HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ymj1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Yuan M Jiang)
Subject: Re:  Tibet
Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:27:08 GMT

>or right of self determination, but on characteristics of such indepent
>movement and its possible consequence.

I'm not sure what you refer to when saying the "characteristics"
of Tibetan Independence movement.

About possible consequences of TI, it's certainly not good for Han
Chinese because we will lose a large piece of living space,
possible natural resources, tourist income and, of course,
the very pride of enchanted LARGE CHINA.

To Tibetans, I think it's up to them to judge the consequences.
Remember, they have their own national pride too, just like the
Chinese.  What would the Chinese think if others had warned
them about the consequences of
full independence from the Japanese 50 years ago: the corruption
of KMT, civial war, brutal commies, loss of Japanese injection
of industrial technology and capital.  Chinese would certainly have
been much better off economically to stay in the East Asian Common
Wealth Ring.

Of course, the characteristics of the anti-Japanese forces were
terrible: potentially corrupted KMT, tricky sneaky brutal CCP who
had kill many of their own kind, local thugs and gangsters (Red
Sorgam).

From the Tibetans I've met, I believe they are just as determined
to achieve their goal as the Chinese were 50 years ago.  I don't think
they will listen if you tell them the consequences, just as the
Chinese 50 years ago.

I think it's better off for Chinese to face
the fact and to think of PEACEFULL means to resolve the issue while
bargaining the Chinese interest to the maximum.  Chinese have better
chance now because Dalai Lama is far more flexible than the other
Tibetans, close to the flexibility of Mr. Wang1 Jing1Wei4.  He knew
the possible consequences and did not fight the Japanese. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: zyou@phakt.usc.edu (Zhongbai You)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: alternative
Date: 6 Oct 1992 11:18:56 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu

In article <1992Oct6.160907.1819@news.cs.brandeis.edu> xi@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>just wonder if Bush will sign another executive order extending the 
>previous as a substitude of the current protection bill?
>

  Bush might not be the next president, though I hope he will.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: HAIHUAN@ucs.indiana.edu
Subject:      Comment about Luo Ning's article
Reply-To: HAIHUAN@ucs.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:46:29 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

The following is written by an anonymous friend.

-------------------

> From: "(Ning Luo)" <ningluo@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
> Subject:      Would S1216 hurt those who came after 4/11/90? (continue I)

> 5,000 to 10,000 annually + their family members.  It would take more
> than 20 years for all these people to go through the waiting line.

If they could wait in the line for that long.

The reality is that many of these people are not in the line to begin with,
because they have already run out of their legal status.

For those who are in the line waiting, their legal status will run out in
3-5 years, and then they'll have to drop out of the race.

S1216 would add about 30,000 principals and about 70,000 of their dependents
into the race -- and guarantee them the winning ticket.

>But even if we do not take this into account, only 5,000 to
>10,000 new graduates who are not covered by the bill + their
>family members would now compete for the remaining quota of 1,700.
>To put it simply:

>  S1216 WOULD REDUCE THE COMPETITION FOR THE IMMIGRATION QUOTA
>BY A FACTOR OF 5 TO 9 IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS.

To put it in a simple way: the 5,000-10,000 new graduates usually
compete for 2,000 slots, but with S1216, they'd have only 1,700 to
fight for.

Also these 30,000 "extra" immigrants would take away 30,000 jobs --
In some sense, 15 years' worth, which would make things harder for
the new graduates.

Don't forget that all these 100,000 "extra" immigrants have relatives
in China,  who could then join the race for other categories.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: James Cook University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 02:11:03 GMT

The whole Canada was taken over by force, because the first group of
whitemen arrived Canada by warships (the sailers of the ship had
weapons).
 
J Su

In article <BvB98q.JCw@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:
>In article <92Sep28.151848edt.145@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>>hmmm, Nepal, maybe as long as they don't buy some military trucks and
>>anticraft guns from China to "Threaten" India!  and India will swing
>>its fat ass to start a total trade embargo to that poor land locked
>>country.  Bhutan, I am not so sure, isn't the Indian Army there?  
>>There is one more small kingdom between China & India, can't think
>>of the name, had been all but annexed by India.  Come to regional
>>terriorism/imperialism, you have to say that India is far ahead of
>>China, behaving like a total bully in South Asian sub-continent.   
>
>The Indian army is *not* in Bhutan.  The kingdom you are thinking of 
>is Sikkim.  I think Sikkim was annexed by the British, not the Indians  --
>though I stand to be corrected here.  
>
>Whether or not India occassionally uses its trade muscle to impose 
>on the Nepalis, Nepal is a soverveign country.  I have a Nepali
>visitor at this moment who would vehemently attest to that fact. 
>
>Tibet, on the other hand, was taken over by force.  This, it seems 
>to me, is tantamount to "behaving like a total bully."
> 
>-- 
>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


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Zhanguo Duan <zgd@CSD4.CSD.UWM.EDU>
Subject:      If I were the President
Reply-To: Zhanguo Duan <zgd@CSD4.CSD.UWM.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:51:41 GMT
Comments: To: ccnl@utarlvm1.uta.edu, china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

If I were the President of the United States of America, I would sign

the bill S1216, the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992.

But I would not sign it until the last day, October 12, the Columbus Day.

Exactly five hundred years before that date, Christopher Columbus,
a Spanish sailor, discovered the new world.


Happy Columbus Day!



Duan Zhanguo

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      (COPY) Re: Boston rally in protesting Shen Tong's arrest
Reply-To: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:45:00 GMT
Comments: To: ccnl <ccnl@UTARLVM1.BITNET>, china-nt <china-nt@UGA.BITNET>

I am really happy to see good report like this. I had worred that the number
of CSS show up at the Friday rally would be small. This report gives me
more confidence on the future of China. However, it also raised another
concern, -- about ZHQ's transportation fee. I assume he was in Washington
on Thursday sending out the latest CSSA report about the detail of the S1216,
which passed Senate the day before. I guess he probably flied from D.C. to
Boston and I think  he really should, rather than drive 10 hrs or so
to participate in this Rally. The possible problem is, some donator of
the CSSA account may not agree that he use the "green card fund" to buy air
ticket for ST's human right. I hope, again, my prediction would turn out to
be false.

Kevin at UCLA

P.S. If the air ticket do have difficulty to get reimbursed, Dr. Zhao
     or any person at CSSA please let me know, though I am not your "boss".

> Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 21:44:51 -0400
> Subject:      Boston rally in protesting Shen Tong's arrest
>
> This is forwarding message appear at local network
>
> Yun Fei Zhang
> ----------------------------------------------------
> >From june@bu-pub.bu.edu Sat Sep 26 13:06:18 1992
> To: june4@bucrsb.bu.edu
>
> Boston Students Rally to Protest Shen Tong's Arrest
>
> A large crowd of Chinese students in Boston area gathered
> (09/25, Friday, 2-4pm) at the State House of Massachusetts
> in a rally to protest Shen Tong's arrest.
>
> The rally was originally initiated by concerned American students
> at Boston University and Brandeis University. But once Chinese
> Students Association at Boston University (CSA) was informed
> of the rally, it immediately went into mobilization for the
> rally. The Chinese student representatives met the rally
> organizers and participated in the planning. Chinese students
> were alerted through email network, telephone calls and direct
> personal contact.
>
> As a result of active mobilization, a strong Chinese constituency
> participated in the rally: Chinese students from BU, Brandeis,
> Harvard, MIT, Northeastern, BC and other universities rallied
> together with their American peers. Representing Chinese students,
> Dr. Zhao Haiqing, spoke for an urgent need of increasing concern
> over Chinese human rights.
>
> Association of Hongkong Chinese for Human Rights in China also showed
> a strong presence in the rally. Its leader Mr. Xie emphasized that
> while demanding Shen's release, we should not forget other political
> prisoners still in jail. All its members at the rally wore large
> photos of Wei Jingsheng, Wang Dan, Xu Wenlie, and other political
> prisoners.
>
> Shen's friends Marshall Strauss and Ross Terrill also spoke at the
> rally. After the rally, the participants marched to join a Clinton
> campaign rally nearby.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Jian Ding <DING@LIBRARY.UTA.EDU>
Subject:      IFCSS Teleconference -- Forward upon request
Reply-To: Jian Ding <DING@LIBRARY.UTA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:13:52 GMT

Original_To:  @CHNT

Dear Chinese Students:

     As you know, the second IFCSS Council Telecon will be held on Oct.2.
The Schedule and agenda have been posted a week ago. If you need it, let
me know. This message is for asking you to send your opinion, suggestion,
question, and idea concerning the operation, the problem, and the fate of
IFCSS to me or the Council memebers of your area. By doing this, you can
influence IFCSS.

                  Kai Hwang (Council Member of Mid-Atlantic Area)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "(Xiaowen Li)" <lix@CRSA.BU.EDU>
Subject:      Forward for Mr. Anonymous -- Sikkim and Tibet
Reply-To: "(Xiaowen Li)" <lix@CRSA.BU.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:11:30 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Standard disclaimer for forwarding applies here.


   Sikkim and Tibet

Thanks to Mr. Richter for his response to my notes.  Unfortunately,
he seems to have provided little but some distorted political
rhetorics (for example, who and when, could Mr. Richter pray tell,
signed the Simla Accord on China's behalf?) seasoned with an
overdose of half-truths and pure falsehoods.  No medicine,
herbal or otherwise, can possibly provide remedy to his fatally
flawed case.

Nevertheless, as the idiom says, Cheng2Qian2Bi4Hou4, Zhi4Bing4Jiu4Ren2.
So I wonder if we can put his rhetorics aside, temporarily, and ask Mr.
Richter to answer some simple questions.  Here's my first one:

Nobody has the crystal ball to tell the future about the Himalayan
region we are discussing here.  But as another Chinese idiom says,
we may get some hint from what has happened in the past (Wen1Gu4 Er
Zhi1Xin1).

Now, despite all the "atrocities" the Chinese rule or misrule is
supposed to have brought to them, the Tibetan population in China
appears to have grown rapidly.  And most importantly, at least in the
so-called TAR, Tibetans still constitute the absolute, overwhelming
majority and Tibetan tongues are still widely spoken.

But what about the situation in that originally Tibetan place
called Sikkim or ZheMengXiong?  When that place "opted" to
leave the Chinese realm, it was almost completely Tibetan/Lamaist.
We saw the Tibetan population there quickly become a minority
in only some 50 years after its separation from China.

Now could Mr. Richter pray tell, what has happened to this
Tibetan/Buddhism majority today in this wonderful new province,
or state, of the Union of India?

(We might add that this phenomenon is not limited only to Sikkim.
And the wise Bhutanese administration has also noticed the same
trend, though it might be too late for the measures the Bhutanese
have since taken to resist or reverse that trend).

No, we can not tell for sure what's going to happen in the future.
But simple LOGIC and DEDUCTION lead us to project a similar fate
for Tibet in the event that it should "opt" to follow Sikkim's suit.
Could Mr. Richter kindly point out the flaws in this deduction to
simple-minded folks like us?

Postscript.   Before Mr. Richter tries to hide behind the laughable
"the CCP/PRC annexing Amdo" line, could he also please provide some
evidence for the Kashag government "governing" this "province"
prior to 1949?  (Suggestion: Read His Holiness' childhood memories
about being born and living in that "province").  It is only fair
to add that Mr. Richter's geography has shown little improvement
since his original post, which may make any serious discussion
very futile indeed.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng)
Subject: Re: Lobbying Senators Thurmond and D'Amato
Organization: Penn State, Department of Physics
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 18:08:17 GMT

In article <Bv8xqH.7BC@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> yawei@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (~{QG9p~}) writes:
>In article <DENG.92Sep26152301@dd-ap.rhic.bnl.gov> deng@dd-ap.rhic.bnl.gov (dp) writes:
|>A side note, I heard from a friend that Californians will vote on term
|>limitations.  If passed, Pelosi will be out of job soon. That's bad news on
|>the Chinese issues. Since California has a large Chinese-American (or
|>American-Chinese) community, how many Reps and Senators care about their
|>wishes?
|
|The term limit is probably for state legislatures. The state has no right
|to impose term limit on federal offices. Even if such term limit is
|imposed it cannot withstand court challenges.


	How can you be so sure?  If Tom Foley could be as sure as you are, he
would not have to put on such a fight a couple of years ago in Washington
state.  :-)  There will be legal disputes but the answer is far from 
clear.  After all, the "federal officers" are employees of their 
constituents.  The [collective] employer could have the right for their
terms.

	But term limit IS a bad idea.  If the voters can not vote out those
damned Washington insiders, it is their own problem.  :-)  


	 Eddie
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      IFCSS HQ NR-4044: Sample Letter for American Friends
Reply-To: IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:10:12 GMT
Comments: To: ccnl@utarlvm1.uta.edu, china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

**************************************************************
IFCSS Headquarters News Release No. 4044    September 30, 1992
            SAMPLE LETTER FOR AMERICAN FRIENDS
**************************************************************
Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars (IFCSS)
   733 15th Street, N.W., Suite 440, Washington, D.C.20005
         Tel. (202)347-0017  Fax: (202)347-0018
                Email: ifcss@wam.umd.edu



The Honorable George Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington D.C. 20500

Dear President George Bush:

We are a group of Americans who are deeply concerned over the
safety of tens of thousands Chinese students currently under the
protection of your executive order. We have been informed that a
bill, S1216, also known as the Chinese Students Protection Act,
has passed both the House and the Senate and is awaiting your
signature.  It is our belief that this is an extremely important
bill and therefore we strongly urge you to sign the bill into law.


Thank you.

Sincerely,

(signed)


***************************************************************
         IFCSS Headquarters Office    Signature
***************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: UFDZ@UFPINE.BITNET
Subject:      A letter cosigned by 72 Americans has been faxed to president
              Bush
Reply-To: UFDZ@UFPINE.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:00:00 GMT

In order to protect the human right of the chinese students and scholars in
this country, we, the undersigned, strongly urge President Bush to sign the bill
S1216. Thank You.   Sincerely Yours,   72 American signitures.  Sept.29,1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Yuan M Jiang <ymj1@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Zhao Haiqing's speech
Reply-To: Yuan M Jiang <ymj1@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 06:39:43 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.bitnet

at Columbia U.  About 50-100 people were there.  First 2 NYC activists
talked about the lobbying efforts conducted by the Chinese communities
in NYC area.  Then Dr. Zhao spoke.  I had to leave at the middle of
his speech for personal reasons.

There were 2 points that he raised seemed to be interesting.
He said that no matter how we view Shen Tong's home trip, his
arrest did make the passage of the Protection Bill argument
easier, and that lobbying for MFN Bill did give many Republican
congressmen pressure to support the Protection Bill.
From: yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: too far away from the topic (Re: Blood Card)
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:50:33 GMT
Organization: New York University

yeh@netix.com (Mr Shannon Yeh) writes:

>DO NOT FORGET: even if Bush passed this bill, and you got your green cards, 
>you got to remeber that these green cards are NOT free--you got your green 
>cards thru lying.  

Lying is better than killing, the whites got this land by killing, 
Surely we should do something before we join them. Otherwise they
will think us as imcompatible with them.

>shannon

Ze Yang
From: liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:45:50 GMT
Organization: New York University

mpound@astro.umd.edu (Marc Pound) writes:

>In article <liqiang.717961798@kramden> liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li) writes:
>>
>>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.
>>
>If Tibetans are Chinese, why has the Chinese government systematically
>worked to wipe out all traces of native Tibetan culture?  (For, instance
>destroying 99.8% of Tibetan temples, destroying religious documents,
>works of art, books...)

Please be fair. Nobody likes the CCP but they have not singled out Tibet in
their "culture destruction campaign"(as you would probably like to call it).

For instance, while "99.8%" of Tibetan temples were 
being destroyed, "99.8%" of just any temples in the rest of the
country were also being annihilated. Systematic research into the Tibetan
culture, e.g. folk dance, songs, has been conducted and unterminated
for 43 yrs. The Tibetan language has also been respected. It has been
restricted to local uses, however, just like Cantanese, Shanghaiese are
local only to specific areas. 

>Tibetans are NOT Chinese. Their language is as distinct from
>Chinese as their culture is. In fact, linguists divide the
>Sino-Tibetan languages in to at least two groups: Chinese and
>Tibeto-Burmese. The Tibetan language is very different from
>Chinese in its use of particles, sentence structure and even
>in the honorific language. Furthermore, Tibetan script comes from 
>northern Kashmir.

The idea to separate a country by language is groundless. How many examples
do we see in the world of multi-language countries? The grouping of people
into one country is more political, economical, historical than linguistic.

Tibetans are Chinese.

>(My info on Tibetan language comes from a 1991 post to soc.culture.china
>by Mark A. Sheldon.)

Salute to Mr. Sheldon. If he is still around the net and since you obviously
feel he is more credible, let's welcome him back. BTW, I'm fairly new to
the net and am completely ignorant of what Mr. Sheldon posted last yr.

>Marc Pound 		--  "Don't forget, free Tibet!"
>mpound@astro.umd.edu

- Li, Qiang             --  "TI? Forget about it!"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: xc17@quads.uchicago.edu (xiaoyong  chai)
Subject: Re: protection policy reversal in Australia
Reply-To: xc17@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:58:05 GMT

>In article <1992Sep23.160129.22851@news.iastate.edu> zzuo@iastate.edu (Zhiqi Zuo) writes:
>>>... the Australian
>>>government has reversed its protection policy for chinese students
>>>in that country. 18,000 chinese nationals will be forced to return
>>>to China according to this new policy.
>>
>>They won't, if they have the academic ability strong enough to stay 
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>there. 

Well, I am wondering how many would be bothered by this cute little "academic
elitism". The protection bill is bad since it makes our glorious academic
elites less visible, darn it!

There got to be some mechanism providing our academic elites a chance to
look down those non-elites, immigration happen to be one of them.  If human
rights comes into the picture, that got to be a lie. Whoever claims academic
should be the sole critarian for being able to stay, he is not only one of the
elites, he is the speaker of the elite.

Don't you forget Chairman Mao's  united front policy, in order to maximize
the interests of our academic elites, we should temporarily disregard anything,
everything else, no left wing , no right wing, no sane or insane, we should
highlight the "major contrdiction" between elite and non-elite. If you say this
is more than just expediency, then who told you that we ever had a principle?

THE ELITES ALL OVER THE WORLD, UNITE!

MAY GOD JUST BLESS US THAT THERE WILL BE NO PROTECTION 
BILL AND........ WHO CARES THE REST!

Xiaoyong Chai
From U of Chicago
From: ping@summit.ATMOS.ColoState.Edu (Ping Ding)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: The bill
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:28:23 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

Anything new about the bill?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: xi@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: alternative
Reply-To: xi@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:09:07 GMT

just wonder if Bush will sign another executive order extending the 
previous as a substitude of the current protection bill?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china