Re: (Free Tibet) Why Tibet??

In soc.culture.hongkong betelnut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

: "Magister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
:> "betelnut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
:> > tibet has been a backward civilization stuck in the middle ages.  the
:> > chinese must civilize them.
:>
:> Even if they do not want the Chinese communist version of
:> civilization?

: that's the problem of being backward/uncivilized.

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 
after-effects of that short-sightedness all over the world. China has made 
some of the same mistakes. 

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.

:> It is appalling that the Chinese play the race card at every turn, but
:> it is simply another method of dodging the real issues. These parrots
:> of Beijing obviously have no minds.

: tibet is part of china, although an autonomous zone.

Because the Communists went in, occupied it, and said it was. 

:  tibet should advance
: along with the rest of china while preserving its distinct tibetan culture.
: of course, tibetan culture, just like every other culture in the world, will
: change with progress.

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. 

: if china left tibet to rot, it wouldn't do good to both tibet and china.
: even within a neighborhood, there would be conflicts between the
: poor/uneducated and the "rich"/educated.  also, a backward tibet under the
: influence of china's enemies would prove to be a major threat to china.

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. 

I can't say what the government's original intent was, and I can't say how 
much they heeded the calls of Tibetans for modernization and an end to the 
theocracy when Tibet was first occupied. I can only say that just about 
everyone realizes now that there has to be a better solution to how to 
deal with Tibet than what's up at the moment. 


--
Pilar