Re: (Free Tibet) Why Tibet??

"betelnut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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.
But you're proud of it. All hail the PRC, who can do no wrong!
>
> > 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.
So are the Tibetans themselves.
>
> > :> : 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?
We're supposed to take the word of communist oppressors? HA!
>
> > 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.
Like killing unarmed students in the Square.
>
> > 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.
That's great reasoning.
>
> > :> 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.
Yes.
>
> > citizens? Ahh, a conundrum!
> >
> > --
> > Pilar
> >
>
>