan population"]
Secondly,
> the Chinese have settled in Tibet in an attempt to breed out the
> Tibetans,
How? any proof? in fact (Han) Chinese are not interested in staying at
Tibet.
and lastly the Chinese have destroyed the culture of Tibet
> due to their atheism campaign
For example, in the late 1997, PRC govennment spend 200 million to
renovate 1787 temples which located 46380 monks. In 1983, Institute of
Tibetan Buddism was established. Generally, the govenrment has done lot
on the religious affairs in the territory, and the religious freedom
was recovered(unless they split the nation in the name of 'Religion'),
this fact was known by the western tourists as well as western
Tibetologists[M.C. Goldstein, The Snow Lion and The Dragon, p93]. Can u
say that it is "destroying cultures".
If anyone want to blame someone on this issue("destroying culture"),
just blame the modern Tibetans who chose the western(ized) culture and
gave up their own tradition/culture/religion. According to M.C.
Goldstein, modernization/westernization is the reason why Tibetan
culture was ignored(by your words)
Even in the some Tibetan schools in the exiled community, Tibetan
language was NOT used (as the medium lang.). Are they respecting
Tibetan Culture????
and their arrest and imprisonment of the
> Panchen Lama, as well as many other Tibetan religious autorities.
Hav this so-called "Panchen Lama" ever recognized by the Central
govenrment??? According to the 200-yr tradition all Dalai Lamas and
Panchen Lamas has to be approved by the central government.
guard...@my-deja.com
>
> First of all, dont tell me it is the "1.2 million" version, becus in
> 15th March 1998, Dalai Lama told a reporter that this number is wrong.
> In the his book "The Snow and The Dragon",
correction: "Snow Lion and the Dragon"
Francis Y.F.Poon
>
> This will sadly never happen as the Communists have systematically wiped out
> Tibets identity. Tibetans are now a minority in Tibet due to Communist
> policy. I am sure you know this.
If you truely knew this as a fact, then come in for a serious
discussion. But if you didn't, you would be invited to join the camp
of the Canadian beer drinkers and Thailand taxicab drivers.
FP
Francis Y.F.Poon
>
<snipped>
>
> Tibetans have become a minority in Tibet due to many reasons. First
> the Chinese have killed at least 1/6 of Tibet's population.
--------------------------
Please show evidence. Any documented article that we can go and read?
Secondly,
> the Chinese have settled in Tibet in an attempt to breed out the
> Tibetans,
--------------------
How many have gone there and for what reasons? Are the government
forcing them
to go or are they going there all by themselves. I think in terms of
living conditions, it will be the last
place the Hans want to to and live.
and lastly the Chinese have destroyed the culture of Tibet
> due to their atheism campaign and their arrest and imprisonment of the
> Panchen Lama, as well as many other Tibetan religious autorities.
-------------------------
How does that reduce the population of Tibet?
FP
Francis Y.F.Poon
>
<snipped>
> If anyone want to blame someone on this issue("destroying culture"),
> just blame the modern Tibetans who chose the western(ized) culture and
> gave up their own tradition/culture/religion. According to M.C.
> Goldstein, modernization/westernization is the reason why Tibetan
> culture was ignored(by your words)
> ---------------------------
The Tibetans in HK are more interested in wearing Rolex than the HK
Chinese. The Chinese from both HK and Taiwan have been used to Rolex as
a way of showing off. There is nothing new in this for them. But for
the Tibetans peasants, a Rolex is a status symbol, more important than
that of DL. As I told everyone in this ng., given a choice, 'most'
Tibetans would rather throw out the pictures of Lamas in exchange for a
color TV.
They can always replace the picture of DL with that of Marilyn Monroe
anyway. Well, what has happened to all these years of 'spirituality'
development in that region of the world? Does anyone really think that
spirituality can resist the development of economic forces? Maybe one
day when Tibet becomes another affluent society like the US, Tibet will
become a fertile ground for spiritual growth. For the time being, it is
Mui Tai, Peking duck, beer and taxicabs. That is why there is still a
room for many of the western merchants there.
FP
chino...@my-deja.com
jac...@saskia.demon.co.uk wrote:
> FP:
> >> Any one would like to shed some light on this? How about Mike
Cleven
> >> or Brian Jackson. It is easy to write on paper about TI, of
course.
>
> Chino:
> >well, francis, speaking for myself alone, i will have to get back to
> >you on this after i have finished taking notes on the process
currently
> >underway that will surely lead to the independence of east timor.
>
> Unfortunately all is not going well in East Timor right now. We can
> only watch and see.
well, it remains to be seen how that will all turn out. it is far more
often the case that there is bloodshed involved in the seizing of
independence, than the other way around, so it really should not be
surprising to see this in east timor, saddening though it is. cliques
who will lose their control and status by any change in the local
regime, usually cling tenaciously and violently to their privilege.
>Tibet will not achieve independence this way.
> China will gradually become more and more democratic over the passing
> of time, leaders will start to become less egotistical, weak and
> paranoid; and with her opening and flowering, they will become wise to
> democracy and realise the strength of its roots. In this way, Tibet
> will eventually reach true autonomy. The Chinese will live happily and
> be Chinese; the Tibetans will live happily and be Tibetan, and will
> govern themselves.
>
> Yes.
jackie, sadly, it is just as likely that greater democratisation in
china will lead to tibet just going further down the assimilation road
à la the USA's west. when i lived in beijing, i knew many students and
intellectuals, who could all spout montesquieu and locke and jefferson,
and were prepared to die to bring democracy to china.
on the subject of tibet though, they too regarded it as china's
"manifest destiny" to control tibet, and felt the tibetans were
contemptibly barbaric and backward "dogs" (yes, the mandarin word "gou"
was sometimes used), who could only benefit by china's appropriation of
their lands and their forced cultural assimilation.
so a democratic china is not necessarily a sufficient condition for the
tibetans to receive either independence or true autonomy. it is just
as likely that an even more unfettered market system, plus loosening of
internal migration controls, could lead to an even more massive han
chinese colonisation of tibet than is already occurring.
myself, i think something like what has happened in indonesia must
happen, where east timor was just too much of a "pebble in the shoe"
for much too long, and indonesia had tired of international
disapproval, and a change in government allowed a facesaving window of
opportunity.
cheers,
chino
anag...@my-deja.com
First of all, as naive as I might be, I don't necessarily need
documented proof of an existence of a problem. However, if it could
benefit anyone else, then I will gladly do the research to uncover the
truth. My first point - 1/6 of Tibetans have been killed by the
People's Republic was taken from Sogyal Rinpoche's "The Tibetan Book of
Living and Dying" part four, chapter 21, p.339 first paragraph. The
bibliography of this chapter has many sources, and I'm not sure which
he took this from. Again though, I am more likely to take the word of
Sogyal Rinpoche as truth; being that he was born and nurtured in Tibet,
practiced under great Masters, and experienced the Chinese invasion
first hand. Although, I can see why one would put more value on an
article by a journalist, since journalists have always been known to
supply the public with the truth.
Secondly, according to the caption on page five in "Mother Jones"
May/June 1999, 170,000 Chinese soldiers are stationed in Tibet, and I'm
sure they're not there for the weather. Call it a hunch, but I'm
betting the government sent them there. Therefore, one can speculate
that the government may play a role in the occupation of other Chinese
in Tibet.
Furthermore, the arresting of religious officials and the atheism
campaign ordered by the government is destroying the Tibetan
population. Why? Who are the Tibetan people? The Tibetan culture is
a religious culture, and without religion their is no Tibetan culture.
With no Tibetan culture there is no Tibetan people - only Chinese
citizens.
I apologize if I'm a little long-winded, but I don't apologize for
having compassion for the Tibetan cause. I have had the oportunity to
meet a man who fled Tibet via Himilayas, and I know that in order for
someone to flee their sacred birthplace that the threat must be
serious. And everytime I take refuge in the three jewels, I pray for
the liberation of Tibet and all humankind.
A lotus to you a future buddha!
Anagarika
bingo yang
jac...@saskia.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Unfortunately all is not going well in East Timor right now. We can
tibet is a part of china. you are right about that.
> China will gradually become more and more democratic over the passing
> of time, leaders will start to become less egotistical, weak and
> paranoid; and with her opening and flowering, they will become wise to
> democracy and realise the strength of its roots. In this way, Tibet
could you tell us how? china is still under one-party rule.
> will eventually reach true autonomy. The Chinese will live happily and
> be Chinese; the Tibetans will live happily and be Tibetan, and will
> govern themselves.
so the tibetans and chinese are not haapy now, are they?
thanks,
--
bing, is it bingo?
yes, bingo -- bingo yang.
Shengde
You are not welcome by Chinese--in mainlnad or on exile!
Jackie
>> Unfortunately all is not going well in East Timor right now. We can
>> only watch and see. Tibet will not achieve independence this way.
>tibet is a part of china. you are right about that.
Jackie:
Tibet is a country, like Mongolia. Yes, at the moment it is occupied
by outside forces and controlled strictly by a dictatorship.
>> China will gradually become more and more democratic over the passing
>> of time, leaders will start to become less egotistical, weak and
>> paranoid; and with her opening and flowering, they will become wise to
>> democracy and realise the strength of its roots. In this way, Tibet
bingo yang
>could you tell us how? china is still under one-party rule.
Jackie:
This is the point. The hope that China will become a democracy ie.
opposition parties allowed, the general population given the respect
to be able to *choose* who they want to make the decision, rather than
being dictated to like naughty, silly schoolboys. the Government
becoming fair. I know that sounds CRAZY for China - a fair and just
Government (like Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands) - but
hey, miracles are possible.
>> will eventually reach true autonomy. The Chinese will live happily and
>> be Chinese; the Tibetans will live happily and be Tibetan, and will
>> govern themselves.
bingo yang:
>so the tibetans and chinese are not haapy now, are they?
Jackie:
I think many Tibetans are not happy. Many are being treated unfairly,
tortured, imprisoned. They do not have freedom of speech or freedom of
worship; their whole country is being slowly sinicised. Hundreds of
thousands live in exile. their spiritual leader may not be free in his
own country. No, I think many Tibetans are deeply unhappy.
Francis Y.F.Poon
<snipped>
> Furthermore, the arresting of religious officials and the atheism
> campaign ordered by the government is destroying the Tibetan
> population. Why? Who are the Tibetan people? The Tibetan culture is
> a religious culture, and without religion their is no Tibetan culture.
> With no Tibetan culture there is no Tibetan people
---------------------
The economic development in Tibet or the commercializaton process also
changes the face of the religious culture in Tibet too but that would
have happened anyway and perhaps even faster with the US or western
occuption of Tibet. So I disagree to this. Materialism makes Tibetans
better people by making them confront the true aspects of being human.
Now they realize that they love Rolex and BMW as much as the christian
americans.
- only Chinese
> citizens.
-----------------
Do you mean the commercialized people that you call Chinese.
FP>
>
chino...@my-deja.com
"Francis Y.F.Poon" <fyf...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> chino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <37d4e096...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> > jac...@saskia.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > > >> Any one would like to shed some light on this? How about Mike
> > Cleven
> > > >> or Brian Jackson. It is easy to write on paper about TI, of
> > course.
> > >
> > > Chino:
> > > >well, francis, speaking for myself alone, i will have to get
back to
> > > >you on this after i have finished taking notes on the process
> > currently
> > > >underway that will surely lead to the independence of east timor.
> > >
can
> > > only watch and see.
> >
more
> > often the case that there is bloodshed involved in the seizing of
> > independence, than the other way around, so it really should not be
> > surprising to see this in east timor, saddening though it is.
cliques
> > who will lose their control and status by any change in the local
> > regime, usually cling tenaciously and violently to their privilege.
> So don't you think there are better and more viable solution to
> independence that can promote Tibetans welfare?
i think the tibetans themselves are the ones best suited to answer what
they would prefer, and what they think would work best for them. but
being terrorised into *not* seeking independence, if that would
otherwise be best for them in their own opinion, is not sufficient
grounds for abandoning independence. that would be like saying, "oh
well, young girl, you have been raped and tied up against your will.
why don't you just make things easy on yourself, and marry your rapist?"
> > >Tibet will not achieve independence this way.
> > > China will gradually become more and more democratic over the
passing
> > > of time, leaders will start to become less egotistical, weak and
> > > paranoid; and with her opening and flowering, they will become
wise to
> > > democracy and realise the strength of its roots. In this way,
Tibet
> > > will eventually reach true autonomy. The Chinese will live
happily and
> > > be Chinese; the Tibetans will live happily and be Tibetan, and
will
> > > govern themselves.
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > jackie, sadly, it is just as likely that greater democratisation in
> > china will lead to tibet just going further down the assimilation
road
> > à la the USA's west. when i lived in beijing, i knew many students
and
> > intellectuals, who could all spout montesquieu and locke and
jefferson,
> > and were prepared to die to bring democracy to china.
> >
> > on the subject of tibet though, they too regarded it as china's
> > "manifest destiny" to control tibet, and felt the tibetans were
> > contemptibly barbaric and backward "dogs" (yes, the mandarin word
"gou"
> > was sometimes used), who could only benefit by china's
appropriation of
> > their lands and their forced cultural assimilation.
> -----------------------------
> I think you should stress that these opinions that you quoted are from
> only a few whom you call 'intellectuals' while in essence that is very
> questionable status as far as I am concerned. I frankly
> don't believe that this is the opinion held by the students in
general.
this was a decade ago. i do not know how they might feel today, but at
the time, my point was valid: otherwise admirers of the west,
"democracy advocates", still looked down on tibetans and paid no due to
tibetan desires for self-rule of any form.
and certainly the opinions of these "intellectuals", themselves
children of cadres and headed into government and party positions,
would have far more impact on policy about tibet than would the
opinions of farmers and workers, so i am not sure why you discount the
importance of these "intellectuals'" opinions.
> You seem to have wanted to
> make a case out of what you heard from these few and I don't think it
is
> warranted.
you are quite off. what they said shocked and surprised and
disappointed me, and as they were friends of mine, and their friends, i
had no reason to want to project negative feelings upon them.
>The way that you
> are putting it across as "who could only benefit by china's
> appropriation of........assimilation"
> is not the exact quote of what they said but in my view is what you
> think they said.
of course they would not refer to it as "appropriation" - though that
is what it is. and they *did* refer to "assimilation" ("tong2 hua4")
as being beneficial for the tibetan "gou3".
> > so a democratic china is not necessarily a sufficient condition for
the
> > tibetans to receive either independence or true autonomy.
> -------------------
> A China with a much higher degree of democracy or democratic attitude
IS
> a welcomed condition,insufficient as it is by your yardstick, to bring
> about a much higher degree of autonomy.
well *of course* it is - all i am saying, in and of itself, it is
necessary *but not sufficient*. not only must there be
democratisation, but that democratisation must occur hand in hand with
respect for the notion of tibetans being able to be masters of their
own fate, if this democratisation is to lead to any positive effect for
the tibetans.
> Why have you been stressing
> upon independence as if it is an indispensible condition for the
> improvement of Tibetans' welfare? It maybe something that you
> personally prefer as a solution, but it does not necessarily mean the
> only or the inevitable solution.
in fact, it is *not* my preferred solution; i think an EU-style
"chinese union" of multiple neither-fully-independent-nor-fully-
subordinate states makes the most sense, giving economic benefits to
the various regions and peoples while still ensuring cultural autonomy
for non-han peoples within the union. i have always advocated this
solution here, though i have also always stressed that the decision
must ultimately be in the hands of the tibetans alone, and that if
*full* independence is ultimately what they wish, then that is their
right. i regret any misunderstanding in communicating my views.
> it is just
> > as likely that an even more unfettered market system, plus
loosening of
> > internal migration controls, could lead to an even more massive han
> > chinese colonisation of tibet than is already occurring.
> ------------------------
> You are damned wrong here. Economic and political freedom go hand in
> hand.
not *always*. political freedom in russia has been slow to bring
economic freedom, while economic freedom in china and vietnam has not
brought substantial political liberalisation.
and even if it were to be so for the ethnic majority population, the
issue of indigenous or other minority peoples is quite distinct.
freedom for the majority does not always lead to freedom for the
minority; instead, it may actually give vent to running roughshod over
their rights (just look at the western US disputes between state
governments and tribal governments, regarding the extent and scope of
each government's powers, and what native american treaty rights must
be respected by the non-native majority; or at the democratic australia
of a few decades ago, when aboriginal children were routinely stolen
from their families "for their own good"; or at the modern democracy of
the czech republic, where discrimination (official and unofficial) and
persecution of gypsies has been on the upswing ever since the fall of
the communist regime).
>A much freer economy and freer flow of inter-regional migration
> will lead to a much higher degree of productivity to be materialized
in
> all provinces including Tibet.
and to a much more diluted tibetan demographic presence upon
traditionally tibetan lands, encouraging the development of tibet (and
xinjiang) along the lines of the US west. the tibetan presence will be
relegated to roadside tourist attractions, colourful folkloric dances,
a few place names, and maybe - if they are "lucky" - some lucrative
casinos to give macau a run for its money.
>You can talk about US cultural
> imperialism dominating the world, etc and in a sense you are right
too.
> But you have forgotten the benefits this 'imperialism' has brought
> about. Someday you will see the Tibetans having fancy pc to
communicate
> with us here. It will be the result of the global imperialism going
on.
how anyone of chinese descent, who recalls the domination the west
tried again and again to impose upon china, can complacently sit by in
the face of any form of cultural imperialism, is beyond me. woould you
be content if britain and france and russia and japan had carved up
china, and all education occurred in those languages, and massive waves
of european and japanese colonists had flocked in permanently, taking
all the best land, and the cities, and the han were relegated to
reservations, making quaint folk arts and dancing for blond-haired or
japanese tourists?
in the picture you conjure up, sure the inhabitants of lhasa and xigaze
will all have PCs. they will also almost all be han, with maybe a few
mixedbloods in there, and they will all be communicating with the
outside world in mandarin. meanwhile, the ethnic tibetans will be out
on reservations in the country, and will have profited from the new
order just as much as native americans / first nations have benefited
in the US and canada: not! maybe some will have some casino money, but
most will be amongst the poorest of the poor, and face alcoholism etc.
together with the destruction of their traditional spiritual system and
family ad clan structure, just like the native americans / first
nations have experienced. sadly, china is simply recreating the
experience of the disappropriation of the indigenous peoples of north
america.
> > myself, i think something like what has happened in indonesia must
> > happen, where east timor was just too much of a "pebble in the shoe"
> > for much too long, and indonesia had tired of international
> > disapproval, and a change in government allowed a facesaving window
of
> > opportunity.
> -----------------------------
> 'must' is a very sure word. What is happening in East Timor MUST not
be
> allowed to happen in Tibet.
i mean "must" not in the sense of inevitability, but in the sense that
that is imo likely a prerequisite set of conditions if the tibetans (i)
wish to be fully independent and (ii) actually achieve that result.
again, my personal preference is for an EU-style economic and quasi-
political union.
> You can bet on that, if you so truly cared about the welfare of the
> Tibetans, as opposed to just talking
> about it and the other spirituality/culture things...
again, the wishes of the tibetan people are what must be considered
paramount, and respected.
cheers,
chino
> FP
>
> >
> > cheers,
> > chino
wtj
Francis Y.F.Poon wrote: >
>chino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >Tibet will not achieve independence this way.
> > > China will gradually become more and more democratic over the passing
> > > of time, leaders will start to become less egotistical, weak and
> > > paranoid; and with her opening and flowering, they will become wise to
> > > democracy and realise the strength of its roots. In this way, Tibet
> > > will eventually reach true autonomy. The Chinese will live happily and
> > > be Chinese; the Tibetans will live happily and be Tibetan, and will
> > > govern themselves.
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > jackie, sadly, it is just as likely that greater democratisation in
> > china will lead to tibet just going further down the assimilation road
> > à la the USA's west. when i lived in beijing, i knew many students and
> > intellectuals, who could all spout montesquieu and locke and jefferson,
> > and were prepared to die to bring democracy to china.
> >
> > on the subject of tibet though, they too regarded it as china's
> > "manifest destiny" to control tibet, and felt the tibetans were
> > contemptibly barbaric and backward "dogs" (yes, the mandarin word "gou"
> > was sometimes used), who could only benefit by china's appropriation of
> > their lands and their forced cultural assimilation.
> -----------------------------
> I think you should stress that these opinions that you quoted are from
> only a few
No, Francis, he said _many_ and that was and is my experience too. The
contempt that the students, and especially "intellectuals", had, not only for
minorities but also for the "masses" was widespread. You too, Francis, suffer
from this as you frequently refer to others as being of a "lower order".
> whom you call 'intellectuals' while in essence that is very
> questionable status as far as I am concerned.
So now you are implying that people chinolatino regards as intellectuals are
of "questionable status". Are you saying that chinolatino is bad at assessing
whether someone is a "genuine, Francis Poon style" intellectual, or are you
insisting that his intellectuals are "of a lower order"? What do you base
that on Francis? You presumably never met them or are certainly keeping that
a secret if that were so.
> I frankly
> don't believe that this is the opinion held by the students in general.
> You seem to have wanted to
> make a case out of what you heard from these few and I don't think it is
> warranted. The way that you
> are putting it across as "who could only benefit by china's
> appropriation of........assimilation"
> is not the exact quote of what they said
How can you, Francis, say what chinolatino heard? Were you there? He told us
what he heard and you have absolutely no basis to deny that.
> but in my view is what you
> think they said.
So now you are in the business of defining how chinolatino thinks? Don't you
see Francis how all this speculation and guessing calls into question your
claim to be an intellectual yourself? There appears to be no consistency to
your logic at all. The only consistency I see is a rigorous adherence to the
ultra-nationalist Han dogma.[snip]
> it is just
> > as likely that an even more unfettered market system, plus loosening of
> > internal migration controls, could lead to an even more massive han
> > chinese colonisation of tibet than is already occurring.
> ------------------------
> You are damned wrong here.
Actually he is dead right.
> Economic and political freedom go hand in
> hand.
In the case of Tibet, obviously not! Neither freedoms are accorded the
Tibetans.
> A much freer economy and freer flow of inter-regional migration
> will lead to a much higher degree of productivity to be materialized in
> all provinces including Tibet.
If you mean the unfettered extraction of resources to the detriment of the
aboriginals while rapidly lining the pockets of corrupt PRC officials you are
probably right.
> You can talk about US cultural
> imperialism dominating the world, etc and in a sense you are right too.
> But you have forgotten the benefits this 'imperialism' has brought
> about. Someday you will see the Tibetans having fancy pc to communicate
> with us here. It will be the result of the global imperialism going on.
>
> >
> > myself, i think something like what has happened in indonesia must
> > happen, where east timor was just too much of a "pebble in the shoe"
> > for much too long, and indonesia had tired of international
> > disapproval, and a change in government allowed a facesaving window of
> > opportunity.
> -----------------------------
> 'must' is a very sure word. What is happening in East Timor MUST not be
> allowed to happen in Tibet.
True. One wonders whether the PLA could still be controlled by civilian
forces should it come to a plebiscite in Tibet. It would be wise to station UN
forces there in advance as the outcome of such a vote would undoubtedly
require the PLA to leave the territory.
> You can bet on that, if you so truly cared about the welfare of the
> Tibetans, as opposed to just talking
> about it and the other spirituality/culture things...
Francis, those "spirituality/culture things" constitute a large portion of the
welfare of the Tibetans. I know you find that hard to fathom but yet it is
so. Not everyone in the world lives for materialist trinkets. If you truly
cared about people you would take some courses other than Econ101.
By the way. How many TVs would it require for you to stay celibate and not
reproduce?
Color ones? Big screen? Remote controls? Image within image etc.....
Instructively,
-Wally
Francis Y.F.Poon
>
> In article <37d4e096...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> jac...@saskia.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > FP:
> > >> Any one would like to shed some light on this? How about Mike
> Cleven
> > >> or Brian Jackson. It is easy to write on paper about TI, of
> course.
> >
> > Chino:
> > >well, francis, speaking for myself alone, i will have to get back to
> > >you on this after i have finished taking notes on the process
> currently
> > >underway that will surely lead to the independence of east timor.
> >
> > Unfortunately all is not going well in East Timor right now. We can
> > only watch and see.
>
> well, it remains to be seen how that will all turn out. it is far more
> often the case that there is bloodshed involved in the seizing of
> independence, than the other way around, so it really should not be
> surprising to see this in east timor, saddening though it is. cliques
> who will lose their control and status by any change in the local
> regime, usually cling tenaciously and violently to their privilege.
----------------------------
So don't you think there are better and more viable solution to
independence that can promote Tibetans welfare?
>
> >Tibet will not achieve independence this way.
> > China will gradually become more and more democratic over the passing
> > of time, leaders will start to become less egotistical, weak and
> > paranoid; and with her opening and flowering, they will become wise to
> > democracy and realise the strength of its roots. In this way, Tibet
> > will eventually reach true autonomy. The Chinese will live happily and
> > be Chinese; the Tibetans will live happily and be Tibetan, and will
> > govern themselves.
> >
> > Yes.
>
> jackie, sadly, it is just as likely that greater democratisation in
> china will lead to tibet just going further down the assimilation road
> à la the USA's west. when i lived in beijing, i knew many students and
> intellectuals, who could all spout montesquieu and locke and jefferson,
> and were prepared to die to bring democracy to china.
>
> on the subject of tibet though, they too regarded it as china's
> "manifest destiny" to control tibet, and felt the tibetans were
> contemptibly barbaric and backward "dogs" (yes, the mandarin word "gou"
> was sometimes used), who could only benefit by china's appropriation of
> their lands and their forced cultural assimilation.
-----------------------------
I think you should stress that these opinions that you quoted are from
only a few whom you call 'intellectuals' while in essence that is very
questionable status as far as I am concerned. I frankly
don't believe that this is the opinion held by the students in general.
You seem to have wanted to
make a case out of what you heard from these few and I don't think it is
warranted. The way that you
are putting it across as "who could only benefit by china's
appropriation of........assimilation"
is not the exact quote of what they said but in my view is what you
think they said.
>
> so a democratic china is not necessarily a sufficient condition for the
> tibetans to receive either independence or true autonomy.
-------------------
A China with a much higher degree of democracy or democratic attitude IS
a welcomed condition,insufficient as it is by your yardstick, to bring
about a much higher degree of autonomy. Why have you been stressing
upon independence as if it is an indispensible condition for the
improvement of Tibetans' welfare? It maybe something that you
personally prefer as a solution, but it does not necessarily mean the
only or the inevitable solution.
it is just
> as likely that an even more unfettered market system, plus loosening of
> internal migration controls, could lead to an even more massive han
> chinese colonisation of tibet than is already occurring.
------------------------
You are damned wrong here. Economic and political freedom go hand in
hand. A much freer economy and freer flow of inter-regional migration
will lead to a much higher degree of productivity to be materialized in
all provinces including Tibet. You can talk about US cultural
imperialism dominating the world, etc and in a sense you are right too.
But you have forgotten the benefits this 'imperialism' has brought
about. Someday you will see the Tibetans having fancy pc to communicate
with us here. It will be the result of the global imperialism going on.
>
> myself, i think something like what has happened in indonesia must
> happen, where east timor was just too much of a "pebble in the shoe"
> for much too long, and indonesia had tired of international
> disapproval, and a change in government allowed a facesaving window of
> opportunity.
-----------------------------
'must' is a very sure word. What is happening in East Timor MUST not be
allowed to happen in Tibet.
You can bet on that, if you so truly cared about the welfare of the
Tibetans, as opposed to just talking
about it and the other spirituality/culture things...
FP
guard...@my-deja.com
jac...@saskia.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Jackie:
> >> Unfortunately all is not going well in East Timor right now. We can
> bingo yang
> >tibet is a part of china. you are right about that.
>
> Jackie:
> Tibet is a country, like Mongolia.
how??? Can u be more specific?
Yes, at the moment it is occupied
> by outside forces
what u mean by "outside forces"? the British?
and controlled strictly by a dictatorship.
>
> >> China will gradually become more and more democratic over the
passing
> >> of time, leaders will start to become less egotistical, weak and
> >> paranoid; and with her opening and flowering, they will become
wise to
> >> democracy and realise the strength of its roots. In this way, Tibet
>
> bingo yang
> >could you tell us how? china is still under one-party rule.
>
> Jackie:
> This is the point. The hope that China will become a democracy ie.
> opposition parties allowed, the general population given the respect
> to be able to *choose* who they want to make the decision, rather than
> being dictated to like naughty, silly schoolboys. the Government
> becoming fair. I know that sounds CRAZY for China - a fair and just
> Government (like Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands) - but
> hey, miracles are possible.
>
> >> will eventually reach true autonomy. The Chinese will live happily
and
> >> be Chinese; the Tibetans will live happily and be Tibetan, and will
> >> govern themselves.
>
> bingo yang:
> >so the tibetans and chinese are not haapy now, are they?
>
> Jackie:
> I think many Tibetans are not happy. Many are being treated unfairly,
> tortured, imprisoned. They do not have freedom of speech or freedom of
> worship;
as I hav said b4, religious freedom is respected in the territory
unless the ppl split the nation in the name of "religion"
their whole country is being slowly sinicised.
Historically Tibetan culture is strongly influenced by the Han culture,
I dont know what u mean here...
Hundreds of
> thousands live in exile. their spiritual leader may not be free in his
> own country. No, I think many Tibetans are deeply unhappy.
It is just because the spiritual leader is splitting the Nation...
Guardiangel
Mark Li
> Jackie:
> >> Unfortunately all is not going well in East Timor right now. We can
> >> only watch and see. Tibet will not achieve independence this way.
> bingo yang
> >tibet is a part of china. you are right about that.
>
> Jackie:
> Tibet is a country, like Mongolia. Yes, at the moment it is occupied
> by outside forces and controlled strictly by a dictatorship.
You need to face reality, Tibet is a part of China (ie. not a country), just
as California is a part of the US or Western Australia is a part of
Australia.
>
> >> China will gradually become more and more democratic over the passing
> >> of time, leaders will start to become less egotistical, weak and
> >> paranoid; and with her opening and flowering, they will become wise to
> >> democracy and realise the strength of its roots. In this way, Tibet
>
> bingo yang
> >could you tell us how? china is still under one-party rule.
>
> Jackie:
> This is the point. The hope that China will become a democracy ie.
> opposition parties allowed, the general population given the respect
> to be able to *choose* who they want to make the decision, rather than
> being dictated to like naughty, silly schoolboys. the Government
> becoming fair. I know that sounds CRAZY for China - a fair and just
> Government (like Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands) - but
> hey, miracles are possible.
>
> >> will eventually reach true autonomy. The Chinese will live happily and
> >> be Chinese; the Tibetans will live happily and be Tibetan, and will
> >> govern themselves.
>
> bingo yang:
> >so the tibetans and chinese are not haapy now, are they?
>
> Jackie:
> I think many Tibetans are not happy. Many are being treated unfairly,
> tortured, imprisoned.
They're a lot happier than they were under the slaveowning DL's regime,
that's for sure. The problem with Tibet as I see it is the human rights
problem. When the DL returns to Tibet, the problem should be solved. The
DL will also influence democratic reform in ALL China. The DL must try and
return to China as soon as possible, delaying it only causes further abuses
of human rights in ALL China.
>
> They do not have freedom of speech or freedom of
> worship; their whole country is being slowly sinicised.
Jackie, if you want to complain about Tibet being "Sinicised", I think it's
only fair that you complain about Tibet and the rest of China being
increasingly Westernised. The only thing that has been "Sinicised" about
Tibet is that learning Mandarin is compulsory, apart from that, Western
culture has changed Tibetan culture more so than the Sinitic culture. To
complain Tibet is being "Sinicised" and not Westernised is, to me, blatant
racism.
Love, Mark
Francis Y.F.Poon
Then just circle up the few that were associated with you rather than
projecting out the impression that
that is the opinions of the Han students.
----------------------
I think it did but not to tht point we want to see. The dragging of
political development has hampered
the progress of economic development.
>
> and even if it were to be so for the ethnic majority population, the
> issue of indigenous or other minority peoples is quite distinct.
> freedom for the majority does not always lead to freedom for the
> minority; instead, it may actually give vent to running roughshod over
> their rights (just look at the western US disputes between state
> governments and tribal governments, regarding the extent and scope of
> each government's powers, and what native american treaty rights must
> be respected by the non-native majority; or at the democratic australia
> of a few decades ago, when aboriginal children were routinely stolen
> from their families "for their own good"; or at the modern democracy of
> the czech republic, where discrimination (official and unofficial) and
> persecution of gypsies has been on the upswing ever since the fall of
> the communist regime).
>
> >A much freer economy and freer flow of inter-regional migration
> > will lead to a much higher degree of productivity to be materialized
> in
> > all provinces including Tibet.
>
> and to a much more diluted tibetan demographic presence upon
> traditionally tibetan lands, encouraging the development of tibet (and
> xinjiang) along the lines of the US west. the tibetan presence will be
> relegated to roadside tourist attractions, colourful folkloric dances,
> a few place names, and maybe - if they are "lucky" - some lucrative
> casinos to give macau a run for its money.
-------------------------
It may be something like that but that will not be the totality of the
picture...
>
> >You can talk about US cultural
> > imperialism dominating the world, etc and in a sense you are right
> too.
> > But you have forgotten the benefits this 'imperialism' has brought
> > about. Someday you will see the Tibetans having fancy pc to
> communicate
> > with us here. It will be the result of the global imperialism going
> on.
>
> how anyone of chinese descent, who recalls the domination the west
> tried again and again to impose upon china, can complacently sit by in
> the face of any form of cultural imperialism, is beyond me.
-----------------------
It is a price paid for world -wide commercialization and the achievement
of the economy of scale in economic production.
woould you
> be content if britain and france and russia and japan had carved up
> china, and all education occurred in those languages, and massive waves
> of european and japanese colonists had flocked in permanently, taking
> all the best land, and the cities, and the han were relegated to
> reservations, making quaint folk arts and dancing for blond-haired or
> japanese tourists?
>
> in the picture you conjure up, sure the inhabitants of lhasa and xigaze
> will all have PCs. they will also almost all be han, with maybe a few
> mixedbloods in there, and they will all be communicating with the
> outside world in mandarin.
-----------------
in English...
meanwhile, the ethnic tibetans will be out
> on reservations in the country, and will have profited from the new
> order just as much as native americans
----------------
What makes you think that they will get the same treatment?
Are tibetans capable of achieving economically or financially?
--------------------------------
In my view, they are better off without independence, at least for a
long while to come.
FP
Francis Y.F.Poon
Please cite an example of where i ever said this.
> > whom you call 'intellectuals' while in essence that is very
> > questionable status as far as I am concerned.
>
> So now you are implying that people chinolatino regards as intellectuals are
> of "questionable status". Are you saying that chinolatino is bad at assessing
> whether someone is a "genuine, Francis Poon style" intellectual, or are you
> insisting that his intellectuals are "of a lower order"? What do you base
> that on Francis? You presumably never met them or are certainly keeping that
> a secret if that were so.
------------------------------
To me an intellectual is someone who is willing to look at things
objectively. The ones cited by chinolatino
are so prejudiced and despiteful such that they don't deserve the name.
But you might have abused the term to the point that includes anyone who
can talk.
>
> > I frankly
> > don't believe that this is the opinion held by the students in general.
> > You seem to have wanted to
> > make a case out of what you heard from these few and I don't think it is
> > warranted. The way that you
> > are putting it across as "who could only benefit by china's
> > appropriation of........assimilation"
> > is not the exact quote of what they said
>
> How can you, Francis, say what chinolatino heard? Were you there? He told us
> what he heard and you have absolutely no basis to deny that.
---------------------------
He met 'some' students and i met some too. The ones i met did not have
that attitude.
>
> > but in my view is what you
> > think they said.
>
> So now you are in the business of defining how chinolatino thinks? Don't you
> see Francis how all this speculation and guessing calls into question your
> claim to be an intellectual yourself? There appears to be no consistency to
> your logic at all. The only consistency I see is a rigorous adherence to the
> ultra-nationalist Han dogma.[snip]
----------------------
If you keep making generalizaiton like that, you would really be up to
chinolatino's intellectuals.
>
> > it is just
> > > as likely that an even more unfettered market system, plus loosening of
> > > internal migration controls, could lead to an even more massive han
> > > chinese colonisation of tibet than is already occurring.
> > ------------------------
> > You are damned wrong here.
>
> Actually he is dead right.
---------------------
in your opinion...
>
> > Economic and political freedom go hand in
> > hand.
>
> In the case of Tibet, obviously not! Neither freedoms are accorded the
> Tibetans.
--------------------------
The economic reforms started by DXP were also extended to Tibet. They
were felt throughout the whole china.
Why was tibet left behind/ i see no evidence of it.
>
> > A much freer economy and freer flow of inter-regional migration
> > will lead to a much higher degree of productivity to be materialized in
> > all provinces including Tibet.
>
> If you mean the unfettered extraction of resources to the detriment of the
> aboriginals while rapidly lining the pockets of corrupt PRC officials you are
> probably right.
-----------------------------------
Extraction of resouces is one of the many kinds of industries. You can
say that the extraction of resouces
all over the world including that in USA and Canadai is reminiscient to
what you described above.
>
> > You can talk about US cultural
> > imperialism dominating the world, etc and in a sense you are right too.
> > But you have forgotten the benefits this 'imperialism' has brought
> > about. Someday you will see the Tibetans having fancy pc to communicate
> > with us here. It will be the result of the global imperialism going on.
> >
> > >
> > > myself, i think something like what has happened in indonesia must
> > > happen, where east timor was just too much of a "pebble in the shoe"
> > > for much too long, and indonesia had tired of international
> > > disapproval, and a change in government allowed a facesaving window of
> > > opportunity.
> > -----------------------------
> > 'must' is a very sure word. What is happening in East Timor MUST not be
> > allowed to happen in Tibet.
>
> True. One wonders whether the PLA could still be controlled by civilian
> forces should it come to a plebiscite in Tibet. It would be wise to station UN
> forces there in advance as the outcome of such a vote would undoubtedly
> require the PLA to leave the territory.
---------------------------------
There will be NO vote...
>
> > You can bet on that, if you so truly cared about the welfare of the
> > Tibetans, as opposed to just talking
> > about it and the other spirituality/culture things...
>
> Francis, those "spirituality/culture things" constitute a large portion of the
> welfare of the Tibetans.
------------------
They do to the christians and mormons too.
I know you find that hard to fathom but yet it is
> so. Not everyone in the world lives for materialist trinkets. If you truly
> cared about people you would take some courses other than Econ101.
-----------------------------
The tibetans i met in HK love Rolex and womanizing as much as the
non-tibetans. That is where econ 101 comes in.
>
> By the way. How many TVs would it require for you to stay celibate and not
> reproduce?
> Color ones? Big screen? Remote controls? Image within image etc.....
----------------------------
You are probably referring to my throwing out the pictures of DL in
exchange for a color TV. Thus you are equating worshipping DL to the
only way of spiritual worship. The people in tibet can worship without
any DL or PL in specific. DL is not God.
FP
Jackie
>> Tibet is a country, like Mongolia. Yes, at the moment it is occupied
>> by outside forces and controlled strictly by a dictatorship.
>You need to face reality, Tibet is a part of China (ie. not a country), just
>as California is a part of the US or Western Australia is a part of
>Australia.
to share. We disagree.
Jackie:
>> I think many Tibetans are not happy. Many are being treated unfairly,
>> tortured, imprisoned.
Mark:
>They're a lot happier than they were under the slaveowning DL's regime,
>that's for sure.
Jackie:
That is certainly not "for sure." How have you measured this theory?
What makes you claim this? Presumably you must have interviewed most
of the Tibetan population, arriving at this conclusion based on firm
evidence and many personal testimonies?
The people of Tibet are slaves to the CCP, they were not slaves to the
DL.
Mark:
>The problem with Tibet as I see it is the human rights
>problem. When the DL returns to Tibet, the problem should be solved.
Naive!
The human rights abuses will only stop if China becomes a democracy OR
they totally withdraw from Tibet.
Mark:
>The DL will also influence democratic reform in ALL China.
How?
>The DL must try and
>return to China as soon as possible,
...in order to be arrested, imprisoned, tortured and killed?
>delaying it only causes further abuses
>of human rights in ALL China.
Say what???
The CCP is the perpetrator of human rights abuses. This has got
nothing to do with the DL.
Mark:
>Jackie, if you want to complain about Tibet being "Sinicised", I think it's
>only fair that you complain about Tibet and the rest of China being
>increasingly Westernised. The only thing that has been "Sinicised" about
>Tibet is that learning Mandarin is compulsory, apart from that, Western
>culture has changed Tibetan culture more so than the Sinitic culture.
>To complain Tibet is being "Sinicised" and not Westernised is,
>to me, blatant racism.
>Love, Mark
Thanks for your love.
Did you know that Chinese settlers now dominate the economy of Tibet?
That the rapid development that is taking place in Tibet is carried
out in such a way as to benefit the settler population rather than
Tibetans? Do you know about the sneaky, underhand scheming way that
the CCP is going about scinicising Tibet?
'Over the last decade, large numbers of Chinese have moved into Tibet
and taken up work in the retail and service trades, or unskilled
construction work. Economic activity is now so dominated by the
Chinese that the marginalisation of the Tibetan people may be
irreversible. Researchers have found that of the businesses in
Tromzikhang market in Lhasa 756 were Chinese to 305 Tibetan. In
Tsetang a survey of businesses ranging from restaurants to street
fruit sellers revealed 227 Chinese-owned to 120 Tibetan. In Chabcha
county, Qinghai province, the Chinese now control large tracts of land
once used by Tibetan nomads.
Around Lhasa, the area of land with Chinese-owned greenhouses and
vegetable fields has increased dramatically during the 1990s. Since
1950, Tibetan farms and grasslands have been confiscated and
incorporated into collectivised and communal farms. The rapid increase
in settlers and soldiers contributed to the only famine in Tibet's
recorded history, with deaths of over 340,000 Tibetans. Ill-conceived
efforts to boost the productivity of lands suitable only for nomadic
grazing have resulted in widespread decertification.
Settlers receive subsidies and other incentives including altitude
allowances, remoteness bonuses, leniency on work permits, shorter
hours, longer holidays and greater market opportunities than in China.
In Lhasa and other cities unemployment is a growing problem amongst
Tibetans. The Chinese language is the principal medium of teaching and
CHinese is required for most jobs. This gives new settlers an
immediate advantage, apart from any purely racial advantage they may
have in dealings with the Chinese authorities who dispense most of the
jobs residence permits and trade privileges.'
So don't talk to me of racism, Mark. The Chinese are the absolute
WORST, in a country that isn't even theirs. Today, right now, in 1999.
'Even in the 1980's Chinese authorities were still referring to the
great opportunity the western regions held for absorbing China's
expanding population. Such development is seen as natural in Chinese
world views, both imperial and revolutionary. It is also regarded as
necessary and beneficial to the "backward" peoples who could
supposedly gain from assimilation with the Chinese.'
- yeah right. Lessons from the CCP on how to kill, deprive, starve,
deceive, torture, lie, cheat and invade.
'The pattern of migration has historical parallels with traditional
Chinese mechanisms for expansion, and must be regarded as the biggest
threat to the integrity of Tibet.'
Jackie.
Jackie
>> Tibet is a country, like Mongolia.
>how??? Can u be more specific?
Jackie:
It has its own language, history, land, people, religion, education,
way of life.
Jackie;
>>Yes, at the moment it is occupied by outside forces
Guardiangel
>what u mean by "outside forces"? the British?
Jackie:
Now, dear, sit down and relax. Now think. Are the british settled in
Tibet and controlling the Government, education system, religion and
economy? Hmmm, it's a hard one, but I think you can do it. Who are the
invading dictators? Something beginning with 'C'....
Guardiangel:
>as I hav said b4, religious freedom is respected in the territory
>unless the ppl split the nation in the name of "religion"
Jackie:
You are factually incorrect. Religious freedom is not respected in
Tibet.
Guardiangel:
>Historically Tibetan culture is strongly influenced by the Han culture,
>I dont know what u mean here...
Jackie:
I don't know about this.
Supposing Tibetan culture has been historically influenced by China,
India and Mongolia. So what? All countries are influenced by others.
That's a good thing. Tibet, though, is FAMOUSLY isolated and
historically un-influenced. However, just because a country is
influenced by several others...what are you saying? Those countries
have a right to invade and dominate?
Jackie:
>>Hundreds of thousands live in exile. their spiritual leader
>>may not be free in his own country. No, I think many Tibetans
>>are deeply unhappy.
Guardiangel
>It is just because the spiritual leader is splitting the Nation...
Jackie:
Er.....hello? Do you live on plant earth? How is the Dalai Lama
"splitting" a nation? What a strange thing to say! Explain yourself.
Phipps
>
> wtj wrote:
> >
> > Francis, those "spirituality/culture things" constitute a large portion of the
> > welfare of the Tibetans.
> ------------------
> They do to the christians and mormons too.
Psst, Francis: the Mormons consider themselves Christians.
>
> I know you find that hard to fathom but yet it is
> > so. Not everyone in the world lives for materialist trinkets. If you truly
> > cared about people you would take some courses other than Econ101.
> -----------------------------
> The tibetans i met in HK love Rolex and womanizing as much as the
> non-tibetans. That is where econ 101 comes in.
The Tibetans you met in HK are most likely a non-representative
self-selecting sample.
Phipps
>
> This is an interesting topic. Are we free to fantasize,
> theorize, prophesize? I volunteer to lay down some
> scenarios.
>
> Scenario One: Back to good old days, which means bringing
> CIA back into the game, if they are not already in, which I
> have grave doubts. Sponsor something like TLA, Tibet
> Liberation Army. Provoke Chinese into reacting harshly and
> have an excuse for outside intervention, ala Kosovo style.
Lousy scenario. The US does not have the forward deployment capability,
nor the manpower levels, for such an intervention... even *if* it were
thought desirable. PLA outnumbers _TOTAL_ US forces by over 2.5:1
> Next send two carrier battle groups into Bay of Bengal and
> start bombing "military targets" in Tibet. Form an alliance
> with India, Taiwan, and Japan as NATO in Asia.
Taiwan and Japan do not have much punch in terms of attack military
potential - Japan's military forces, well equipped and trained but with
only a 1/4 M personnel, are probably no more poweful than, say,
Poland's. Furthermore, Japanese society has become so gun-shy that
sending even a minuscule contingent of non-combat JDA troops to
Cambodia, with no more than side arms, precipitated a crisis that
threatened to bring down the government.
As long as you opt to entertain bizarre scenarios, you should at least
try to develop ones that make sense. The most potent military force such
an evil-vicious-etc. alliance could draw upon, should come from VN. VN,
India, and Taiwan, have credible reasons for fighting PRC; Japan does
not.
You seem to think that the strike power of a mere 2 carrier groups could
reasonably be expected to fly all the way from the Bay of Bengal, fight
the nifty Sukhois and MiGs PRC bought over the last few years, and
return safely with a casualty rate acceptable to the American
electorate. That is truly flattering to the US Navy; but not very clear-
headed.
Assuming that the US - for reasons you have yet to clarify - would want
to go to war with PRC: attacks on China proper would be more
advantageous. The coastal regions of PRC could more safely be bombed
from Guam, Tinian, Saipan, Okinawa, and ROK.
So, now that Korea has been introduced into the equation: put this into
the hopper. Desperately poor and despotic NK has over 1 M troops in
uniform, and is prone to acts of military adventurism; NK's air force is
just minutes away from Seoul. It is widely held that PRC's restraining
hand is the major influence keeping KJI's military apparatus from
entertaining any serious thought of launching an offensive against ROK -
where the US maintains some 36 K troops. Any attack on PRC is likely to
find a response in an attack against ROK, thus by extension also
threatening Japan: reason enough for the Japanese not to participate in
any so eldrich a venture.
> If China
> still doesn't get it after two months of bombing, send in
> 82nd airborn and wipe PLA out of Tibet.
Airborne troops are elite formations and, man for man, superior to
regular troops of any armed force; but their establishment levels are
puny, compared with the forces PLA could throw into a counter-attack.
You might also have to throw in the 101st, and indeed all the airborne
and airmobile troops the US has available... but still puny in the face
of the opposition that swiftly could be deployed against them. Of
course, that would critically weaken the mission potential of US forces
in other areas, as well as presenting a resupply logistical nightmare.
Taking a few moments to ponder the the field realities of the
intervention you would - however irrationally - fear, shall
unconfortably burst your paranoid nationalistic jingoism. There may well
be a large number of ignorant persons who might fall for your ludicrous
scenarios - but that was the whole point... wasn't it?
Pretty simple, ain't
> it?
To a simpleton: yes.
I am sure many of you have gone through this in your
> mind many times, day or night, but are uncomfortable to say
> it, because HHDL is opposed to violence. Well, that is not
> absolutely true in any sense. They have tried it before when
> it was convenient and had hopes to succeed.
>
> Scenario Two: Use the Hollywood Jaggernaut.
I had not heard of Mick Jagger getting involved in the issue.
> As Orville
> Schell said, Hollywood is the second most powerful
> institution in the world, just behind U.S. military.
I have great respect for Prof. Schell; but that quite is a subjective
judgement. One might point to IMF and IBRD as more poweful institutions
than Hollywood; besides which, the dispersed organizational structure of
Hollywood should make it clear that it is not, in any rational sense, an
institution.
If one accept that such an inchoate entity as "Hollywood" (try to sell a
screenplay, as friends of mine, had attempted to do) be deemed an
'institution': then so would be international finance. The Thais,
Indonesians, Mexicans, Brazilians, and others, would disagree that the
fractious film industry in LA is more powerful than the equally
inchoate, but far more consistent in its behavior, 'institution' of
international finance.
> are reluctant to U.S. military, why not use the second best?
> Launch an all-out PR blitz on China
Why bother?
PRC can be relied upon to act with consumate incompetence in pr where it
can not officially control the media. PRC regularly shoots itself in the
foot, time and again. There is no worse detractor against PRC's pov in
the international arena, than PRC itself.
> and enlist every
> Hollywood celeb you can find. It was off to a good start two
> years ago with the release of movies like "Seven Years in
> Tibet", "Kundun", then just fizzled.
It was a lousy start. The market was saturated by several films touching
on the same meme, at the same time - and none of the movies made
significant money. That happened also with other memes shorn of pregnant
political messages, at other times. It's just business; and in this
case, arguably not very well executed at that. If there were 2 or more
concurrent 'Titanic' movies, the total profits would most likely have
been far lower than the one had raked in.
[Concurrent films exploring the same meme is not a new phenomenon -
viz., 'Failsafe' and 'Dr. Strangelove'.]
Hollywood is in it for the money. The studios produce films that they
hope/expect will pull in audiences, and the more successful studios
produce movies that people would want to see: the profit motive is very
strong. With high up-front production and marketing costs, the
break-even point (F / uC) imposes a discipline of seeking to tell a
story people will actually want to pay money to receive. Very hard-nosed
finance types must be persuaded that a movie will make money, before
they authorize a project.
Hollywood seldom tries to mold public opinion, but rather seeks to
capitalize on it... and more so now, than in the 'golden age'. That does
not fit in with a marxist-leninist pov; but, then again, neither does
the world as a whole.
> The problem was that
> those movies were just as bad or even worse than some of CCP
> propaganda movies I have seen
Such as?
One of the factors contributing to Hollywood's success, is that even dud
films with any significant budget, have production values that leave the
competition in the dust. 'Kundun' struck me as something akin to a fairy
tale; but the production of the film itself was first-rate. Would you
care to name any CCP propaganda film that came anywhere close?
> and the attention span of
> Hollywood stars was as durable as their marriages......,
How many enduring Hollywood marriages would it take to goad you into
changing your mind? They do exist, you should know. Just name a figure.
You might care to reflect on the conflicts a couple might face, where
one have the opportunity to reach for the brass ring, at the expense of
the relaionship. Go ahead, cast the first stone. You probably don't have
to deal with a wife whose carreer aspirations place hideous strains on
the relationship; but think: how would you handle a wife who can not
give up her dreams, even if those might damage your marriage?
There might be something in your morals that applaud the misfortunes of
others; there is an old saying that you should not ctiticize others
until you will have walked in their shoes.
> which is, as you all know, not very long. Too bad, for a
> while Tibet was in the front burner and silver screen, now
> just back on cutting room floor and column 18 on page 11.
> This is the reality of our age. It's hard to work people
> into a frenzy. Even Hollywood has its limit.
Don't we all.
Don't you?
So far, Dalai
> Lama's
Alleged, by PRC goons
> Hollywood strategy has only limit success. Of course,
> he becomes a religious celebrity. Whether or not it helps
> his cause remains to be seen.
>
> Scenario Three: South African Model, i.e., international
> boycott and embargo, as many countries did against South
> Africa during apartheid days. This is perhaps the most
> lethal one that could do damages to China that are so great
> that it has no choice but abandon Tibet. The problem is who
> is willing to fire the first volley. I know many legislative
> bodies have passed various forms of worthless, useless,
> punchless, non-biding bills addressing Tibet issue, but none
> of them has teeth. Boycott or embargo is just two inches
> away from declaring war.
That's a load of bunk.
For starters, boycotts are matters of private consumer behavior.
Any nation has the right to impose regulations on international trade
where it is not otherwise covered by treaty obligations to the contrary.
No country has an automatic right to export to, nor import from, any
country, excepting where this is guaranteed by international treaty
obligations. PRC is under partial embargo, in that it had never been
removed from COCOM restrictions.
PRC has yet to dismantle a swathe of NTBs that are tantamount to an
embargo. PRC has been playing off various commercial suppliers one
against the other for political ends, notably (but not exclusively)
Airbus vs Boeing. The dirtiest L/C's I have seen (other than Egyptian
ones), were PR Chinese; etc. If PRC were a free-trading economy in good
standing: then it would have the prerogative to protest against trade
restrictions such as embargoes; and, not insignificantly, it would
already be a member of WTO.
Go jump in a lake.
> That may give a chill to many
> fervous minds. However, it deserves serious consideration by
> TI strategists.
If you can them, few on the ground as they be. HHDL himself advocates
autonomy, not independence.
> Act while Dalai Lama is still hot and
> influential. When date of expiration arrives, many doors now
> open to them will be shut.
>
Or: act while CCP leadership is cold. Take your time: PRC has done its
best/worst (according to your inclinations) to demonize PRC over the
last 50 yrs, and continues to do so. HHDL or no HHDL, PRC has done a
sterling job in making itself an object of disgust outside its own
domain. A typical 1st year marketing student could do far better.
> Scenario Four: Intifada model, ala Palestine style.
Won't work.
PRC doesn't shy away from using live rounds, as in TAM.
The Intifada would have had no success if Israel were not crawling with
foreign journalists reporting under relatively lax (given the security
context) control by the authorities... and if Israel (unlike PRC) were
not so heavily dependent on assistance from Western governments, which
must remain responsive to public opinion.
The massacres at Sabra and Chatilla - which were even not actually
perpetrated by Israelis - severely chilled Israel's relationships with
donor (of finance, technology, military hardware, etc.) nations. Such
calamities scaled up by orders of magnitude to account for the
difference in scale between those camps and the West Bank - and this
time to be directly commited by Israeli troops - would have been nothing
short of disastrous for Israel.
In contrast, PRC's behavior at TAM has given a graphic demonstration of
its readiness to give foreign public opinion 'the bird'.
Phipps
>
> The economic development in Tibet or the commercializaton process also
> changes the face of the religious culture in Tibet too but that would
> have happened anyway and perhaps even faster with the US or western
> occuption of Tibet.
Oh, that old canard again. Why not occupation by little green men from
outer space, while you're at it?
Phipps
>
> Jackie:
> >> Tibet is a country, like Mongolia.
> Guardiangel:
> >how??? Can u be more specific?
>
> Jackie:
> It has its own language, history, land, people, religion, education,
> way of life.
...Cuisine, folklore, art, writing system, national identity...
>
> Guardiangel:
> >Historically Tibetan culture is strongly influenced by the Han culture,
> >I dont know what u mean here...
>
> Jackie:
> I don't know about this.
> Supposing Tibetan culture has been historically influenced by China,
> India and Mongolia. So what? All countries are influenced by others.
> That's a good thing. Tibet, though, is FAMOUSLY isolated and
> historically un-influenced. However, just because a country is
> influenced by several others...what are you saying? Those countries
> have a right to invade and dominate?
Come on Jackie - don't you realize that the entire Mediterranean basin
should be part of Italy? <g>
Phipps
> As I told everyone in this ng., given a choice, 'most'
> Tibetans would rather throw out the pictures of Lamas in exchange for a
> color TV.
What you have not told this ng, is why they should have to be faced with
such a choice.
Given a choice between spending the night with a supermodel or getting a
sharp stick in the eye, I'd decline the stick... and that's hardly less
relevant to the ng than the choice you present.
Mark Li
> Jackie:
> >> Tibet is a country, like Mongolia.
> Guardiangel:
> >how??? Can u be more specific?
>
> Jackie:
> It has its own language, history, land, people, religion, education,
> way of life.
So that entitles them to have c country? Does this mean the Sioux are
entitled to have independen countries because they have their own
languages, history, land, people, religion, education and way of life?
>
> Jackie;
> >>Yes, at the moment it is occupied by outside forces
> Guardiangel
> >what u mean by "outside forces"? the British?
>
> Jackie:
> Now, dear, sit down and relax. Now think. Are the british settled in
> Tibet
No, but they're settled in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. :-)
> and controlling the Government, education system, religion and
> economy? Hmmm, it's a hard one, but I think you can do it. Who are the
> invading dictators? Something beginning with 'C'....
The Chinese built the education system and economy, so of course they
control it.
>
> Guardiangel:
> >as I hav said b4, religious freedom is respected in the territory
> >unless the ppl split the nation in the name of "religion"
>
> Jackie:
> You are factually incorrect. Religious freedom is not respected in
> Tibet.
Religious freedom is now a lot more free as long as devotees do not
participate in "Independence" activities.
>
> Guardiangel:
> >Historically Tibetan culture is strongly influenced by the Han culture,
> >I dont know what u mean here...
>
> Jackie:
> I don't know about this.
> Supposing Tibetan culture has been historically influenced by China,
> India and Mongolia. So what? All countries are influenced by others.
> That's a good thing. Tibet, though, is FAMOUSLY isolated and
> historically un-influenced. However, just because a country is
> influenced by several others...what are you saying? Those countries
> have a right to invade and dominate?
China never "invaded" Tibet. It peacefully integrated Tibet into China, as
simple as that :-) unlike what your Anglo brothers did in North America.
>
> Jackie:
> >>Hundreds of thousands live in exile. their spiritual leader
> >>may not be free in his own country. No, I think many Tibetans
> >>are deeply unhappy.
> Guardiangel
> >It is just because the spiritual leader is splitting the Nation...
>
> Jackie:
> Er.....hello? Do you live on plant earth? How is the Dalai Lama
> "splitting" a nation? What a strange thing to say! Explain yourself.
He's trying to split China.
Love, Mark
Mark Li
dominate North America, Australia and New Zealand. I have no time for your
hypocrisy when it comes to Tibet. (This is not the end of the message).
Jackie wrote:
> Jackie:
> >> Tibet is a country, like Mongolia. Yes, at the moment it is occupied
> >> by outside forces and controlled strictly by a dictatorship.
> Mark:
> >You need to face reality, Tibet is a part of China (ie. not a country), just
> >as California is a part of the US or Western Australia is a part of
> >Australia.
> Neither you nor I have to face each other's "reality". There isn't one
> to share. We disagree.
Before I continue, what is your position on California and Western Australia?
>
> Jackie:
> >> I think many Tibetans are not happy. Many are being treated unfairly,
> >> tortured, imprisoned.
> Mark:
> >They're a lot happier than they were under the slaveowning DL's regime,
> >that's for sure.
> Jackie:
> That is certainly not "for sure." How have you measured this theory?
> What makes you claim this? Presumably you must have interviewed most
> of the Tibetan population, arriving at this conclusion based on firm
> evidence and many personal testimonies?
> The people of Tibet are slaves to the CCP, they were not slaves to the
> DL.
Have you interviewed most of the Tibetan population? No. So don't ask me the
same question.
>
> Mark:
> >The problem with Tibet as I see it is the human rights
> >problem. When the DL returns to Tibet, the problem should be solved.
> Naive!
> The human rights abuses will only stop if China becomes a democracy OR
> they totally withdraw from Tibet.
Support the more realistic option : China becoming a democracy. The other
choice is impossible. China cannot "withdraw" from Tibet because Tibet is a
part of China.
>
> Mark:
> >The DL will also influence democratic reform in ALL China.
> How?>The DL must try and
> >return to China as soon as possible,
> ...in order to be arrested, imprisoned, tortured and killed?
How is that going to happen? The DL is too well protected by the Western
media. What you said is just plain stupid. If he was ever physically abused by
Chinese police, the Western media would jump on it, and millions of Han, myself
included, would be furious that some bastard policeman would hurt such a man.
The government wouldn't want to have the anger of both the Han and Tibetans
placed on them.
>
> >delaying it only causes further abuses
> >of human rights in ALL China.
> Say what???
> The CCP is the perpetrator of human rights abuses. This has got
Before the DL fled with his bunch of cronies, the Chinese government didn't even
do anything in Tibet. The DL and the Tibetan nobility remained in power until
1959, when the Chinese government attempted to abolish slavery. The Tibetan
nobility living off this slavery, of course, wanted to stop it. It was only
after the DL fled that human rights became an issue. His return will
undoubtedly prevent further abuses, simply because of his presence.
>nothing to do with the DL.
>
> Mark:
> >Jackie, if you want to complain about Tibet being "Sinicised", I think it's
> >only fair that you complain about Tibet and the rest of China being
> >increasingly Westernised. The only thing that has been "Sinicised" about
> >Tibet is that learning Mandarin is compulsory, apart from that, Western
> >culture has changed Tibetan culture more so than the Sinitic culture.
> >To complain Tibet is being "Sinicised" and not Westernised is,
> >to me, blatant racism.
> >Love, Mark
>
> Thanks for your love.
> Did you know that Chinese settlers now dominate the economy of Tibet?
> That the rapid development that is taking place in Tibet is carried
> out in such a way as to benefit the settler population rather than
> Tibetans? Do you know about the sneaky, underhand scheming way that
> the CCP is going about scinicising Tibet?
You still haven't addressed the issue of Westernisation. I won't bother to
discuss with you "Sinicisation" until you admit there has been Westernisation.
I, on the other hand, am willing to admit there has been some form of
Sinicisation, but not to the ridiculous degree that you do. Would you like me
mentioning the Westernisation of the Native Americans?
>
> 'Over the last decade, large numbers of Chinese have moved into Tibet
> and taken up work in the retail and service trades, or unskilled
> construction work. Economic activity is now so dominated by the
> Chinese that the marginalisation of the Tibetan people may be
> irreversible. Researchers have found that of the businesses in
> Tromzikhang market in Lhasa 756 were Chinese to 305 Tibetan. In
> Tsetang a survey of businesses ranging from restaurants to street
> fruit sellers revealed 227 Chinese-owned to 120 Tibetan. In Chabcha
> county, Qinghai province, the Chinese now control large tracts of land
> once used by Tibetan nomads.
Do you know how many Han there are? There are 1.1 billion Han. East China is
already overpopulated and crowded. It is only reasonable for the Han to move
into the region. Why should a few Tibetans control such a vast region when
there are thousands of half-starving Han to the East (unless you want them to
starve to death). And anyway, nomadism is not the future. The Tibetan nomads
need to learn to become farmer/nomads and use less land (ie. less selfish in
land use), especially in a country with such a huge population and limited
land. Their agriculture income could easily surpass their income from being
nomads. And also, please remember, that the Han are SHARING the land with the
Tibetans. Your Anglo brothers in North America and Australia forcefully took
native lands. Your argument is full of hypocrisy.
> Around Lhasa, the area of land with Chinese-owned greenhouses and
> vegetable fields has increased dramatically during the 1990s. Since
> 1950, Tibetan farms and grasslands have been confiscated and
> incorporated into collectivised and communal farms. The rapid increas
Uhhhhhhh........ 1950? The PLA wasn't even in control of Tibet in 1950 and
collectivisation didn't happen until 1959 when the DL fled with his bunch of
slaveowning cronies to Hindustan. And anyway that was 40 years ago. Communes
no longer exist. You wouldn't like me mentioning the forceful relocation of
Sioux into "Reservations", would you, even if it did happen more than hundred
years ago?
> in settlers and soldiers contributed to the only famine in Tibet's
> recorded history, with deaths of over 340,000 Tibetans. Ill-conceived
Boo hoo! Why are you blaming the Han? That was the fault of one man : Mao.
And remember that he was responsible for the deaths of millions of Han during
the famines of the Great Leap Backwards. Where's your sympathy for them? Or
don't you care?
>efforts to boost the productivity of lands suitable only for nomadic
> grazing have resulted in widespread decertification.
This has happened China wide, not just Tibet, and the government is now trying
its best to prevent further desertification. You really think they want more
desert?
> Settlers receive subsidies and other incentives including altitude
> allowances, remoteness bonuses, leniency on work permits, shorter
The Tibetans get the same pay as the Han according to altitude. Most Han
"settlers" are not actually settlers. Many of them are short-term stayers
trying to make a quick profit and then leave. Don't tell me you wouldn't do the
same if you saw the opportunity, say, to go to California to make a quick
profit.
>hours, longer holidays and greater market opportunities than in China.
> In Lhasa and other cities unemployment is a growing problem amongst
> Tibetans. The Chinese language is the principal medium of teaching and
> CHinese is required for most jobs. This gives new settlers an
> immediate advantage, apart from any purely racial advantage they may
> have in dealings with the Chinese authorities who dispense most of the
> jobs residence permits and trade privileges.'
>
> So don't talk to me of racism, Mark. The Chinese are the absolute
> WORST, in a country that isn't even theirs. Today, right now, in 1999.
OK, that's it, that really *is* racist. We are the worst in a country that
isn't even ours? It is *really*, *really* unfair that you single us out.
Please explain the situation in North America and Australia where the Sioux and
the native Aborigines were displaced and marginalised by your Anglo brothers. I
don't care if it happened two hundred years ago, that's just a lame excuse. If
you continue to single out the Han and not answer my question about your Anglo
brothers then I'll really know you're racist.
>
> 'Even in the 1980's Chinese authorities were still referring to the
> great opportunity the western regions held for absorbing China's
> expanding population. Such development is seen as natural in Chinese
> world views, both imperial and revolutionary. It is also regarded as
> necessary and beneficial to the "backward" peoples who could
> supposedly gain from assimilation with the Chinese.'
That's exactly what your imperialistic Anglo brothers said about the Aborigines,
a bunch of backward native hooligans who could benefit by either being
assimilated or wiped out genetically. I also recall many Europeans calling us
Han backward.
>
> - yeah right. Lessons from the CCP on how to kill, deprive, starve,
> deceive, torture, lie, cheat and invade.
The exact same thing your Anglo brothers did in North America and Australia.
>
> 'The pattern of migration has historical parallels with traditional
> Chinese mechanisms for expansion, and must be regarded as the biggest
> threat to the integrity of Tibet.'
What are the "traditional Chinese mechanisms for expansion"? That is truly
racist. Why not mention the traditional European mechanisms for expansion?
The Han are not expansionists. Ever since the Song Dynasty, we had every chance
to conquer the world (due to the best ships, gunpowder-based weapons, the
compass, paper etc.), but we didn't because we were too peaceful. But once your
European descendents laid their greedy hands on these technologies, they went
ahead and conquered the world. So don't you DARE talk about "Chinese
expansion". Despite the huge population of the Han, they only form a majority
over about 50% of China (about 4.5 - 5+ million sq km) and are effectively
denied greater access to the rest of China by hypocritical western nations, who,
by the way, also complain about illegal Chinese migrants who are only trying to
find breathing space from their overcrowded homeland. Your Anglo brothers have
a combined population of about 420 million (UK + US + Canada + NZ + Australia)
but have free access to about 27 million square kilometres of lands that
originally didn't belong to them.
Love, Mark
>
> Jackie.
Mark Li
Sorry, during the Song Dynasty :-)
> to conquer the world (due to the best ships, gunpowder-based weapons, the
> compass, paper etc.), but we didn't because we were too peaceful. But once your
> European descendents
WOOOPS! :-) That's meant to be 'ancestors'.
Love, Mark
guard...@my-deja.com
> >how??? Can u be more specific?
>
> Jackie:
> It has its own language, history, land, people, religion, education,
> way of life.
Dont make me laugh, a distinct language and culture(land, ppl,
religion, way of life....etc) are not necessarily prerequisites for
independence. The PRC has over 50 distant ethic groups and is one of
many ultinational states.
>
> Jackie;
> >>Yes, at the moment it is occupied by outside forces
> Guardiangel
> >what u mean by "outside forces"? the British?
>
> Jackie:
> Now, dear, sit down and relax. Now think. Are the british settled in
> Tibet and controlling the Government, education system, religion and
> economy? Hmmm, it's a hard one, but I think you can do it. Who are the
> invading dictators? Something beginning with 'C'....
>
u mean "C"hina??? lolz!!!
I dont think it is China, becuz Tibet has been part of China since the
13th century. Moreover there were times when the High Commissioner of
the Chinese central authorities were in almost complete control of the
government in Tibet, such as the period from 1728 to 1911.
Generally, China is the sovereignty-owner of Tibet and it is recognized
by the international communities.
> Guardiangel:
> >as I hav said b4, religious freedom is respected in the territory
> >unless the ppl split the nation in the name of "religion"
>
> Jackie:
> You are factually incorrect. Religious freedom is not respected in
> Tibet.
And????????????? that's all u wanna say?????
"The Government allows a number of forms of religious activity in
Tibet. It does not tolerate religious manifestations that advocate
Tibetan independence or any expression of "splitism".........Buddhist
monasteries and proindependence activism are closely associated in
Tibet."
~US State Department's Report on Tibet
THe fact is that religious freedom is respected unless someone carry
out TI activities. And it was recognized by foreign Tibetologists who
hav done research and visit in Tibet for many times.
[Reference: M.C. Goldstein, The Snow Lion and The Dragon, p93]
> Guardiangel:
> >Historically Tibetan culture is strongly influenced by the Han
culture,
> >I dont know what u mean here...
>
> Jackie:
> I don't know about this.
> Supposing Tibetan culture has been historically influenced by China,
> India and Mongolia. So what? All countries are influenced by others.
> That's a good thing. Tibet, though, is FAMOUSLY isolated and
> historically un-influenced.
First of all, u STILL HAVN'T answered my question about the meaning
of "being slowly sinicised". I hope u are not drawing our attention
away, buddy!!
Secondly, in the 13th century the (Chinese) central authorities
established the Xuan Zheng Yuan to handle the civil and military
affairs of Tibet. The authorities also set up a Pacification
Commissioner's Office in Tibet. At that time Tibet was administratively
divided into 3 regions with thirteen "Wan Hu"(meaning 10000
households). The nomination of officials in Tibet has to be approved by
the central govt. Beijing(Dadu) also carried out censuses, imposed
taxes and levies and set up post-staging stations and monopoly markets
in the Tibetan region. Therefore, I really don't know what is meant
by "Historically un-influenced".
> However, just because a country is
> influenced by several others...what are you saying?
Huh??? I am asking what are u saying about "sinicised".
> Those countries
> have a right to invade and dominate?
Did I say that????
>
> Jackie:
> >>Hundreds of thousands live in exile. their spiritual leader
> >>may not be free in his own country. No, I think many Tibetans
> >>are deeply unhappy.
> Guardiangel
> >It is just because the spiritual leader is splitting the Nation...
>
> Jackie:
> Er.....hello? Do you live on plant earth? How is the Dalai Lama
> "splitting" a nation? What a strange thing to say! Explain yourself.
>
The well-known fact is that the 14th Dalai Lama is advocating TI. Isn't
it very clear that he is splitting the Nation????
Wake up!!! What's wrong with ur common sense???
Guardiangel
Francis Y.F.Poon
>
> Francis Y.F.Poon wrote:
> >
> > wtj wrote:
> > >
> > > welfare of the Tibetans.
> > ------------------
> > They do to the christians and mormons too.
>
They do, according to what i was told.>
> > I know you find that hard to fathom but yet it is
> > > so. Not everyone in the world lives for materialist trinkets. If you truly
> > > cared about people you would take some courses other than Econ101.
> > -----------------------------
> > The tibetans i met in HK love Rolex and womanizing as much as the
> > non-tibetans. That is where econ 101 comes in.
>
> self-selecting sample.
Wait till you get a chance to visit Lhaza before coming back to address
the same post again.
FP
Francis Y.F.Poon
> when you want to describe people you percieve as inferior.
------------------------
maybe this is from a moralistic point of view as opposed to an
intellectual one.
>
> > > > whom you call 'intellectuals' while in essence that is very
> > > > questionable status as far as I am concerned.
> > >
> > > So now you are implying that people chinolatino regards as intellectuals are
> > > of "questionable status". Are you saying that chinolatino is bad at assessing
> > > whether someone is a "genuine, Francis Poon style" intellectual, or are you
> > > insisting that his intellectuals are "of a lower order"? What do you base
> > > that on Francis? You presumably never met them or are certainly keeping that
> > > a secret if that were so.
> > ------------------------------
> > To me an intellectual is someone who is willing to look at things
> > objectively. The ones cited by chinolatino
> > are so prejudiced and despiteful such that they don't deserve the name.
> > But you might have abused the term to the point that includes anyone who
> > can talk.
>
> Some more put-downs of people you don't know and have never met?
---------------------------
That is a justifiable 'put-down'! When these Pekingers that talked down
on others such as the native Tibetans, they deserve something from
Francis Poon as a token of support and justice to the native Tibetans!
>
> > >
> > > > I frankly
> > > > don't believe that this is the opinion held by the students in general.
> > > > You seem to have wanted to
> > > > make a case out of what you heard from these few and I don't think it is
> > > > warranted. The way that you
> > > > are putting it across as "who could only benefit by china's
> > > > appropriation of........assimilation"
> > > > is not the exact quote of what they said
> > >
> > > How can you, Francis, say what chinolatino heard? Were you there? He told us
> > > what he heard and you have absolutely no basis to deny that.
> > ---------------------------
> > He met 'some' students and i met some too. The ones i met did not have
> > that attitude.
>
> And I met some too. So that's 2 against one?>
----------------------
you are wasting time over the net. you know that.
>
> > > > but in my view is what you
> > > > think they said.
> > >
> > > So now you are in the business of defining how chinolatino thinks? Don't you
> > > see Francis how all this speculation and guessing calls into question your
> > > claim to be an intellectual yourself? There appears to be no consistency to
> > > your logic at all. The only consistency I see is a rigorous adherence to the
> > > ultra-nationalist Han dogma.[snip]
> > ----------------------
> > If you keep making generalizaiton like that, you would really be up to
> > chinolatino's intellectuals.
>
> I'm not generalizing at all. In your case I can be very specific.
>
> > > > it is just
> > > > > as likely that an even more unfettered market system, plus loosening of
> > > > > internal migration controls, could lead to an even more massive han
> > > > > chinese colonisation of tibet than is already occurring.
> > > > ------------------------
> > > > You are damned wrong here.
> > >
> > > Actually he is dead right.
> > ---------------------
> > in your opinion...
>
> Are you denying what he has said? Would you like to quote some numbers on the
> colonization of Tibet that has occurred during the last two decades?
>
> I suppose you could argue that the increase in the Han fraction of the population in
> Tibet is due to economic restrictions put on the aboriginal people and that
> migration restrictions actually prevent Han people from leaving the place.
> ------------------------
I was talking about people(both the tibetans and the hans) running
around within China Proper for jobs or business opportunities being a
very good thing. Who cares whether it is the Hans that 'colonize' the
minorities or the minorities 'colonize' the Hans or the northerners
'colonize' the southerners in the process. The flow of economic forces
is the god to obey in this materialistic world. Mao disobeyed this god
and had the entire nation led into economic destitutes from which the
nation luckly recovered. China has had too many ideologists using too
many adjectives that don't mean a thing. It is high time for some
Friedmanites to come in.
> > >
> > > > Economic and political freedom go hand in
> > > > hand.
> > >
> > > In the case of Tibet, obviously not! Neither freedoms are accorded the
> > > Tibetans.
> > --------------------------
> > The economic reforms started by DXP were also extended to Tibet. They
> > were felt throughout the whole china.
> > Why was tibet left behind/ i see no evidence of it.
>
> You are right. Greedy PRC cadres may now plunder Tibet too. And the Tibetans are
> free to bee their slaves.
----------------------
Stop writing out something like shouting out slogans. SHOW EVIDENCE
that Tibet has been left behind in the whole arena of economic reforms
started since DXP's time. If you were not able to, ask someone else for
help.
There is no shame in not knowing everything.
>
> > >
> > > > A much freer economy and freer flow of inter-regional migration
> > > > will lead to a much higher degree of productivity to be materialized in
> > > > all provinces including Tibet.
> > >
> > > If you mean the unfettered extraction of resources to the detriment of the
> > > aboriginals while rapidly lining the pockets of corrupt PRC officials you are
> > > probably right.
> > -----------------------------------
> > Extraction of resouces is one of the many kinds of industries. You can
> > say that the extraction of resouces
> > all over the world including that in USA and Canadai is reminiscient to
> > what you described above.
>
> Back to the old "two wrongs make a right" argument. You are becoming more like those
> "intellectually inferior" PRC leaders all the time.
> ----------------------
You are now losing ground........
> > >
> > > > You can talk about US cultural
> > > > imperialism dominating the world, etc and in a sense you are right too.
> > > > But you have forgotten the benefits this 'imperialism' has brought
> > > > about. Someday you will see the Tibetans having fancy pc to communicate
> > > > with us here. It will be the result of the global imperialism going on.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > myself, i think something like what has happened in indonesia must
> > > > > happen, where east timor was just too much of a "pebble in the shoe"
> > > > > for much too long, and indonesia had tired of international
> > > > > disapproval, and a change in government allowed a facesaving window of
> > > > > opportunity.
> > > > -----------------------------
> > > > 'must' is a very sure word. What is happening in East Timor MUST not be
> > > > allowed to happen in Tibet.
> > >
> > > True. One wonders whether the PLA could still be controlled by civilian
> > > forces should it come to a plebiscite in Tibet. It would be wise to station UN
> > > forces there in advance as the outcome of such a vote would undoubtedly
> > > require the PLA to leave the territory.
> > ---------------------------------
> > There will be NO vote...
>
> Indeed. The out of control PLA will try to prevent a plebiscite and I imagine they
> will emulate the Indonesian military. After all, two wrongs make a right, don't
> they? It's the Francis Poon way of dealing with other people's rights.
-------------------------------
Show evidence..........>
> > >
> > > > You can bet on that, if you so truly cared about the welfare of the
> > > > Tibetans, as opposed to just talking
> > > > about it and the other spirituality/culture things...
> > >
> > > Francis, those "spirituality/culture things" constitute a large portion of the
> > > welfare of the Tibetans.
> > ------------------
> > They do to the christians and mormons too.
>
> So?
> ----------------
So let them do and help them do it with the development of their home
economies. The priest in the neighbor church will be more please by
bigger contributions as bigger contributions mean less pressure from the
fixed overheads of the church. The same scenario goes for the lama and
papas running those temples with monumental overheads.
> > I know you find that hard to fathom but yet it is
> > > so. Not everyone in the world lives for materialist trinkets. If you truly
> > > cared about people you would take some courses other than Econ101.
> > -----------------------------
> > The tibetans i met in HK love Rolex and womanizing as much as the
> > non-tibetans. That is where econ 101 comes in.
> >
> > >
> > > By the way. How many TVs would it require for you to stay celibate and not
> > > reproduce?
> > > Color ones? Big screen? Remote controls? Image within image etc.....
> > ----------------------------
> > You are probably referring to my throwing out the pictures of DL in
> > exchange for a color TV.
>
> No, not in the least. I am trying to find out your relative marginal utility for
> TVs and children. Just a little Econ101 followup. One TV? A lifetime supply of
> TVs? What's it going to take?
>
> > Thus you are equating worshipping DL to the
> > only way of spiritual worship.
>
> Would you explain your train of logic on this? I ask a question about TVs and kids
> and you conclude that I am restricting religion to the worship of the DL.
>
> > The people in tibet can worship without
> > any DL or PL in specific.
>
> Are you dictating how Tibetans can or cannot worship?
-----------------
No, but to have placed that old timer politician who wears Gucci shoes
in such an important role as far as Tibetans issues are concerned is
like dictating to the tibetans how they should worship. I suggest the
tibetans should worship like the old ladies in the catholic church in
Canton. That is, read the Bible any way they want and ask for No
interpretations.
In specific? Would it then
> be correct to say you were a dictator?
----------------------
I am a dictator of my own destiny.
>
> > DL is not God.
>
> You have a right to hold and express your opinion on that.
--------------
Don't you dare to disagree?
Maybe you should extend
> that freedom to the Tibetans.
--------------
I have always. What you have just said is a redundant reminder.
Jackie
>I see you're from the UK, Jackie. It is your Anglo-Saxon family that now
>dominate North America, Australia and New Zealand. I have no time for your
>hypocrisy when it comes to Tibet. (This is not the end of the message).
I see you have a lot of time for me. :)
Mark:
>Before I continue, what is your position on California and Western Australia?
Jackie:
None. I don't know much about these issues. I am not an encyclopedia
and don't know everything!
Jackie:
>> That is certainly not "for sure." How have you measured this theory?
>> What makes you claim this? Presumably you must have interviewed most
>> of the Tibetan population, arriving at this conclusion based on firm
>> evidence and many personal testimonies?
>> The people of Tibet are slaves to the CCP, they were not slaves to the
>> DL.
Mark:
>Have you interviewed most of the Tibetan population? No. So don't ask me the
>same question.
Jackie:
I have access to information. Lots of access to lots of information,
Mark. This is where my statements come from. Factual, investigative,
eye-witness accounts, research, interviews, testimony. Tibetans. I
have spoken to several living in exile myself.
Mark:
>Before the DL fled with his bunch of cronies, the Chinese government didn't even
>do anything in Tibet.
Jackie:
Hilarious factual mistake.
Just for you:
'On October 7th 1950, just a year after the Communist takeover of
China, 30,000 battle-hardened Chinese troops attacked central Tibet
from six different directions. The Tibetan army, a poorly equipped
force of some 4,000 men, stood little chance of resisting the Chinese,
and any attempt at defence soon collapsed before the onslaught. In
Lhasa, the Tibetan government reacted by enthroning the 14th Dalai
Lama, an action that brought jubilation and dancing on the streets but
did little to protect Tibet from advancing Chinese troops. An appeal
to the United Nations was equally ineffective. To the shame of all
involved, only El Salvador sponsored a motion to condemn Chinese
aggression, and Britain and India, traditional friends of Tibet,
actually managed to convince the UN not to debate the issue for fear
of incurring Chinese disapproval.
Presented with this seemingly hopeless situation, the Dalai Lama
dispatched a mission to Beijing with orders that they refer all
decisions to Lhasa. As it turned out there were no decisions to be
made. The Chinese had already drafted an agreement. The Tibetans had
two choices: sign on the dotted line or face further Chinese
aggression.
The seventeen point 'Agreement on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation
of Tibet' promised a one-country two-systems structure much like that
offered to Hong Kong and Macau, but provided little in the way of
guarantees that such a promise would be honoured. The Tibetan
delegates protested that they were unauthorised to sign such an
agreement and anyway lacked the seal of the Dalai Lama. Thoughtfully,
the Chinese had already prepared a forged Dalai Lama seal, and the
agreement was ratified.
Initially, the Chinese occupation of central Tibet was carried out in
an orderly way, but tensions inevitably mounted. The presence of large
numbers of Chinese troops in the Lhasa region soon depleted food
stores and gave rise to massive inflation. Rumours of massacres and
forced political indoctrinations in Kham began to filter through to
Lhasa. The Dalai Lama was invited to Beijing, where, amid cordial
discussions with Mao Zedong, he was told that religion was "poison."
And in 1956, the Preparatory Committee for the Autonomous Region of
Tibet (PCART) was established. Although headed by the Dalai Lama, a
majority of its seats were filled by Chinese puppets. In any case,
real power lay in the hands of the Committee of the Communist party in
Tibet, which claimed no Tibetan representatives at all.
With armed revolt breaking out in Kham and Amdo (with covert CIA
support) and protest emerging in central Tibet, the Dalai lama
returned to Lhasa from a trip to India to celebrate the 2500th
anniversary of the birth of Buddha with a heavy heart. It seemed
inevitable that Tibet would explode in revolt and equally inevitable
that it would be ruthlessly suppressed by the Chinese.
The Tibetan New Year of 1959, like all the New Year celebrations
before it, attracted huge crowds to Lhasa, doubling the usual
population of the city. In addition to the usual festival activities,
the Chinese had added a highlight of their own - a performance by a
Chinese dance group at the Lhasa military base. The Dalai Lama's
invitation to attend came more in the form of a thinly veiled command.
The Dalai Lama, wishing to avoid offence, accepted.
As preparations for the performance drew near, however, the Dalai
Lama's security chief was surprised to hear that the Dalai Lama was
expected to attend in secrecy and without his customary contingent of
25 bodyguards. Despite the Dalai Lama's agreement to these conditions,
the news soon leaked, and in no time simmering frustrations at Chinese
rule came to the boil amongst the crowds on the streets. It seemed
obvious to them that the Chinese were about to kidnap the Dalai Lama.
Large numbers of people gathered around the Norbulingka Summer Palace
of the Dalai Lama and swore to protect him with their lives.
The Dalai Lama had no choice but to cancel his appointment at the
military base. In the meantime the crowds on the streets were swollen
by Tibetan soldiers, who changed out of their People's Liberation Army
uniforms and started to hand out weapons. A group of government
ministers announced that the 17-point Agreement was null and void and
that Tibet renounced the authority of China.
The Dalai Lama was powerless to intervene, managing only to pen some
conciliatory letters to the Chinese as his people prepared for battle
on the streets of Lhasa. In a last ditch effort to prevent blood-shed,
the Dalai Lama even offered himself to the Chinese. His reply came in
the sound of two mortar shells exploding in the gardens of the
Norbulingka. The attack made it obvious that the only option remaining
to the Dalai Lama was flight. On 17th March, the Dalai Lama left the
Norbulingka disguised as a soldier. Fourteen days later he was in
India.
With both the Chinese and the Tibetans unaware of the Dalai Lama's
departure, tensions continued to mount in Lhasa. Early in the morning
of 20th March, the Chinese began to shell the Norbulingka, and the
crowds surrounding it, killing hundreds. Later, searching through the
corpses, it became obvious that the Dalai Lama had escaped - 'abducted
by a reactionary clique' went the Chinese reports.
The bloodshed continued. Artillery bombed the Potala, Sera Monastery
and Medical College on Chagpo Ri hill. Tibetans armed with petrol
bombs were picked off by Chinese snipers, and when a crowd of some
10,000 Tibetans retreated into the sacred precincts of the Jokhang,
that too was bombed. It is thought that after three days of violence
around 12,000 to 15,000 Tibetans lay dead in the streets of Lhasa.
The Chinese quickly consolidated on their quelling of the Lhasa
uprising by taking control of all the high passes between Tibet and
India. Freedom fighters were put out of action by Chinese troops and
able-bodied young men rounded up, shot, incarcerated or put to work on
Chinese work teams. As the Chinese themselves put it, they were
liberating Tibet of reactionary forces and ushering in a new socialist
society - naturally they did not bother to ask the Tibetans themselves
whether they wanted a socialist paradise.
The Chinese abolished the Tibetan government and set about re-ordering
Tibetan society in accordance with their marxist principles. The
educated and aristocratic were put to work on menial jobs and subject
to struggle sessions, known as "thamzing", which sometimes resulted in
death. A ferment of class struggle was whipped up, and former feudal
exploiters - some of whom the poor of Tibet may have harboured genuine
resentment for - were subject to punishments of awful cruelty.
The Chinese also turned their attention to Tibet's more than 6000
monasteries. Tibetans were refused permission to donate food to the
monasteries, and monks were compelled to join struggle sessions,
discard their robes and marry. Monasteries were stripped of their
riches, Buddhist scriptures were burnt and used as toilet paper, and
the vast wholesale destruction of Tibet's monastic heritage began in
earnest.'
et cetera.
Mark:
>You still haven't addressed the issue of Westernisation. I won't bother to
>discuss with you "Sinicisation" until you admit there has been Westernisation.
Jackie:
In China?
I'm sure there has. I'm willing to bet my life on it. So what?
Mark:
>I, on the other hand, am willing to admit there has been some form of
>Sinicisation, but not to the ridiculous degree that you do. Would you like me
>mentioning the Westernisation of the Native Americans?
Jackie:
Not really. I'm not interested. But you could if you really felt the
need. Don't know. Up to you.
Mark:
>Do you know how many Han there are? There are 1.1 billion Han. East China is
>already overpopulated and crowded. It is only reasonable for the Han to move
>into the region. Why should a few Tibetans control....
Yuk. I don't even need to highlight this racism.
Mark:
>And also, please remember, that the Han are SHARING the land with the
>Tibetans.
Jackie:
Now that really is hilarious. The Chinese kindly sharing the Tibetan's
land with...the Tibetans!! Can you not see your logical blunders?
Mark:
>Your Anglo brothers in North America and Australia forcefully took
>native lands. Your argument is full of hypocrisy.
Jackie:
I am not in any way responsible for my country's history. North
America and Australia happened before I was voting age, before I was
born. It is nothing to do with me. The rape of Tibet is happening NOW.
This is why I try to do something about it. Also, I have a particular
personal interest in Tibet, not Australia or America.
Mark:
>You wouldn't like me mentioning the forceful relocation of
>Sioux into "Reservations", would you, even if it did happen more than hundred
>years ago?
Jackie:
Nothing to do with me or my interests or my arguments. This is
talk.politics.tibet.
Mark:
>Boo hoo! Why are you blaming the Han?
Jackie:
I have always been careful never to blame the ordinary Chinese. I
thought you would have picked this up. No need to bring in that
irrelevant pettiness, sorry!
Mark:
>That was the fault of one man : Mao.
Jackie:
Correct.
Mark:
>And remember that he was responsible for the deaths of millions of Han during
>the famines of the Great Leap Backwards.
Jackie:
<Grin> I know this. It was the worst thing the Chinese ever had to
suffer in all their history. I know quite a bit about recent Chinese
history and I know a lot about the DREADFUL awful suffering of the
ordinary Chinese family.
But what has this got to do with Tibet? See how you bring in
irrelevancies?
Mark:
>Where's your sympathy for them? Or don't you care?
Jackie:
Strange...
Oh I see. You just want to be attacking about EVERYTHING? Lets make it
childishly simple shall we. I know, I hate you and you hate me, no
matter what we're discussing. Then we can pointlessly argue about the
whole world and not even know what the issue is. Sound a good idea?
Naaaah.
Mark:
>OK, that's it, that really *is* racist. We are the worst in a country that
>isn't even ours? It is *really*, *really* unfair that you single us out.
Jackie:
Well there are some African countries who are bad too, and others, but
I do not know about the world. Specialist knowledge only about Tibet
and China.
Mark:
>Please explain the situation in North America and Australia where the Sioux and
>the native Aborigines were displaced and marginalised by your Anglo brothers.
Jackie:
Get stuffed! You explain it, or read an encyclopedia. :)
Mark:
>I
>don't care if it happened two hundred years ago, that's just a lame excuse. If
>you continue to single out the Han and not answer my question about your Anglo
>brothers then I'll really know you're racist.
Jackie:
How do you know I am not Chinese myself?
Mark:
>That's exactly what your imperialistic Anglo brothers said about the Aborigines,
>a bunch of backward native hooligans who could benefit by either being
>assimilated or wiped out genetically.
Jackie:
My brothers? I think not...
Countries mature and grow out of idiotic attitudes. but the most
idiotic one is "you did it hundred of years ago, so we can do it now."
You *learn* from other people's mistakes. Countries should learn from
other countries mistakes. However, that's the ideal world...
Mark:
>I also recall many Europeans calling us Han backward.
Jackie:
It is wrong to generalise about whole populations.
>Love, Mark
You know...something tells me your love is a fake.
Jackie.
Dorje Cheba
Snip snip, snippety snip!
At last, a breath of fresh air, and TRUTH on this sordid list....Thugs rje che
Tashi Delek,
The Gourd.
Of all objects which proceed from a cause,
The Tathagata has explained the cause,
And he has explained their cessation also.
This is the teaching of the Great Sramana
guard...@my-deja.com
> Mark:
> >Before the DL fled with his bunch of cronies, the Chinese government
didn't even
> >do anything in Tibet.
> Jackie:
> Hilarious factual mistake.
>
> Just for you:
>
> 'On October 7th 1950, just a year after the Communist takeover of
> China, 30,000 battle-hardened Chinese troops attacked central Tibet
It is misleading. The PLA didnt stride across the Tibet-Xikang border
until the 17-point agreement was signed.
> from six different directions. The Tibetan army, a poorly equipped
> force of some 4,000 men, stood little chance of resisting the Chinese,
> and any attempt at defence soon collapsed before the onslaught. In
> Lhasa, the Tibetan government reacted by enthroning the 14th Dalai
> Lama, an action that brought jubilation and dancing on the streets but
> did little to protect Tibet from advancing Chinese troops. An appeal
> to the United Nations was equally ineffective. To the shame of all
> involved, only El Salvador sponsored a motion to condemn Chinese
> aggression, and Britain and India, traditional friends of Tibet,
> actually managed to convince the UN not to debate the issue for fear
> of incurring Chinese disapproval.
I think it is just because no one has recognized Tibetan independence.
> Presented with this seemingly hopeless situation, the Dalai Lama
> dispatched a mission to Beijing with orders that they refer all
> decisions to Lhasa. As it turned out there were no decisions to be
> made. The Chinese had already drafted an agreement. The Tibetans had
> two choices: sign on the dotted line or face further Chinese
> aggression.
> The seventeen point 'Agreement on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation
> of Tibet' promised a one-country two-systems structure much like that
> offered to Hong Kong and Macau, but provided little in the way of
> guarantees that such a promise would be honoured. The Tibetan
> delegates protested that they were unauthorised to sign such an
> agreement and anyway lacked the seal of the Dalai Lama. Thoughtfully,
> the Chinese had already prepared a forged Dalai Lama seal, and the
> agreement was ratified.
Inaccurate!
(1)The Dalai Lama's seal was not needed as the delegates was sent as
the full-power delegation. And the agreement was only signed by the
full-power delegates of both Central authorities and the Tibetan local
government.
(2)The Central Government only prepared the new seals for the Tibetan
delegates such as Chief-Delegates Ngapoi Jigme. It is because Ngapoi
Jigme told the central government that the seal was as a "Chamdo
Director's Seal" which showed indistinct sign. Therefore the delegates
request for the formal/official one which clearly shows their name.
(3)The ratification of the 17-point agreement has nothing to do with
the "forged Dalai Lama Seal"(see point 2). The agreement clearly stated
that it "shall come into force immediately after signatures and seals
are affixed to it."
> Initially, the Chinese occupation of central Tibet was carried out in
> an orderly way,
See my first reply
but tensions inevitably mounted. The presence of large
> numbers of Chinese troops in the Lhasa region soon depleted food
> stores and gave rise to massive inflation. Rumours of massacres and
> forced political indoctrinations in Kham began to filter through to
> Lhasa. The Dalai Lama was invited to Beijing, where, amid cordial
> discussions with Mao Zedong, he was told that religion was "poison."
> And in 1956, the Preparatory Committee for the Autonomous Region of
> Tibet (PCART) was established. Although headed by the Dalai Lama, a
> majority of its seats were filled by Chinese puppets. In any case,
> real power lay in the hands of the Committee of the Communist party in
> Tibet, which claimed no Tibetan representatives at all.
huh??? at that time most of the Tibetans were Buddhists, how come they
could join the atheist Communist Party???? It is a common knowledge.
Too late :->
Well, it is their Tsongdu("National Assembly") who accepted the 17-
point agreement in September 1951 after the 3-day meeting. Meanwhile,
on 24 Oct 1951 The 14th Dalai Lama sent telegram to MaoZedung and clear
stated that "The local government of Tibet, the monks and the entire
Tibetan people express their unaimous support for this agreement."
According to M.C. Goldstein, until the 1959 riots the PRC's policy to
Tibet is a "soft" one, and it was welcome by the civilians. In my
opinion it was the Dalai's side who violate the agreement, so central
govenrment's suppressions on individual Tibetans is understandable.
[Reference: The Snow Lion and The Dragon, p52~53]
> et cetera.
>
> Mark:
> >You still haven't addressed the issue of Westernisation. I won't
bother to
> >discuss with you "Sinicisation" until you admit there has been
Westernisation.
> Jackie:
> In China?
> I'm sure there has. I'm willing to bet my life on it. So what?
I think we cannot start discussing the issue as Jackie still havn't
explained the meaning of sinicisation....
Guardiangel
"In trying to sum up the events of the 1950s, the emerging evidence
tends to subtantiate China's view of events."
~Tom Grunfeld, 'The Making of Modern Tibet'
Mark Li
> Jackie:
> I have access to information. Lots of access to lots of information,
> Mark. This is where my statements come from. Factual, investigative,
> eye-witness accounts, research, interviews, testimony. Tibetans. I
> have spoken to several living in exile myself.
So, basically, you work for the UK Tibet council or something?
Well, Jackie, I'm absolutely flattered that you would post this message just for me
:^)
Can you tell me where you got it? I'd really like to know as I enjoy reading such
great publications as the Tibetan Bulletin and Review.
> et cetera.
>
> Mark:
> >You still haven't addressed the issue of Westernisation. I won't bother to
> >discuss with you "Sinicisation" until you admit there has been Westernisation.
> Jackie:
> In China?
> I'm sure there has. I'm willing to bet my life on it. So what?
So why don't you complain about that? huh?
>
> Mark:
> >I, on the other hand, am willing to admit there has been some form of
> >Sinicisation, but not to the ridiculous degree that you do. Would you like me
> >mentioning the Westernisation of the Native Americans?
> Jackie:
> Not really.
You don't like me mentioning the Westernisation of the Native Americans and I don't
like you mentioning the alleged "Sinicisation" of Tibet. Neither of us should
mention the Westernisation or "Sinicisation" of anywhere.
>
> Mark:
> >Do you know how many Han there are? There are 1.1 billion Han. East China is
> >already overpopulated and crowded. It is only reasonable for the Han to move
> >into the region. Why should a few Tibetans control....
>
> Yuk. I don't even need to highlight this racism.
What's racist about it? That's just reality. Why don't you ask Westerners to limit
their agricultural land use?
Hopefully in years to come, with better technology, the Qinghai plateau will become
an area of vast farms to feed China's millions.
>
> Mark:
> >And also, please remember, that the Han are SHARING the land with the
> >Tibetans.
> Jackie:
> Now that really is hilarious. The Chinese kindly sharing the Tibetan's
> land with...the Tibetans!! Can you not see your logical blunders?
Well, it's a whole lot better than just taking "their" land. It's certainly more
commendable than just taking them by force like Western nations did.
I think it would be fair if you complain about forceful seizure of native American
land, even if it happened long time ago or you're not interested in it.
>
> Mark:
> >You wouldn't like me mentioning the forceful relocation of
> >Sioux into "Reservations", would you, even if it did happen more than hundred
> >years ago?
> Jackie:
> Nothing to do with me or my interests or my arguments. This is
> talk.politics.tibet.
Then stop mentioning communes. This was a China wide phenomenon, not just Tibet.
And they are now, fortunately, ALL gone :-)
> Mark:
> >Boo hoo! Why are you blaming the Han?
> Jackie:
> I have always been careful never to blame the ordinary Chinese. I
> thought you would have picked this up. No need to bring in that
> irrelevant pettiness, sorry!
Sorry, I thought you were blaming the Han, who themselves, by the way, were already
starving to death and were only looking for farming land.
> Mark:
> >And remember that he was responsible for the deaths of millions of Han during
> >the famines of the Great Leap Backwards.
> Jackie:
> <Grin> I know this. It was the worst thing the Chinese ever had to
> suffer in all their history. I know quite a bit about recent Chinese
> history and I know a lot about the DREADFUL awful suffering of the
> ordinary Chinese family.
>
> But what has this got to do with Tibet? See how you bring in
> irrelevancies?
I was just saying that the Tibetans were not the only ones to suffer famine. I
thought you didn't know or you didn't care. Thanks for enlightening me on your
position :-)
>
> How do you know I am not Chinese myself?
Well, I don't know. BTW, are you male or female? I don't really care, it's just
that your name is boy or girl.
>
> Mark:
> >That's exactly what your imperialistic Anglo brothers said about the Aborigines,
> >a bunch of backward native hooligans who could benefit by either being
> >assimilated or wiped out genetically.
> Jackie:
> My brothers? I think not...
> Countries mature and grow out of idiotic attitudes. but the most
> idiotic one is "you did it hundred of years ago, so we can do it now."
I never said that! I just implied it's really unfair that you said the Chinese
government has a policy of assimilation, whilst ignoring the fact that that has been
a long term policy of Western countries. In Australia, it wasn't until the late 60s
when that policy was FINALLY abolished. The Chinese government may have a policy of
assimilation, but that has, fortunately, been unsuccesful. For the record, I do NOT
support the assimilation of other ethnic groups in China into the Han culture. They
should learn to speak Mandarin, like the native Cantonese and Wu (Han) speakers have
to, that is the most that I want them to be "Sinicised". :-) And also, you do have
to admit, that the Chinese government has done a good job preserving ethnic
identity. If you go into the Chinese countryside, especially near the Burmese
border, there are many ethnic groups who still wear the clothes they always have.
> >Love, Mark
> You know...something tells me your love is a fake.
>
May be. I copied this "Love, Mark" from a person named Jim Walsh, whom you may
know, signs his name "Love, Jim" :^)
Love, Mark
Mark Li
> Jackie:
> Hilarious factual mistake.
>
> Just for you:
>
> 'On October 7th 1950, just a year after the Communist takeover of
> China, 30,000 battle-hardened Chinese troops attacked central Tibet
> from six different directions. The Tibetan army, a poorly equipped
> force of some 4,000 men, stood little chance of resisting the Chinese,
> and any attempt at defence soon collapsed before the onslaught. In
> Lhasa, the Tibetan government reacted by enthroning the 14th Dalai
> Lama, an action that brought jubilation and dancing on the streets but
> did little to protect Tibet from advancing Chinese troops. An appeal
> to the United Nations was equally ineffective. To the shame of all
> involved, only El Salvador sponsored a motion to condemn Chinese
> aggression, and Britain and India, traditional friends of Tibet,
How is Britain Tibet's traditional friend? Have you ever heard of a guy called
Younghusband? Apparently not.
And what ever happened to the traditional Tibetan friendship with the Chinese
government?
I've always laughed at this accusation. If the Chinese wanted to kidnap the DL,
then why the hell didn't they just storm the Potala Palace, or wherever, and just
take him? Nobody would be able to stop them, right?
It's amazing that the original Tibetan government continued to exist up to that
time, considering that the Chinese were "brutal occupiers". If the DL had stayed,
the traditional Tibetan government might have stayed intact.
> Tibetan society in accordance with their marxist principles. The
> educated and aristocratic were put to work on menial jobs and subject
> to struggle sessions, known as "thamzing", which sometimes resulted in
> death. A ferment of class struggle was whipped up, and former feudal
> exploiters - some of whom the poor of Tibet may have harboured genuine
> resentment for - were subject to punishments of awful cruelty.
> The Chinese also turned their attention to Tibet's more than 6000
> monasteries. Tibetans were refused permission to donate food to the
> monasteries, and monks were compelled to join struggle sessions,
> discard their robes and marry. Monasteries were stripped of their
> riches, Buddhist scriptures were burnt and used as toilet paper, and
> the vast wholesale destruction of Tibet's monastic heritage began in
> earnest.'
Very unfortunate, but thankfully this is no longer happening. And please note that
the Han people lost much of their culture as well during the Uncultural Revolution.
>:^(
Love, Mark
>
> et cetera.
>
Francis Y.F.Poon
>
> Francis Y.F.Poon wrote:
> >
How about "under the influence of" instead of the word occupation? if
it would make people feel better.
FP
Francis Y.F.Poon
>
> Francis Y.F.Poon wrote:
>
> > color TV.
>
> such a choice.
It is a hypothetical model used to show the preferrence for either
materialism or spiritualism by the tibetans.
FP
Phipps
>
> Phipps wrote:
> >
> > Francis Y.F.Poon wrote:
> > >
...because, in contrast to 'occupatoion', at least it would not be
absurd.
wtj
Francis Y.F.Poon wrote:
> Phipps wrote:
> >
> > Francis Y.F.Poon wrote:
> >
> > > As I told everyone in this ng., given a choice, 'most'
> > > Tibetans would rather throw out the pictures of Lamas in exchange for a
> > > color TV.
> >
> > What you have not told this ng, is why they should have to be faced with
> > such a choice.
> ----------------------
> It is a hypothetical model used to show the preferrence for either
> materialism or spiritualism by the tibetans.
>
> FP
>
Whereas my offer of a TV for your guarantee to have no offspring is a practical
solution to the world's threatened overpopulation. Kind of like killing two
birds with one stone.
What are you waiting for? A BMW, your version of material nirvana?
-Wally
Phipps
>
> Phipps wrote:
> >
> > Francis Y.F.Poon wrote:
> >
> > > As I told everyone in this ng., given a choice, 'most'
> > > Tibetans would rather throw out the pictures of Lamas in exchange for a
> > > color TV.
> >
> > What you have not told this ng, is why they should have to be faced with
> > such a choice.
> ----------------------
> It is a hypothetical model used to show the preferrence for either
> materialism or spiritualism by the tibetans.
>
>
You then have a very idiosyncratic concept of what cconstitutes a
'model'
Brigitte Yves
>It is misleading. The PLA didnt stride across the Tibet-Xikang border
>until the 17-point agreement was signed.
Tibet-Sikang border???
It was the Greater Tibet.
Greater Tibet == Amdo (Qinghai or Tsing-hai) + Kham (Xikang + Western
Sichuan or Sikang + Western Szechuwan) + U-tsang (TAR).
Gansu is a Chinese land.
I don't think Greater Tibet should include Yunnan, either.
_Brigitte
chino...@my-deja.com
brig...@typhoon.xnet.com (Brigitte Yves) wrote:
> <guard...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >It is misleading. The PLA didnt stride across the Tibet-Xikang border
> >until the 17-point agreement was signed.
>
> It was the Greater Tibet.
> Greater Tibet == Amdo (Qinghai or Tsing-hai) + Kham (Xikang + Western
> Sichuan or Sikang + Western Szechuwan) + U-tsang (TAR).
> Gansu is a Chinese land.
> I don't think Greater Tibet should include Yunnan, either.
no, not yunnan in its entirety, just the *pieces* of tibet that were
incorporated into yunnan, and gansu, and xinjiang - in addition, of
course, to all of the TAR, 1/2 qinghai, and 1/3 sichuan. (xikang, of
course, no longer exists as an administrative subdivision.)
cheers,
chino
> _Brigitte
Jackie
>> I have access to information. Lots of access to lots of information,
>> Mark. This is where my statements come from. Factual, investigative,
>> eye-witness accounts, research, interviews, testimony. Tibetans. I
>> have spoken to several living in exile myself.
>So, basically, you work for the UK Tibet council or something?
Basically, something. :)
Jackie:
>> Just for you:
<SNIP CITY>
>> the vast wholesale destruction of Tibet's monastic heritage began in
>> earnest.'
Mark:
>Well, Jackie, I'm absolutely flattered that you would post this message just for me
>:^)
Jackie:
Any time, any time, ah, no problemo.
Jackie:
>Can you tell me where you got it? I'd really like to know as I enjoy reading such
>great publications as the Tibetan Bulletin and Review.
Jackie:
Neither of those two. Childishly simple. From the long and detailed
introductory chapter of a well-known guide book to Tibet.
Mark:
>> >You still haven't addressed the issue of Westernisation. I won't bother to
>> >discuss with you "Sinicisation" until you admit there has been Westernisation.
Jackie:
>> In China?
>> I'm sure there has. I'm willing to bet my life on it. So what?
Mark:
>So why don't you complain about that? huh?
Jackie:
Wah! That's not my area of interest, mate.
Mark:
>> >Do you know how many Han there are? There are 1.1 billion Han. East China is
>> >already overpopulated and crowded. It is only reasonable for the Han to move
>> >into the region. Why should a few Tibetans control....
Jackie:
>> Yuk. I don't even need to highlight this racism.
Mark:
>What's racist about it? That's just reality. Why don't you ask Westerners to limit
>their agricultural land use?
>Hopefully in years to come, with better technology, the Qinghai plateau will become
>an area of vast farms to feed China's millions.
Jackie:
How revolting.
Mark:
>> >Boo hoo! Why are you blaming the Han?
Jackie:
>> I have always been careful never to blame the ordinary Chinese. I
>> thought you would have picked this up. No need to bring in that
>> irrelevant pettiness, sorry!
Mark:
>Sorry, I thought you were blaming the Han,
Jackie:
It's okay, it's an easy mistake to make. People in general (including
me) are too eager to take extreme, cover-all, polarised views on
things.
Mark:
>I was just saying that the Tibetans were not the only ones to suffer famine.
Jackie:
Yes, we know this. Surely most of the world has suffered famine at one
time or another.
Mark:
>I thought you didn't know or you didn't care.
Jackie:
Now why would you think that? :-0
Jackie:
>> How do you know I am not Chinese myself?
Mark:
>Well, I don't know. BTW, are you male or female? I don't really care, it's just
>that your name is boy or girl.
Jackie:
Yes it is. I am both, of course, as are we all, one "side"
complimenting the other, but mainly....ah, mainly...??? Shall I tell
you?
(My mugshot is on the alt.zen newsgroup webpage.)
Mark:
>> >That's exactly what your imperialistic Anglo brothers said about the Aborigines,
>> >a bunch of backward native hooligans who could benefit by either being
>> >assimilated or wiped out genetically.
Jackie:
>> My brothers? I think not...
>> Countries mature and grow out of idiotic attitudes. but the most
>> idiotic one is "you did it hundred of years ago, so we can do it now."
Mark:
>I never said that! I just implied it's really unfair that you said the Chinese
>government has a policy of assimilation, whilst ignoring the fact that that has been
>a long term policy of Western countries.
Jackie:
The policy seems to have been reversed some years ago now.
Enlightenment?
Mark:
>And also, you do have to admit, that the Chinese government
>has done a good job preserving ethnic identity.
Jackie:
I'm not sure I would be able to agree with you.
Mark:
>If you go into the Chinese countryside, especially near the Burmese
>border, there are many ethnic groups who still wear the clothes they always have.
Jackie:
There's more to ethnicity than clothes, my fine friend. :-)
M:
>>>Love, Mark
J:
>> You know...something tells me your love is a fake.
M:
>May be. I copied this "Love, Mark" from a person named Jim Walsh, whom you may
>know, signs his name "Love, Jim" :^)
>
>Love, Mark
Faker!
Jackie.
guard...@my-deja.com
brig...@typhoon.xnet.com (Brigitte Yves) wrote:
> <guard...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >until the 17-point agreement was signed.
>
> It was the Greater Tibet.
> Greater Tibet == Amdo (Qinghai or Tsing-hai) + Kham (Xikang + Western
> Sichuan or Sikang + Western Szechuwan) + U-tsang (TAR).
> Gansu is a Chinese land.
> I don't think Greater Tibet should include Yunnan, either
In the letters to both British and the US, the 'Kashag' repeatedly
admitted that both Qinghai and Sikang are traditional Chinese provinces
and not part of Tibet.[M.C. Goldstein, The Snow Lion and The Dragon,
p42: A History of Modern Tibet, p628~629]
Isn't it very clear that Tibet and Xikang are two different places???
in fact, politically there is no such thing as Greater Tibet, and the
traditional Tibet local government has never rules those areas.
References:
M.C. Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon, p71
Tom Grunfeld, The Making of modern Tibet, p245
Guardiangel
guard...@my-deja.com
chino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7rbk5j$loq$1...@flood.xnet.com>,
> brig...@typhoon.xnet.com (Brigitte Yves) wrote:
> > <guard...@my-deja.com> wrote:
border
> > >until the 17-point agreement was signed.
> >
> > It was the Greater Tibet.
> > Greater Tibet == Amdo (Qinghai or Tsing-hai) + Kham (Xikang +
Western
> > Sichuan or Sikang + Western Szechuwan) + U-tsang (TAR).
> > Gansu is a Chinese land.
>
> no, not yunnan in its entirety, just the *pieces* of tibet that were
> incorporated into yunnan, and gansu, and xinjiang - in addition, of
> course, to all of the TAR, 1/2 qinghai, and 1/3 sichuan. (xikang, of
> course, no longer exists as an administrative subdivision.)
>
> cheers,
> chino
it is not totally accurate. NW Yunnan is a Tibetan-inhabited region,
but not "part of Tibet". And the traditional Tibetan Local government
has NEVER ruled the area.
Guadiangel
guard...@my-deja.com
guard...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7rbk5j$loq$1...@flood.xnet.com>,
> brig...@typhoon.xnet.com (Brigitte Yves) wrote:
> > <guard...@my-deja.com> wrote:
border
> > >until the 17-point agreement was signed.
> >
> > It was the Greater Tibet.
> > Greater Tibet == Amdo (Qinghai or Tsing-hai) + Kham (Xikang +
Western
> > Sichuan or Sikang + Western Szechuwan) + U-tsang (TAR).
> > Gansu is a Chinese land.
>
> In the letters to both British and the US,
British and the US _authorities_
the 'Kashag' repeatedly
> admitted that both Qinghai and Sikang are traditional Chinese
provinces
> and not part of Tibet.[M.C. Goldstein, The Snow Lion and The Dragon,
> p42: A History of Modern Tibet, p628~629]
>
> Isn't it very clear that Tibet and Xikang are two different places???
> in fact, politically there is no such thing as Greater Tibet, and the
> traditional Tibet local government has never rules
rule"d"
> those areas.
>
those areas refer to the Tibetan-inhabited in Qinghai, Sichuan, Yunnan,
Gansu and Southern Xinjiang
_____
sorry for my poor english :-P
_____
Guardiangel
Mark Li
> Mark:
> >> >You still haven't addressed the issue of Westernisation. I won't bother to
> >> >discuss with you "Sinicisation" until you admit there has been Westernisation.
> Jackie:
> >> In China?
> >> I'm sure there has. I'm willing to bet my life on it. So what?
> >So why don't you complain about that? huh?
> Wah! That's not my area of interest, mate.
You pretending to be Chinese by saying "Wah!"? That's definitely not funny :-)
>
> Mark:
> >> >Do you know how many Han there are? There are 1.1 billion Han. East China is
> >> >already overpopulated and crowded. It is only reasonable for the Han to move
> >> >into the region. Why should a few Tibetans control....
> Jackie:
> >> Yuk. I don't even need to highlight this racism.
> Mark:
> >What's racist about it? That's just reality. Why don't you ask Westerners to limit
> >their agricultural land use?
> >Hopefully in years to come, with better technology, the Qinghai plateau will become
> >an area of vast farms to feed China's millions.
> Jackie:
> How revolting.
OK then, I guess it's revolting to have mass agriculture in North America. I guess that
means something should be done to hand back lands taken from the Sioux back to them.
>
> Mark:
> >> >Boo hoo! Why are you blaming the Han?
> Jackie:
> >> I have always been careful never to blame the ordinary Chinese. I
> >> thought you would have picked this up. No need to bring in that
> >> irrelevant pettiness, sorry!
> Mark:
> >Sorry, I thought you were blaming the Han,
> Jackie:
> It's okay, it's an easy mistake to make. People in general (including
> me) are too eager to take extreme, cover-all, polarised views on
> things.
Thank you.
>
> Jackie:
> >> How do you know I am not Chinese myself?
> Mark:
> >Well, I don't know. BTW, are you male or female? I don't really care, it's just
> >that your name is boy or girl.
> Jackie:
> (My mugshot is on the alt.zen newsgroup webpage.)
>
> Mark:
> >> >That's exactly what your imperialistic Anglo brothers said about the Aborigines,
> >> >a bunch of backward native hooligans who could benefit by either being
> >> >assimilated or wiped out genetically.
> Jackie:
> >> My brothers? I think not...
> >> Countries mature and grow out of idiotic attitudes. but the most
> >> idiotic one is "you did it hundred of years ago, so we can do it now."
> Mark:
> >I never said that! I just implied it's really unfair that you said the Chinese
> >government has a policy of assimilation, whilst ignoring the fact that that has been
> >a long term policy of Western countries.
> Jackie:
> The policy seems to have been reversed some years ago now.
> Enlightenment?
As I am sure Chinese government policies of assimilation has now been abolished as well.
:-)
>
> Mark:
> >And also, you do have to admit, that the Chinese government
> >has done a good job preserving ethnic identity.
> Jackie:
> I'm not sure I would be able to agree with you.
Why not? Please explain. They've done a hell of a lot better than Western nations,
that's for sure. Why do you continue to single out China? Is it because we are not
European?
>
> Mark:
> >If you go into the Chinese countryside, especially near the Burmese
> >border, there are many ethnic groups who still wear the clothes they always have.
> Jackie:
> There's more to ethnicity than clothes, my fine friend. :-)
So you want them to have absolutely no exposure to the Han culture or any other
culture? That's absolutely ridiculous. The fact they still wear their traditional
clothing just goes to show you that their ethnic identity is still well preserved. BTW,
I thought you hated me, so why call me "friend"? :-)
>
> M:
> >>>Love, Mark
> J:
> >> You know...something tells me your love is a fake.
> M:
> >May be. I copied this "Love, Mark" from a person named Jim Walsh, whom you may
> >know, signs his name "Love, Jim" :^)
> >
> >Love, Mark
>
> Faker!
Ha ha! Funny, ain't it? :-)
Love, Mark
____________________________________
Voltaire, the great French revolutionary, sums up democracy in one sentence : "I don't
agree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it!"
Brigitte Yves
>In the letters to both British and the US, the 'Kashag' repeatedly
>admitted that both Qinghai and Sikang are traditional Chinese provinces
>and not part of Tibet.[M.C. Goldstein, The Snow Lion and The Dragon,
>p42: A History of Modern Tibet, p628~629]
Amdo (Qinghai) was where HHDL was born. In Kundun's book -- "Freedom
in Exile", he wrote: " .... my home-town was a small village near China ..."
" ... Amdo was the outer province of Tibet near China ..." . I don't
think warlord Ma Pufang had ruled HHDL's old home-town when he was the
governor general under Nationalist China (1912 to 1949).
>Isn't it very clear that Tibet and Xikang are two different places???
>in fact, politically there is no such thing as Greater Tibet, and the
>traditional Tibet local government has never rules those areas.
Xikang doesn't even exist in the People's Republic of China today.
The western part of the Xikang is now the TAR and the eastern part of
the province of the ROC which ended in 1949 is now under the Sichuan
province.
>References:
>
>M.C. Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon, p71
>
>Tom Grunfeld, The Making of modern Tibet, p245
HHDL, Freedom in Exile.
Dr. Warren Smith Jr., The Tibetan Nation.
Dr. John King Fairbank, The new history of China.
_Brigitte
Jackie
>> >So why don't you complain about that? huh?
>> Wah! That's not my area of interest, mate.
>You pretending to be Chinese by saying "Wah!"? That's definitely not funny :-)
Not really. It's a fucking GREAT expression. :-)
Mark:
>> >Hopefully in years to come, with better technology, the Qinghai plateau will become
>> >an area of vast farms to feed China's millions.
Jackie:
>> How revolting.
Mark:
>OK then, I guess it's revolting to have mass agriculture in North America. I guess that
>means something should be done to hand back lands taken from the Sioux back to them.
Jackie:
It's just that you made it sound like you wanted to turn Tibet into a
factory to feed the Chinese. I though it sounded yuk. Tibet is a
country with it's own people. Shouldn't the land of Tibet be used by
the Tibetans to feed the Tibetans? Well, that's my point of view
anyway.
Mark:
>>>And also, you do have to admit, that the Chinese government
>>>has done a good job preserving ethnic identity.
Jackie:
>> I'm not sure I would be able to agree with you.
Mark:
>Why not? Please explain. They've done a hell of a lot better than Western nations,
>that's for sure.
Jackie:
I have posted long posts on scinicisation and the abuses of human
rights, freedom of speech etc. This is not a way to preserve ethnic
identity.
Mark:
>Why do you continue to single out China?
Jackie:
Dunno. China is what I'm interested in. Anyway, I can sense change in
the winds... it won't be long.
I like China. I have always liked the general Chinese people. There
are many aspects to life that the West could have learnt from pre-Mao
China - of course many disgusting traditions and barbaric customs too.
But, there is something wonderful about the Chinese. Well, I see
something wonderful in every nation on earth, so I guess that doesn't
make China special.
Mark:
>Is it because we are not European?
Jackie:
Wah! Silly billy.
Mark:
>So you want them to have absolutely no exposure to the Han culture or any other
>culture? That's absolutely ridiculous. The fact they still wear their traditional
>clothing just goes to show you that their ethnic identity is still well preserved.
Jackie:
Not necessarily at all. Central to their ethnic identity is the Dalai
Lama. Why are people banned from displaying photographs of him?
Central to their ethnicity is the religion of Buddhism. Why is there a
deliberate policy of atheism promotion? There are so many things wrong
with the way China behaves in Tibet. Look them up for yourself, or
contact the link below for more details:
www.freetibet.org or tibets...@gn.apc.org
If you give me your address I can send you lots of fact sheets.
Mark:
>BTW, I thought you hated me, so why call me "friend"? :-)
Jackie:
I feel the same way as M. Gandhi: incapable of hating any being on
earth.
guard...@my-deja.com
brig...@typhoon.xnet.com (Brigitte Yves) wrote:
> <guard...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In the letters to both British and the US, the 'Kashag' repeatedly
> >admitted that both Qinghai and Sikang are traditional Chinese
provinces
> >and not part of Tibet.[M.C. Goldstein, The Snow Lion and The Dragon,
> >p42: A History of Modern Tibet, p628~629]
>
> Amdo (Qinghai) was where HHDL was born. In Kundun's book -- "Freedom
> in Exile", he wrote: " .... my home-town was a small village near
China ..."
> " ... Amdo was the outer province of Tibet near China ..." .
It only shows that he was ignorant(or lying again). In the 4th November
1949 letter to the British, the Kashag clearly stated that Chinghai
(Qinghai) is a Chinese province.
> I don't
> think warlord Ma Pufang had ruled HHDL's old home-town when he was the
> governor general under Nationalist China (1912 to 1949).
the Kashag government cabled the ROC Central authorities on July
14: "the soul boy left Qinghai for Tibet on July 1 according to the
state calendar, the Central Government wired 100,000 silver dollars to
Chairman Ma as travel expenses. We thank the Central Government very
much for its kindness."
Isn't it very clear???
>
> >Isn't it very clear that Tibet and Xikang are two different places???
> >in fact, politically there is no such thing as Greater Tibet, and the
> >traditional Tibet local government has never rules those areas.
>
> Xikang doesn't even exist in the People's Republic of China today.
> The western part of the Xikang is now the TAR and the eastern part of
> the province of the ROC which ended in 1949 is now under the Sichuan
> province.
so u recognized Xikang as an ROC province, right??
Generally, we are talking about the pre-agreement(the 17 points)
situation which has nothing to do with the present TAR, pls dont draw
the attention away
Guardiangel
guard...@my-deja.com
guard...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7rjfg6$4k4$1...@flood.xnet.com>,
> brig...@typhoon.xnet.com (Brigitte Yves) wrote:
> > <guard...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >In the letters to both British and the US, the 'Kashag' repeatedly
> > >admitted that both Qinghai and Sikang are traditional Chinese
> provinces
Dragon,
> > >p42: A History of Modern Tibet, p628~629]
> >
> > Amdo (Qinghai) was where HHDL was born. In Kundun's book -- "Freedom
> > in Exile", he wrote: " .... my home-town was a small village near
> China ..."
> > " ... Amdo was the outer province of Tibet near China ..." .
>
> It only shows that he was ignorant(or lying again). In the 4th
November
> 1949 letter to the British, the Kashag clearly stated that Chinghai
> (Qinghai) is a Chinese province.
>
> > I don't
> > think warlord Ma Pufang had ruled HHDL's old home-town when he was
the
> > governor general under Nationalist China (1912 to 1949).
>
> the Kashag government cabled the ROC Central authorities on July
> 14
in the yr of 1939....
Guardiangel
p.s. I forgot to tell ya that Tibet and the Tibetan-inhabited Region
are two different terms. You should distinguish between them.
Tony Tant
: Xikang doesn't even exist in the People's Republic of China today.
: The western part of the Xikang is now the TAR and the eastern part of
: the province of the ROC which ended in 1949 is now under the Sichuan
: province.
Please give date of the end of ROC.
--
****************************************** Wen-Kai(Tony) Tang
* Abolish ALL taxes and tariffs NOW !!!! * tt...@village.ios.com
* World free trade NOW !!!! * IDT
****************************************** Long Live Republic of China !!!!
angella_...@my-deja.com
brig...@typhoon.xnet.com (Brigitte Yves) wrote:
> <guard...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In the letters to both British and the US, the 'Kashag' repeatedly
> >admitted that both Qinghai and Sikang are traditional Chinese
provinces
> >p42: A History of Modern Tibet, p628~629]
>
> Amdo (Qinghai) was where HHDL was born. In Kundun's book -- "Freedom
> in Exile", he wrote: " .... my home-town was a small village near
China ..."
> think warlord Ma Pufang had ruled HHDL's old home-town when he was the
> governor general under Nationalist China (1912 to 1949).
You must be kidding! In 1938, The Kuomingtang government sent
Ma Bufang a telegram ordering him to provide the soul boy
(Tenzin Gyatso) with an armed escort for his journey to Tibet,
and founded the escort with 100,000 yuan. Ma, under orders,
organized an escort of a cavalry battalion led by Divisional
Commander Ma Yuanhai. They started Xining in July 1939, and
arrived in Lhasa in early October.
<In the beginning, Ma Bufang refused Keutsang Rimpoche's request of
sending the boy to Lhasa for being a "revered monk". The Lhasa
local government then reported this to the Central government
and asked for the permission.>
>
> >Isn't it very clear that Tibet and Xikang are two different places???
> >in fact, politically there is no such thing as Greater Tibet, and the
> >traditional Tibet local government has never rules those areas.
>
> Xikang doesn't even exist in the People's Republic of China today.
> The western part of the Xikang is now the TAR and the eastern part of
> the province of the ROC which ended in 1949 is now under the Sichuan
> province.
Are you sure about this? As far as I know, the Republic of China is
still the official government on Taiwan. Please check this with
people from Taiwan.
Angella Cummings
>
> >References:
> >
> >M.C. Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon, p71
> >
> >Tom Grunfeld, The Making of modern Tibet, p245
>
> HHDL, Freedom in Exile.
> Dr. Warren Smith Jr., The Tibetan Nation.
> Dr. John King Fairbank, The new history of China.
>
> _Brigitte
>
Mark Li
> Mark:
> >> >Hopefully in years to come, with better technology, the Qinghai plateau will become
> >> >an area of vast farms to feed China's millions.
> Jackie:
> >> How revolting.
> Mark:
> >OK then, I guess it's revolting to have mass agriculture in North America. I guess that
> >means something should be done to hand back lands taken from the Sioux back to them.
> Jackie:
> It's just that you made it sound like you wanted to turn Tibet into a
> factory to feed the Chinese. I though it sounded yuk. Tibet is a
> country with it's own people. Shouldn't the land of Tibet be used by
> the Tibetans to feed the Tibetans? Well, that's my point of view
> anyway.
No, Jackie, I do not want to turn Tibet into a "farm to feed the Chinese". I just want to
share -- you have to remember that the Qinghai-Tibet plateau is HUGE and is virtually empty,
there's still plenty of space that's not used. There are currently 60 million Chinese in
China (Han and non-Han) who do not have enough food and there is very little land left in
Eastern China to grow enough food to feed these people. Don't tell me you wouldn't mind
these people not having enough food?! Sure, we can import but there should always be
reserves in case of an emergency. I only want the Chinese to farm the plateau at places
that is unused and viable, and only to requirements.
>
>
> Mark:
> >>>And also, you do have to admit, that the Chinese government
> >>>has done a good job preserving ethnic identity.
> Jackie:
> >> I'm not sure I would be able to agree with you.
> Mark:
> >Why not? Please explain. They've done a hell of a lot better than Western nations,
> >that's for sure.
> Jackie:
> I have posted long posts on scinicisation
What does Sinicisation have to do with it? This is inevitable. And please note that we
(Han) have coexisted with many of China's ethnicities (not just the Tibetans) for around
4000 years, and yet, many of them STILL practice their traditional customs. This is a much
better record than in North America and Australia where it took only a few hundred years at
most for the natives to be almost completely assimilated. Why do you still continue to
target China only? And please remember that no culture stays exactly the same, it's near
impossible for, say, the Zhuang not to have any changes in its culture.
> and the abuses of human
> rights, freedom of speech etc. This is not a way to preserve ethnic
> identity.
Preserving ethnic identity has nothing to do with abuses of human rights and lack of free
speech. The Government can abuse rights but still preserve ethnic identity. There are,
unfortunately, two broad categories for those suffering human rights abuses: those who
support independence, and those who actively support democracy and/or other evils.
>
> Mark:
> >Why do you continue to single out China?
> Jackie:
> Dunno. China is what I'm interested in. Anyway, I can sense change in
> the winds... it won't be long.
Can you be more specific as to what change you can sense in the winds? I don't know what
you're talking about.
> I like China. I have always liked the general Chinese people. There
> are many aspects to life that the West could have learnt from pre-Mao
> China - of course many disgusting traditions and barbaric customs too.
> But, there is something wonderful about the Chinese. Well, I see
> something wonderful in every nation on earth, so I guess that doesn't
> make China special.
When did I say China's special, you're the one singling China out.
>
> Mark:
> >Is it because we are not European?
> Jackie:
> Wah! Silly billy.
>
> Mark:
> >So you want them to have absolutely no exposure to the Han culture or any other
> >culture? That's absolutely ridiculous. The fact they still wear their traditional
> >clothing just goes to show you that their ethnic identity is still well preserved.
> Jackie:
> Not necessarily at all. Central to their ethnic identity is the Dalai
> Lama. Why are people banned from displaying photographs of him?
Not so. The Chinese Government has lifted the ban on people possessing pictures of him
(because they know its nearly impossible to enforce it) but pictures of him displayed in the
open is still not allowed in the TAR -- hopefully this will change. Outside the TAR,
displaying his picture in the open is more tolerated.
> Central to their ethnicity is the religion of Buddhism. Why is there a
> deliberate policy of atheism promotion? There are so many things wrong
> with the way China behaves in Tibet. Look them up for yourself, or
> contact the link below for more details:
>
> www.freetibet.org or tibets...@gn.apc.org
>
> If you give me your address I can send you lots of fact sheets.
Not interested. Most of them are over-biased. If they could be less racist and less
biased, I'd be a little more interested. I try to be a little more neutral, although I do
slant to the pro-China side, but I do enjoying reading such great publications as the
Tibetan Review and Bulletin :-)
Liguo Sun
> Please give date of the end of ROC.
The day when Taiwan declares independence or the day the Taiwan
Basic Law takes place.
--
Liguo Sun
Francis Y.F.Poon
>
> In article <37CF7C...@netvigator.com>,
> "Francis Y.F.Poon" <fyf...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > anag...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> >
> > <snipped>
> > >
> > > Tibetans have become a minority in Tibet due to many reasons. First
> > > the Chinese have killed at least 1/6 of Tibet's population.
> > --------------------------
> > Please show evidence. Any documented article that we can go and read?
> >
> > Secondly,
> > > the Chinese have settled in Tibet in an attempt to breed out the
> > > Tibetans,
> > --------------------
> > How many have gone there and for what reasons? Are the government
> > forcing them
> > to go or are they going there all by themselves. I think in terms of
> > living conditions, it will be the last
> > place the Hans want to to and live.
> >
> > and lastly the Chinese have destroyed the culture of Tibet
> > > due to their atheism campaign and their arrest and imprisonment of
> the
> > > Panchen Lama, as well as many other Tibetan religious autorities.
> > -------------------------
> > How does that reduce the population of Tibet?
> >
> > FP
> >
>
> First of all, as naive as I might be, I don't necessarily need
> documented proof of an existence of a problem. However, if it could
> benefit anyone else, then I will gladly do the research to uncover the
> truth. My first point - 1/6 of Tibetans have been killed by the
> People's Republic was taken from Sogyal Rinpoche's "The Tibetan Book of
> Living and Dying" part four, chapter 21, p.339 first paragraph. The
> bibliography of this chapter has many sources, and I'm not sure which
> he took this from. Again though, I am more likely to take the word of
> Sogyal Rinpoche as truth; being that he was born and nurtured in Tibet,
> practiced under great Masters, and experienced the Chinese invasion
> first hand. Although, I can see why one would put more value on an
> article by a journalist, since journalists have always been known to
> supply the public with the truth.
---------------------
1 out of 6? So how was the base of the population calculated? Did it
start with the time the PRC entered Tibet and end with what the
population is right now? For example, if there were 1 million people in
Tibet when PRC moved in, now there are only 5/6 of them and the 1/6 were
actually killed by the PRC troops , and not just dying of other causes.
I think you have to go a longer way to document that.
>
> Secondly, according to the caption on page five in "Mother Jones"
> May/June 1999, 170,000 Chinese soldiers are stationed in Tibet, and I'm
> sure they're not there for the weather. Call it a hunch, but I'm
> betting the government sent them there. Therefore, one can speculate
> that the government may play a role in the occupation of other Chinese
> in Tibet.
------------------------
The stationing of troops there does not mean that they are there to
perform genocide. There are troops stationed in Alaska too but it does
not mean the troops are there to kill off the Eskimoes.
>
> Furthermore, the arresting of religious officials and the atheism
> campaign ordered by the government is destroying the Tibetan
> population. Why? Who are the Tibetan people? The Tibetan culture is
> a religious culture, and without religion their is no Tibetan culture.
> With no Tibetan culture there is no Tibetan people - only Chinese
> citizens.
------------------------
The PRC government is not doing any atheist campaign anywhere in the
country. It is doing no campaign except the campaign against
Falunkung. The Taoists, the Bhuddists, the Christians, etc are not
affected.
>
> I apologize if I'm a little long-winded, but I don't apologize for
> having compassion for the Tibetan cause. I have had the oportunity to
> meet a man who fled Tibet via Himilayas, and I know that in order for
> someone to flee their sacred birthplace that the threat must be
> serious. And everytime I take refuge in the three jewels, I pray for
> the liberation of Tibet and all humankind.
-------------------
Go into Tibet to do some business.
FP
>
> A lotus to you a future buddha!
>
> Anagarika