From: lix@BUCRSB.BU.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: 1.2 million killing etc.
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:58:40 GMT

Joe Huang wrote:
====================
In response to Lix :

>> That refutation did not interest me, but some of your arguments really shock
>> me...
>> 
>>    When the exile Tibetan sources cite 1.2 million dead, they are 
>>    referring to cumulative deaths among all Tibetans over the last 40 years. 
>>    Do I accept the number ? Definitely with a grain of salt, but I do accept 
>>    the overriding charge of Chinese brutality.
>> 
>> First of all, one years ago when I was involved in argument on SCC, it was
>> said 1.2 million killing, not 1.2 million death. 

I remembered the opposite, but, not trusting my memory, I found a copy 
of Mark's original posting from my files (original Sheldon post Tue 
May 21 1991) :

>MS> (deleted)
>MS> ...
>MS> There are a couple of immediate questions when the Tibetan
>MS> Government in Exile claims that 1.2 million Tibetans had died as a
>MS> result of Chinese occupation.  First, do they mean Tibetans in the
>MS> so-called Tibet Autonomous Region?  No.  Indira Singh posted the
>MS> ...
>MS> The next question that comes up is, do these numbers all come from
>MS> people killed by, for example, PLA soldiers?  The answer is no.
================================

Thanks for digging out the old file. But I still failed to see what
is "the opposite" you remembered? Please try to dig out an earlier
article which MS was defending.

The lie "1.2 million killing" has been flying for a few years, the
recent one is only a few days ago. Some one like MS is smarter, he never
said directly "1.2 million killing", but he defended the one who said
so. MS's words are also smarter: "1.2 million Tibetans had died as a
result of Chinese occupation." smart, Right?

Even though, no evidence for 1.2 million death as claimed. The only "evidence"
shown on SCC was some extrapolated statistical data. I questioned the
author of that article, and he apologized for his mis-handling of data
in private mail.

You don't accept the number, do you? But you accept the overriding charge
of "Chinese brutality". I suggest not -- let's make facts straight before
accepting such charge, because too many lies are flying.

===========Begin quote=============
(deleted) 
If Chinese rule is popular, the Dalai Lama would have been forgotten long ago 
and the Chinese government would not have to garrison Tibet like it does.
As I've said personally to you, my original skepticism about Tibetan claims 
changed after reading of the reception accorded the Dalai Lama's representatives 
in Tibet in the early 1980's, and various Western and Indian accounts ranging 
from frivolous traveller tales to serious academic studies.  You are free 
to dismiss every critical account of Chinese rule in Tibet as a part of a 
giant lamaist plot, but I find them more credible than PRC accounts.
==========End quots=================

You certainly have some points here. But the basic logic seems oversimplified.
Say: If Chinese rule is popular, the Dalai Lama would have been forgotten
long ago. Here you ignored the role of religion, I think.

I understand your sympathy to those who are oppressed, no matter what race
they are. However, this world is more complicated than "sympathy or not".
Different kind of people joined the TI chorus for different purposes. More
and more are trying to make their opportunity especially after the broken
of xUSSR.

I'd like to make sure what the majority of paople in Tibet think before
I join such chorus.

==============Begin quote==================
>> 
>> >     The Japanese would be the best to say who defeated them in World War Two. 
>> 
>> I don't understand this. Maybe you have some underlined assumptions?
>> 

No. I was only saying that the Japanese would be the best judge of who inflicted 
the most damage on them in the war.  

>> 
>> It is not a suprprise to me that some from China may over-estimated the
>> contribution of "DiDao Zhan", "DiLuei Zhan" in the WWII. But it really
>> shocks me to see a oversea Chinese to explain "Washington, London, and
>> Chungking" as "USA, UK, and USA&UK". It is funny for Japanese to surrend
>> to USA and UK twice, while ignoring China, isn't it?
>>

I'm sorry you misinterpret this anecdote as my assessment of the 
war effort, which it was not. I was recounting Japanese behavior 
indicating the hesitancy of militarists to accept surrender to China. 
================End quote====================

I sincerely hope it is my faulty of "misinterpretation". However, I still
think that you were underestimating China's effort and sacrifice in
defeating Japanese.

History sometime repeats. In the WWII, no country, be it USA, UK, or xUSSR,
could underestimate the role of Chinses resistance to Japanese control.
However, after the war was over, historians would count how many tanks
and planes were used by poor Chinese, how many bombs were thrown into
JP by Chinese, and they found poor Chinese really did nothing:-( Once I
read a WWII book, the only contribution of Chinese mentioned in that book
is "help USA to build an airport near Chengdu" :-(

Similarly, after xUSSR's fall, now more and more experts are suggesting
China Card was really useless or will be useless,...

That is natural for others to act for the best interest of their country,
nothing to blame. But as a Chinese, I will not follow them to deplete the
contribution of our father's generation, made from their blood and lives,
no matter how poor they were in deed.





Newsgroups: soc.culture.china