From: liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:05:59 GMT
Organization: New York University

richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:

>In article 1526 liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li) writes:

>>Look at our recent 150 yrs' of history. Don't you see that
>>this is the longest period that we have enjoyed for peaceful development?
> 
>China has been at peace for the last 150 years? You can't be serious.
> 

Please. There was one more sentence before my statements you quoted here.
The original was:

China's economic reforms have been underway for more than 13 yrs. Look at
our recent 150 yrs' of history. Don't you see that this is the longest period
that we have enjoyed for peaceful development?

So you have a major misunderstanding here. I'd rather think you did it 
unintentionally. 

>>Are you really so proud that those aborigines who didn't "like and trust"
>>... are dead?
> 
>No I am not proud.  What about you, are you proud of the Chinese 
>record in Tibet?
> 

I'm proud that slavery has been abolished in Tibet. I admit there are
human rights abuses but these happen just about everywhere else in China. 
Tibet has not been singled out by the central gvnmt to inflict these
abuses.

>>>Why 50 years?  Will it take that long to extract the uranium, gold, 
>>>timber, etc. out of Tibet?
>>
>>The Chinese have been prospecting for "uranium, gold, timber, etc" in that
>>part of China but in vain for a while. Would you mind enlightening them on where
>>exactly in Tibet can one find these resources? Don't use your ignorance
>>as your "valid arguments".
> 
>Sorry to disappoint you: 
>  1. Gold strike in Amdo: a "beacon of hope for thousands of Chinese" 
>     while the grazing lands of Tibetan nomads have benn "ravaged in 
>     areas where the miners strike gold."  " In Qumarleb county some 
>     50,000 to 60,000 gold miners now far outnumber the 17,000 local 
>     people -- Tibetan herdsmen.  The miners have damaged more than 
>     86,000 acres of grazing land there."  (Daniel Southerland, "In 
>     Qinghai, the Wild West of China.  Battling Miners Scramble for 
>     Gold," _Washington Post, 15 December 1988.)
>  2. Timber in Kham: In the upper reaches of Minjiang, the forest cover has 
>     fallen from 30 percent in the early 1950s to 18.8 percent.  The 
>     result has been dramatically increased environmental degration 
>     from higher wind speeds, more severe droughts, decreased snow fall 
>     and a shorter frost-free season."  (Dong Zhiyong, "Present 
>     Situation of Forest Administration in Southwest region of China and 
>     Its Role in River Basin Management, _Watershed Management 
>     Proceedings_, ICIMOD, Kathmandu, October 1985, p.2.)
>  3. Uranium:  China has uranium developments underway.  I will post 
>     refs when I have a chance. 
> 

I'm not disappointed at all. As a matter of fact, if your refs can really
show (I doubt it though) that Tibet can to a significant extent add to
China's reserve of natural resources, I might feel proud of my motherland
all the more. Unfortunately, up to now, Tibet is one of the few areas 
that only consume the central gvnmt's money. Please feel free to post
more refs. You will be doing us a favor so thank you.

>>Again, as I have repeated, Tibetans are Chinese. Don't try to stir up
>>hatred among different Chinese groups. In the remote areas of China, everybody
>>has to live under harsh conditions. After all, China is still a developing
>>country.
> 
>Nothing that I do or say or write is going to have any effect on hatred
>between groups.  So don't worry.  By the way, Tibetans are not Chinese.  
>I know, this is hard for you -- again, Tibetans are not Chinese.  
> 

My def. of Chinese: citizens of China. Since Tibet is and has been for 
700+ yrs a part of China, Tibetans (Hans, Zangs, Huis, etc) are Chinese.
When they travel to Canada, they use a Chinese passport.

>>Everybody has to take a stand and really believe what he or she thinks is
>>the truth. In this case, most PRC nationals believe that Tibet is an
>>integrate part of China. It happens that the current Chinese regime takes
>>the same stand.
> 
>Most PRC nationals learned their history from the PRC government, is that 
>not correct?  This "history" cannot be trusted, as the schools were 
>an integral part of the propaganda machine in the PRC.  
> 

Most netters have had access to various refs other than the 200-page
CCP high school history textbook. They are even able to think independently
by themselves. Are you the only un-"brainwashed" netter? 

> 
>In article 1538 yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang) writes:
>>Now, the question becomes: is Tibet a colony or not? If you have made
>>your point clear that you only support self determination of colonies,
>>I think nobody will argue with you, because we all support this, and
>>has been supported this.
>>
>>Now, I am wondering if our definitions on colony are different, if a
>>group of people has joined into a country for hundreds of years, and all
>>the people has been enjoyed all the rights of the citizens of that 
>>country, can we call the land of those people as a colony?
> 
>Tibetans have never joined China.  Tibet was forceably annexed to 
>China. 
> 

The formation of a country is usu a showdown of force. Look at US, Canada, 
Russia, etc. We respect political reality which has be put into international
laws especially when the reality is 700+ old.

> 
>In article 1539 liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li) writes:
>>Generally speaking, anyone who has access to the net has at least a college
>>degree and deserves respect intellectually. Please don't use such ambiguous
>>terms to intimidate them.
>>
>>In history, truth doesn't always go with someone who always quotes "the 
>>people" and the Chinese have had extremely rough experience with such
>>hypocrites, period.
> 
>Again, I ask what is your point?  Why can't I use the term "Tibetan 
>people?"  Do you have linguistic expertise that I lack?

My point is: 

I warn netters against hypocrites and not give them too much credit when
they quote "the people". 

I have more linguistic expertise than you in Chinese not English.

- Li, Qiang