From: ma@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: What About Tibet
Date: 25 Aug 92 11:41:53 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Aug25.014250.9039@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon) writes:
> 
> Dear friends,
> 
> I've heard before that SCC is a good place to practice compassion.
> I guess I found that out the hard way. Never mind, flame me as hard
> as you wish. It'll all be worthwhile if I can convince a single
> fair-minded Chinese friend that occupying Tibet is a wrong thing to do.
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
Dear friend, in my opinion, the whole issue here is about if the "occupying"
, or invasion as other westerners and westtern media like to use, is the 
correct word to use. If around 1950 China had occupied another country, Tibet
or whatsoever, then again, in my opinion, China and all Chinese should let
that country free. However, I believe that "O" word is not a correct one here.
The claim "Tibet is a part of China" was NOT started from PLA moving into that
region. The KMT Chinese government, and before, made the same claim. Remember
the kid Dalai Lama was "found" in Qinghai, and escorted to Lhasa by the army
of Ma Bufang (It looked very much like an internal affair to me). 
The PLA 's taking over Tibet was a part of taking over the whole China. AS you
knew, during that process, some places were done peacefully, like the city
Beijing ( Tibet the same), other places were not so peaceful, like the city
Taiyuan (the battle lasted more than 40 days, the city was completely wraped
out). The whole process was called liberation.

> Please be assured that I have no connection with any organization
> whatsoever; I act alone based on my own conscience. The hard lesson
> I learn from SCC, however, has compeled me to think hard that I
> should join a free Tibet movement. Perhaps, it'll be the last straw
> that help break the camel's back.

Well, if you can convince me that that was an occupation, then I may join in
you. But at the moment, the deal between Dalai Lama and CCP around 1950 was 
not different to the deal between Fu Zouyi and CCP, to me. They both appeared
satisfied with the deal, at least in the early period.

> 
> I've heard a lot of bad things about Tibet from my Chinese friends.
> I begin to realize that they (the Tibetans) are very babaric and it
> was neccesary for the Chinese to go in to save their souls. However,
> all the claims (of the babaric acts of the Tibetans) seemed to be
> grossly exagerated (like the West's media to China :-)
> 
Some people may say that. But it is not relevant. Every people has its good
side and bad side. 

> I've heard alot from my Chinese friends that the West is also
> babaric. Why didn't they come in and liberate the West as well?
> All I see is that they came in to beg for knowledges from the West.
> All of this and still not showing gratitude to the knowledge providers.
> Is this also the fruit of cultural revolution?
> (Sorry for the personal attack, I have emotion, too, you know)
> 
Not relevant to the subject.

> As a Christian saying goes: You always see a speck of dust in others'
> eyes but you fail to see a log within your own eyes. If babarianism
> can be used as a pretext for invading other countries then ,perhaps,
> China will top the list of deserving to be invaded. They kill their
                                             ^^^^^^^
> daughters (under the one-child policy), don't they? 
> (Or is this just negative Western press's coverage?)

Friend, that word needs a lot of discussion before use.

> 
> In my brainwashed point of view, Tibetan civilization is one of the most
> advanced on earth, if not the most. The Chinese gov may be efficient
> in deluding its own people into believing bizarre stories about the
> Tibetans; but they sure failed miserably in the eyes of scholars
> worldwide. In most, if not all, top universities all over the world,
> Tibetan studies have become so intent. Voluminoues literatures about
> philosophy and metaphysic are awaiting to be deciphered as to its
> extremely complex contents. The Tibetan had been toying with the
> absolute truth of the mind and the Universe to such a profound state
> while the Chinese still believed that China was the center of the
> Universe and that the Universe was supported by three pillars located
> within China! Had China been a province of Tibet, perhaps, she would
> have been more civilized.
> 
I agree. But at the moment, I can only say that the Tibetan chinese is just
same civilized as the Han chinese. 

> Now, scholars in all civilized countries study Tibet philosophy in order
> to LEARN alone because they realize the advancement of the Tibetan
> civilization. They also study China, too; but not to learn anything
> apart from history and how to understand China in order to derive
> economic benefit from it because they speculate that China have
> a large population base which deserves exploration. There is no
> economic to be derived from Tibet; they study Tibet based on respect
> for their civilization alone. Think about that! 
> 
As above.

> Now, the world looks
           ^^^^^
> at China as the one who destroys one of the most ancient and most
> civilized nation on earth. Much have been talked about preserving
> precious rain forest in order to save rare plant species that may
> prove to be beneficial to humankind. Most scholars in the field
> all agree that we, the world, could learn from the Tibetans. A
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> MD professor from Harvard even went to India to learn how to cure
> severe form of illness relating to immuno-deficiency from the
> Tibetan mental culture. How about preserving the civilized
> Tibetan culture for the sake of the world!
> 
OK, you are the world. Quite typical, whatever you say. 

> I was also brainwashed to believe that, in the pre-1950 Tibet, people
> were scornful of soldier profession. They regarded being soldiers as
> the lowest form of profession because it involved killing people.
> As a result of their civilized outlook, no good men want to be soldiers.
> As a result, Tibet fall easy prey to the invading Chinese troops.
> 
The Han chinese don't like to join army either, especial when there is a war.
Most poeple are afraid to die. You last sentence in above paragraph is not
quite correct. There were some small scale battles somewhere now in Sichuan.
PLA's moving in the Tibet region was not easy because of the geophysical 
condition. However, there was not some military dispute because of the 
peace deal. 

> I was also brianwashed in a reading that a Tibetan King once pleaed to
> the colonizing Mongol to spare the lives of tens of thousands of Chinese
> people. The Mongol would like to drown the rebellious Chinese, alive.
> This seemed very civilized Tibetans to me considering that the Chinese
> were their bitter enemy.
> 
In the long Chinese history, different poeple in China fought all the time.
The whole country sometimes was ruled by minorities. Again, it was basically
internal affairs.

> My dad always told me that Chinese people are trustworthy
> because they always honor contracts. What about the contract that a
> Chinese Emperor gave to a Tibetan King about respecting each other's
> territorry and peace forever? If the Chinese of present day do not
> honor this contract, then I'm afraid that the rest of the civilized world
> will not like to do business with China as much as they would like to,
> for by now "history repeats itself" has become a catch phrase the world over.
> 
The contract you mentioned probably occured many hundred years ago. I would
consider the people to be trustworthy if they can keep contract for few years.
I read, or heard there were treaties between the native Indians and those
Europeans when they first arrived. People just broke them all. So what you do?
Should we do business with their descendants?

In conclusion, again in my opinion, Tibet was , and is a part of China. People
living in that region are Chinese, just as Chinese as any other Chinese. Han
chinese may treat Tibetan chinese as good, or bad as treating themselves. 
Tibetan chinese may have done the same. Improving human rights condition, and
any other living conditions is our goal for all Chinese, including the
minorities. I also believe that it should be done by working together. People
who try to create conflicts between people are evil intended.

> 
> Your half-Han brother,
> -Tawit

Your half non-Han minority Chinese brother.
 Ma
> 
> -----------------------------
> Note: To ensure that I properly receive your flames, please do not
> change the subject headline. I use it in my search command.
> ------------------------------
> 
> Be a good citizen...Don't be yourself!