From: richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:47:53 GMT

In article 1502  "(Xiaowen Li)" <lix@CRSA.BU.EDU> writes:
>The British ran ZheMengXiong, now going only by the name Sikkim, with
>a puppet and had a couple of spies living near him.  When sweet talks
>became a bit stale, threats carried the day, backed by the presence of
>British troops nearby.  Meanwhile thousands of people who did not speak
>a word of Tibetan were shipped in and dumped on the place. By the time
>the British left India in 1947, Sino-Tibetan speakers native to Sikkim
>were in the minority. Tibetan culture and the use of Sino-Tibetan
>languages were both already in sharp decline.
 
Are you proud that China is doing the same thing to Tibet itself?
Tibetans were never enamoured by the Brits.  When Younghusband marched 
into Lhasa the Tibetans clapped, and the Brits were surprised to say 
the least, since British advances were resisted up to then.  Little did 
they know that clapping in Tibet meant "go away!" (= Tib., pen pa dog). 
 
So if I were you I would not try to use Sikkim as ruse to detract 
attention from what China has and is doing to Tibet.  Tibet's supporters
do not condone what the Brits may or may not have done in Sikkim.  They 
are concerned with the most immediate problem facing the Tibetan people
today: the occupation of Tibet by China.  
 
By the way, it is notable that you use quotes around your use of 
"generosity" in connection with the 13th Dalai Lama's foreign policy. 
At least you acknowledge that Sikkim was not willing ceded to the 
Brits.  And so you acknowledge that the Dalai Lama conducted foreign 
policy for Tibet.  Sounds like what a sovereign country does, doesn't 
it?
 
 
In article 1505 phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng) writes:
>I feel more comfortable to see that self-determination of local people
>is not recongonised by most of the Western countries, such as USA, UK,
>Australia,.....(Canada may or may not be an exception).  The Chinese
>government is doing as good or as bad as most of the Western countryies
>in treating the similar problems.
 
The rights to self-determination have been recognized more and more
around the world.  Canada is not the only one.  The split of 
Czechoslavakia into the Czech and Slovak republics is an 
excellent, recent, example.  So is the new found self-determination 
of the former Soviet republics.  
 
>>Why not let each province and autonomous region decide in the same 
>>way Canada is deciding?  Are you afraid of the results?
>I am not happy about the way of making the decision concernning the
>future of a country.
 
I know.  Most people in the dominant position are uncomfortable with 
any process which may lead to the giving up of powers to a minority.  
Canadians too are uncomfortable.
 
>>Shall I go to China?  
>There you can go is your bussiness.  But you have not answered my question
>yet.  Should all Canadians except for the aboriginal leave Canada and
>leave the whole Canada back to the original owers of the land?
 
We may have to leave the areas returned back to the aborigines.  But 
funnily enough, there hasn't been a mass exodus so far from lands 
already given back.  I guess the aborigines like and trust "whitemen"
now.
 
>There is no clear boundary between a small land and a big land.  The
>British government also used troops to keep the land 'Northern Ireland'
>as similar as the Chinese government did for keeping Tibet.
 
Boundaries can be drawn.  It's not a supernatural trick. 
 
>The aboriginal are expecting the right of deciding for themself from the
>Canadian government.  The answer is still not known.
 
It is already happening.  It is fait accompli in some local areas. 
When can the Tibetans expect their land back?
 
>The Tibetans in Tibet share the same right as the same as other parts of
>citizens of PRC.  The Chinese government is also trying to negotiate
>with them.  After another 50 years, a common negotiation will be
>reached.
 
Why 50 years?  Will it take that long to extract the uranium, gold, 
timber, etc. out of Tibet?
 
 
In article 1508 yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang) writes:
>If you think Abraham Lincoln did something wrong by "invading"
>the southern states, then I have to say that we have very different moral
>standards, also I am not sure how many people around the world
>would share your view on this topic, I wish your view is not
>too good to be practical.
 
I suppose you supported the Japanese when they invaded China too. 
You can't have it both ways. 
 
>"self determination" can only be applied to colonies, can those illegal
>imigrants decide whether or not they can be a citizen of the united
>states? or can they cirle a piece of land in the united states, then
>declare independence? No!
 
Tibet *is* a colony.  I have already stated that. 
 
>Mr. richter must be a communist, at least his metality is very
>close to those communists. He hasn't shown a little bit of 
>respect of other people's lawful right. He forces
>others to accept his utopian idealogy. (he said the North States shouldn't
>have "invaded" the Southern States.)
 
I am not a communist.  
 
>Tibet has been part of China for a long time, keeping our country's
>integrity is our lawful right, I don't see why Mr. richter can 
>force us accept his idealology. 
 
I am not trying to force you to accept anything.  If you have something
constructive to add to the debate, please do so.  Do have any facts?
 
 
In article 1517 EE102@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK (Gao Mr ZhiJie) writes:
>>I take it then that you agree that China has "behaved like a bully" by
>>invading Tibet, since you do not rebut this point in my previous posting
>>
>  You are absolutely right here.  The Tibet's sovereignty
>  was taken by force some 700 years
>  ago and the invader behaved like a bully ( biggest bully in the history
>  that then had governed Russia for about 100 years.).
 
Good, good, we agree on something.
 
>  You probably meant to refer to the use of military force by the
>  Chinese Government to suppress an organised
>  and armed rebellion in Tibet about 30+ years ago.
>  But you should be aware that using the word  'invading Tibet' to
>  the describe that event is very vague in English. 
 
Vague?  Check earlier postings: I already gave the dictionary 
definition by which I go. 
 
>  First of all, Tibet
>  (officially called Xizang Autonomous Region) was a part of the China
>  and the Chinese army was stationed there. Although there might be
>  reinforcement from outside the region. ( You don't usually say that
>  the US government was going to invade LA during the late riots
>  when President Bush ordered troops to move into that area. )
 
Two Ambans in Tibet do not an army make.  Ambans (= ambassadors) were 
stationed in Lhasa just as Tibetan government officials were stationed
in the Chinese capital.
 
>  Secondly, although the Dalai Lama, the nominal leader of the rebellion
>  , was the head of the administration of that region, the legality of
>  his rebellion is out of question and he no longer represented the
>  people of that region after he betrayed his home country and the
>  constitution under which he assumed the duty. 
 
"..the legality of his rebellion.."  that's a new one.  Since 
when are rebellions 'legal'?  Anyway, it was not a rebellion.  
Sovereign countries don't "rebel" against invaders, they defend. 
The Dalai Lama lead a retreat out of his country and some of the 
Tibetan forces managed to flee with him, or followed him, to the border.  
 
>  Thirdly, the rebels by no means represented
>  the interests of then one million population in that region.
 
The defenders most definitely represented the interests of the 
population, which by the way, was considerably more than the 
number you quote.
 
>  If you really interested in that bit of history you won't have any
>  problem finding out sufficient documents that would tell the the
>  follows:  Some Tibetan nobles and lamaists fundamentalists resorted
>  violences because they did not want to free the slaves (amounted 95% at that
>  time ) which was a part of the social reform agreed by the Dalai Lama
>  to be carried out in Tibet. NOT (as the Dalai Lame & Co later claimed)
>  because they suddenly felt they wanted to regain the independence that
>  their ancestors lost 700 years ago.
>  These traitors indeed managed to organise and armed a significant amount
>  of Tibetans ( about 10 thousands maybe? ) in the revolt. But you have
>  got to appreciate the speritual
>  power of the Dalai Lama, as the Head of the
>  lamaists, over the religious people ( Tibetans are most devoted
>  religious people in todays world as you probably already knew ) and
>  the royalty of the nobles private troopsand some
>  slaves who were still not freed. ( Tibetans also
>  have high reputation of royalty and honesty. 
 
What in effect you are suggesting is that China did Tibet a favour
by invading Tibet and imposing a new order on Tibet.  Tibetans never 
asked the Chinese to come and change anything.  Tibetans, as I have 
said repeatedly, only want to run their own affairs.  They do not 
need Chinese help.  
 
>  <BTW, many of them
>  went back and settled down in Tibet in last decade.>  
 
Some did, that is true.  Some who grew very old and wanted, after 
20-30 years in exile, to die in their homeland.  Most went to the 
areas of Kham and Amdo that were annexed to Chinese provinces.  
There are some areas where there is little or no Han or Hui 
introgression.  But few Tibetans less than 50-60 years decided to stay, 
realizing that there is little future under Chinese domination, 
because eventually the Chinese will get to all of the remote pockets.
They cite very bad conditions for the Tibetan people throughout most 
areas now under direct administration by the government: overt and systemic 
racism, decimation of Tibetan culture, and total lack of control over 
their affairs.  
 
>  The amount of lies
>  produced by the Dalai Lama & Co is really exceptional, which just
>  tells you how desperately they wanted their privileges back. And the way
>  they stuck to these lies are also amazing. Reflecting the influence of their
>  ex-Nazi adviser? )
 
This opens you to a very weak position.  The Chinese government has been 
and still is a master of propaganda.  The extent to which the government
brainwashed its own citizens is well known.  These activities during 
the Cultural Revolution, and still continuing, are by far the greatest such 
brainwashing enterprises ever taken in the history of mankind.  No greater 
numbers of people were affected.  I rather suspect that nationals from the 
PRC who populate this net are still brainwashed.  

-- 
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