From: liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:00:07 GMT
Organization: New York University

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

>In article 1429 <92Sep29.114809edt.114@orasis.vis.toronto.edu>(17 more) 
>liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>>well, what's the difference, India still want it, does it?  It just continued
>>the regional bully role Queen Victoria's Empire.  As I recall, British(Indian)
>>troops and then spin doctors was working on Tibet really fast before
>>the Brits fucked up in both WWs and shrank their empire, first by invading
>>Tibet sacking Lasha when when China was in internal turmoil and too weak
>>to fight for its territory, and then bribe Tibetan diplomats to sign
>>away bordering territories to India behind both the Regional Tibetan
>>government and the central government's back.  
> 
>The difference is that India did not invade and hold with force a
>sovereign country called Tibet.

Tibet has never been a sovereign country since Yuan Dynasty (13th Century ~
14th Century). There is no official reference these days that supports this
idea. Please avoid imposing your own (ficticious) concepts on other people -
you are not likely to win much sympathy. BTW, how long has Canada been
Canada?

> 
>>Sure it's a soverveign country, as long as it doesn't sneeze in front
>>of India.  By the way, Panama and Granda are also soverveign countries,
>>but who gives a shit about them?  
> 
>Whether you give a "shit" about them or not, Nepal and Bhutan are 
>sovereign countries.  India gives enough of a "shit" about them to let 
>them remain sovereign countries.  I rather suspect that Tibet would 
>like to be sovereign too.
> 

Salute to India and China for respecting their neighbors' sovereignty.
Salute to China for being able to maintain her integrity.

>>Can you explain to me how it is done?  Do you know, before the communists
>>ever existed, they are "Tibetan" troops in "China", and "Chinese" troops
>>in "Tibet", and "Muslim("Hui") troops all over the place too.  China unified
> 
>You mean: "there were Tibetans in Tibet."  China annexed the whole of 
>the Tibetan province of Amdo (renaming as Qinghai province) and much of 
>Kham province (annexing much of it to Sichuan, Gansu and Yunnan provinces) 
>leaving less half the original country as Xizang. 
> 

China "annexed" Tibet in Yuan Dynasty. It is contraversial as to the location
of the border of the "original country" called Xizang. What was the size
of the "original country" called Canada?

>>yes, as long as the native rights doesn't bug the Quebeckers,
>>and they can't have whatever they want as long as whiteman can
>>build a huge dam or golf course on their /hunting/traditonal/scared/burial
>>land.  
> 
>Canada has been giving back huge tracts of land to the native and many 
>more negotiations are underway.  What has China been doing?
> 

China has just announced plans to economically open up Tibet so that Tibetan
residents (ethnic Zang, Han, Hui's, etc) can enjoy the same opportunity to
prosperity as people of the rest of the country.

>>and on the second note, what's china doing?  I don't deny China don't
>>have a democratic government.  However, you will be surprised that
>>Cultural assimulation is not at all one of the tactic of that brutal
>>government.  Tibetans are still there, after thoudsands of years of
>>livint with the Han, so are the Muslims"Hui", I think they wind up
> 
>Why did 100,000 Tibetans leave in 1959?  Why are 100's more leaving 
>every month?  Why was a Tibetan shot in Nepal trying to escape Tibet
>as was reported in China News Digest last month?
> 

These figures need to be verified as your descriptions have been anything but
accurate. 

>>The MOngolians are still roaming the plain & desert, although inner mongolia 
>>now has large industrial cities, and in the cities mongolians and Hans are
> 
>Inner Mongolia is now >95% Han.  Tibet (=Xizang+Qinghai+parts of Gansu, 
>Sichuan and Yunnan) is now close to 50% Han or Hui.  The Tibetans are 
>afraid that China is trying the same strategy in Tibet as it used in 
>Inner Mongolia.  What surer way to prevent minority independence 
>movements.  Tibetans have protested this policy vehemently.

Your term "Tibetans" has been too general. 


>-- 
>Conrad Richter                     richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
>Richters Herbs                     71550.3411@compuserve.com
>Goodwood, ON L0C 1AO Canada        Tel 416-640-6677 / Fax 416-640-6641

Bye bye!

- Li, Qiang
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china