Re: (Free Tibet) Why Tibet??

"Pilar Quezzaire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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

bullsheeyit.  europeans just wanted to exploit other nations for resources.

> 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.

> 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?

> :> 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.

so?  the chinese already went in since hundreds of years ago.  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 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.

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.

> : 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.

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?

>
> 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.

yeah improvement is always possible and needed, just like everywhere else in
china.

>
> --
> Pilar
>