From: yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: New York University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:08:09 GMT

yjj@neptune.ctr.columbia.edu (Yuan Jiang) writes:

>In article <1992Oct3.030008.29321@cmcl2.nyu.edu> yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang) writes:
>>wendong@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Wen-Dong Tang) writes:
>>
>>
>>Division increases hostality,
>>mideast, former Sovit Union and Yogslava are good examples. Division
>>do harm to ecnomic intercourse, while eroupean is unifying, I cann't
>>understand why Mr. Tang encourage independence movement here.

>There is a saying "good fence makes good neighbors."  So division
>does not neccessarily increase hostality.  Peace is maintained when

I have my examples here, what's yours, Mr. Jiang? I don't object the
saying you cited above. But I am wondering if you think there is no 
fence between Tibetan Chinese and Han Chinese, or you just think the fence 
between Tibetan Chinese and Han Chinese is not good enough, and you have an 
ideal for a good fence.
How about the fence created by a third country's millitary base there, 

>good fence is built so that people's rights and interests are well
>protected and increasing communication.  people with blood relations
>tend to live together better.

Tibetan Chinese's blood is closer to the Han Chinese more than any 
race round them. Also you assertion sounds racism. 

South Africa Government is glad to hear "people with blood relations
tend to live together better".

>There were so many times when Europe was tried to be united by force.
>There were 1st and 2nd world wars and many wars before.  After 2nd WW,

There is no comparison here, Tibet is part of China for a long history.
We inherited that land legally and peacefully, how can you compare this 
with those bloody annexing.  We are palying the game under the rule most 
people accept. Most important, I object TI because I think that will hurt 
our interest.

>the eastern Europe was basically united under one power by force, whereas
>the western European counties were devided into small countries again.
>However, people's countries' rights and interests were largely respected,
>and it leads to a peaceful and prosperous western Europe.  Now they
>are planning to reduce their fences at certain parts to increase their
>communication and economic strength.

The western Europe and U.S. and Japan are united as tight as eastern
Europe, the only difference is free market economy.

>The US was started with 13 states with high deviding fences.  The fences
>were graduaouly reduced.

How is it reduced. Why don't you mention the Civil War and Mecxian War?
Without those wars, U.S. cannot be a country you see today.

>Did democracy and self-determination build up the hatred among eastern
>Europeans?  No, it was the forced unification led to the hatred

Why so many deathes every day?

>and it was the Stalinist and Tito education that led to the intolerance.
>There are the old communists who try to keep their power and
>prevent people to seek their legitimate interests.  Many of the
>Soviet republics' borders were drown by CCCP to tear apart the ethnic
>minorities.

Please enlighten me here, then how about Mid-East, India and Pakistan,
Aferacan countries?

>Is the breaking up of the former Soviet a bad thing?  I don't

Under the current circumstance, they have no choice, when you
say "bad", you should compare this with something.

>think so.  Wait 20 years when they finally learn how to respect
>each other.

>I hope Chinese will eventually learn that "the mellon will not
>be sweet if you tear it from the stem with force."  (sorry, if

Americans won't believe this, they got this land by force, their
country bird is an eagle.

Ze Yang

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china