From: zzuo@iastate.edu (Zhiqi Zuo)
Subject: Re: Tibet (Re: A few questions for President Bush)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:19:04 GMT

In article <69846@ut-emx.uucp> joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes:
>Note that followups have been directed to soc.culture.china
>
>Let me being by quote from Melvin Goldstein (who seems to be one of
>the few objective writers on the subject) in the introduction to
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I believe this to the most .

>"The Dragon and the Snow Lion" he writes:
>
>  The pervasive tendency of both the Tibetan exiles and the Chinese
>  leadership to describe events in Tibet in either black or white-
>  horrendous oppression or magnificient reform and development-
>  pressures the nonspecialist to choose one side and accept its
>  version in entirety.  This chapter attempts to provide an 
>  alternative; an interpretation in which shades of gray are explored
>  and the complex historical antecedents of today's situation are
>  presented.
>
>(below are my words)
>
>I'm now going to present a brief recent history of Tibet.  My main
>source for this is Melvin Goldstein.  I strongly distrust anything
>written by the Tibetan exile community or by the Chinese government.
>
>Whether Tibet was part of China before 1951 is often the subject of
>long and pointless debate.  The problem is that both sides generally
>agree on the historical facts but disagree on what they mean.  For
>example, you can point out the fact that in 1911 Tibet issued a
>declaration of independence and was out of the control of the Central
>Government until 1951.  On the other hand, you can also point out that
>that doesn't mean anything because almost every province in China
>issued a declaration of independence in 1911, and there were many 
>provinces which are out of the control of the Central Government till
>1949 when the Communists took over.  
>
>And so it goes back and forth.  I try and stay out of this particular
>debate because it's useless.
>
>Tibetan rule under the PRC can roughly be divided into four periods.
>1951-1959,1959-1980,1980-1989, and the present.
>
>In 1951, the Communists who had taken over in 1949 signed an agreement
>with the Dalai Lama which promised a great deal of local autonomy.  It
>was an agreement which was strained to begin with because it attempted
>to match orthodox Maoism with Buddhism.  What ultimately broke the
>agreement was in part the ambiguity in the word "Tibet."  The
>Communists believed that the word Tibet meant areas which were under
>the political control of the Dalai Lama before 1951.  The Tibetan
>government understood Tibet to mean areas which had large numbers of
>Tibetans.  Thus when the Communists started land reform in areas with
>large numbers of Tibetans but which were outside the control of the
>Dalai Lama before 1951, and refugees from these areas started flowing
>into Lhasa, you had a explosive situation which ended in riots, the
>Dalai Lama fleeing, and direct control by the Chinese government.
>
>The years 1959 to 1980 were some of the darkest and insane periods in
>Chinese history.  First you had the Great Leap Forward, which was a
>attempt at industrialization which left millions dead, and second you
>had the Cultural Revolution, which was an attempt to destroy
>traditional Chinese culture and replace with something new based on
>Marxist.  As an example of what went on.  My mother's side of the
>family had their house destroyed and looted by Red Guards, and my
>father's side of the family fled their home province in order to avoid
>being killed.  
>
>This sort of thing also occurred in Tibet.  The bug difference is that
>the Tibetans tended to see things there as Han versus Tibetan, whereas
>Han Chinese didn't see things in ethnic terms.
>
>By 1976, the Cultural Revolution was finished, and in 1980 the
>government reevaluated its Tibet policy.  Monasteries were reopened,
>and lots of capital was directed toward Tibet, partly as compensation
>for the Cultural Revolution.  This lead to problems as the booming
>economy in Tibet encouraged Han settlers from surrounding parts of
>China to move into Tibet.  There were relatively few such settlers,
>but they moved almost exclusively to the cities, and the result of
>this was that the Tibetans in the major cities felt threatened with
>becoming a minority there.  This lead to tensions which exploded in
>1989 which a riot that began when local police beat up a monk.
>Martial law was declared in Lhasa and things went downhill.  
>
>A few comments.............
>
>1. The most important thing to remember in understanding the Chinese
>attitude is that the PRC government has not been systematically more
>oppressive within Tibet than in other parts of China.  There have been
>arbitrary detentions, accusations of torture, and supression of free
>speech in Tibet.  These things have gone on the other parts of China
>too.  Thus, pointing to human rights abuses in Tibet as justification
>from Tibetan independence will just make the average Chinese person
>mad at you.
>
>2. The PRC government has not tried to supress Tibetan culture per se.
>Chinese money contains Tibetan script, and the various human rights
>groups which have visited Tibet have found little evidence of cultural
>suppression.  Elementary schools are taught in Tibetan, and the plan
>to teach junior high schools in Tibetan by 1993, senior high schools
>by 1997, and colleges by 2000.  Chinese regulations say that all
>official communications should be written mainly in Tibetan.
>
>3. The human rights situation in Tibet, while not good, is MUCH, MUCH
>better than it was in the 1960's and early 1970's, when all of
>Mainland China was mess.  
>
>4. While the use of torture and arbitrary detentions is evil and to be
>deplored, they are a far cry from genocide.  It has often been stated
>that one to two million Tibetans have killed by the Chinese
>occupation.  The problem with this figure is that every time one
>traces the source of this number, it ends up at the Tibetan
>government-in-exile, who obviously has a vested interest in the
>matter.  So far, I have not heard the charge of genocide come from a
>neutral observer, such as Amnesty International, the International Red
>Cross, or the United Nations, even though these groups have been
>active in charging the Chinese government with torture, arbitrary
>imprisonment, and surpression of free speech.  Unless someone presents
>evidence for genocide which is not connected to the Tibetan
>government-in-exile, I would tend to discount such charges.
>
>

Like a scientific article , can't help reposting it .
Hope to get more information from this kind .