Re: (Free Tibet) Why Tibet??

>:> 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. 

I don't think the European think in terms of right or wrong at that
point of time.  I can't believe any civilization would thought of drug
pushing and outright burglary is right, of course the
European"civilization" may be different.

>:> 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. 

China's history of domination is in form rather than substance.  The
Koreans and Viets merely exchanged gifts with China, they usually get
more than they give.  No interference of internal affairs, no stealing
resources and no drug pushing.

>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...

Racial tensions among Tibetans/Han are far and few between.
Especially nowadays where Tibetan lives has seen transformation from
agarian society towards more industrialization.  Of course, the
western press picks out and magnify specific cases, but China with her
increased confidence seems to care less and less about those things
anymore.  

>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. 

The thing is, even Dalai Lama himself doesn't go by that tune anymore.
Independent because they say so?  At the time of the Great Game, it is
pretty much worthless to claim that one's independent or not.  


>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. 

Yada Yada, in my opinion, Tibetans should be treated just the same as
any other, no special previliges whatsoever.  


>:> 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! 

There is basically no conundrum, there are just minor problems, in
5-10 years, problems would disappear.