Re: (Free Tibet) Why Tibet??

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. 

:> 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. 

:> 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. 

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...

:> : 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. 

  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. 

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. 

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. 

:> 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 
citizens? Ahh, a conundrum! 

--
Pilar