Re: (Free Tibet) Why Tibet??

"Pilar Quezzaire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In soc.culture.hongkong betelnut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Pilar Quezzaire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> :> No, that's the "problem" of wanting to establish their modernization
for
> :> themselves. Europeans colonized much of the world assuming their
version
> :> of "modernity" was the right one. It wasn't necessarily, and we feel
the
>
> : bullsheeyit.  europeans just wanted to exploit other nations for
resources.
>
> That's not all they wanted to do, though that certainly was their primary
> aim. Missions were only partly about exploitation, they were primaril
> about spreading Western ideas of culture and refinement. Europeans thought
> they were right, and they forced many of us to agree.

no.  exploitation was their sole intention.  modernization was their excuse.

> :> after-effects of that short-sightedness all over the world. China has
made
> :> some of the same mistakes.
>
> : china has been the victim of imperialistic europeans.
>
> That works for some things, let's talk about what they're doing now.
> Just because they lost a few wars to Britain doesn't mean they're
> exonerated from their own actions. China's got quite a long history of
> domination all by itself, before Europeans ever showed up on the scene.

there is quite a huge difference between china and the western civilizations
in this regard alright, especially when you disregard the periods when china
itself had been ruled by foreign intruders such as the yuan and ching
dynasty.

> :> I'd be all about the idea of a benevolent government assisting the
people
> :> of Tibet if things had stayed at the level of involvement they were
when
> :> the occupation first started. Now, Tibet is yet another place to dump
> :> China's overblown Han population and do a little strip-mining while
> :> they're at it.  *I* wouldn't want China in Tibet if I were Tibetan with
> :> they way they treat the country either, whatever their oiginal
intentions
> :> were.
>
> : give me a break.  what's wrong about some hans living in tibet?  it gets
the
> : businesses going.  why you never accuse the tibetans of being racists
and
> : intolerant?
>
> Some do, some always have, that's not the issue. What is at issue is how
> the Chinese government is encouraging businesspeople to move their in
> droves to drive out certain elements of the Tibetan population, on top of
> the exploitation of Tibet's resources without regard to its people or its
> environment. One could add the tensions between the Chinese government and
> the exiled Tibetan theocracy, but I agree that's a stickier issue to
> consider than just out-and-out saying it's an injustice.

drive out what elements?  every nation in history had inevitably degraded
its environment as they developed and modernized.

> You asked about racist Tibetans here. The first thing I would ask before
> speaking to that is: racist in terms fo what? Against the Chinese? I'm
> sure many of them are, but if there's a specific thing you want to
> discuss...

separatists forces in tibet are a tiny minority.

> :> : tibet is part of china, although an autonomous zone.
> :>
> :> Because the Communists went in, occupied it, and said it was.
>
> : so?  the chinese already went in since hundreds of years ago.
>
> Then they weren't there for a few hundred years after that, until after
> World War II.

communists went into crush the rebels and establish authority.  is that so
unexpected during the kind of political environemnt of that time?

>   it's part of
> : china.  communists went everywhere in china, not just tibet. the
political
> : situation during that period of time demanded that the communists go
there.
> : there was a civil war and the government needed to establish power to
> : control the whole nation, or else china would've been in chaos.
>
> Tibet was an independent nation at that time. It wasn't part of China.
> IIRC, the Chinese were invited by part of the population to assist in
> removing the theocracy, which in turn ended in actual occupation. It was
> then that the government said 'Oh, it's been ours anyways, there's no
> problem here'. Well, that's kinda like saying the Mongolians should have
> Beijing because after all, it was Khanbalik first, and since it was Mongol
> first, it should be part of Mongolia.

majority of tibetans see tibet as part of china.  i don't know what else do
you want?

> That's not how it works.
>
> :> That's smokescreening for what's going on in Tibet. The Chinese are
fine
> :> with keeping the parts of the culture that make it a good tourist
> :> destination, and that's about it. Lhasa looks like every other
industrial
> :> city the Chinese have built recently, and they mighht as well make
Potala
> :> Palace into a day-spa. Parts of Tibet that offer no natural resources
or
> :> potential places to dump more Chinese are ignored. China is doing no
> :> service to the vast majority of Tibet whatsoever.
>
> : you seem to make tibet look like Sangli-la.  you think tibet is so
special
> : special?  tibet will get similar treatment that most other parts of
china
> : get.
>
> That's too bad, because the Chinese government has run roughshod over much
> of the rest of China too.

this is chinese history in the making.  china underwent other more turbulent
times in past history.

> Chinese and Tibetans are distinct from one another. They speak different
> langauges, their practice of Buddhism is different, and are of different
> cultures. Tibet /should/ be treated differently in regards to its culture
> -- that's true of any minority population in China. Why it's so sticky to
> give that regard in Tibet is probably stemmed in a lot of bitterness and a
> desire to take the material from Tibet without dealing with the culture.

if canada can do it, china can do it.

> :> It's proving a threat now, mostly because a good deal of Tibet is tired
of
> :> being exploited. The same thing's happening in Xinjiang. China only
cares
> :> about keeping the natural resources in those regions, and has shown
very
> :> little interest in the religion and culture of its peoples. Part of
it's
> :> racism, part of it's the anti-religious stance of the government. Sure,
> :> that's softened since Mao, but not nearly enough to suggest true
> :> tolerance. China will continue not to care about that callousness until
> :> something blows up and kills lots of Hans.
>
> : splittists and terrorists will always exist.  developements in tibet and
> : xinjiang are the result of resources taken from other parts of china,
> : including the use of han chinese.  what has tibet and xinjian people
> : contributed to china other than the so-called resources?
>
> How would you know if you make no effort to find out about them, don't
> care about their language or culture, and treat them as second-class

not true at all.

> citizens? Ahh, a conundrum!
>
> --
> Pilar
>