From: richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:25:50 GMT

In article 1526 liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li) writes:
>>I think you have run out of meaningful arguments and are resorting to
>>absurdities.  Why don't you use your time more effectively by getting 
>>China serious about discussing terms with the Tibetans for a referendum 
>>on independence?  
>
>Look, this "referendum on independence" for Tibet is YOUR business. Why do 
>you think it's my "absurdities"?
 
I have no idea why you say I can't use the term "Tibetan people."  You 
are wasting our time with mumble jumble that no one can understand.
 
>Can you honestly say you represent the "Canadian people"? So why are 
>you representing the "Tibetan people" and the "Chinese people" here?
 
I *am* Canadian.  I don't represent anybody but myself. 
 
>As for the preservation of the American Indian language and culture
>in Canada, Canada's policy has done great damage. The Indian language
>enjoys third class status in Canada, as English is the primary medium of
>instruction and "most good jobs" are impossible without English. 
 
Agreed.  
 
>Look before you leap.
 
I have, and I see injustices in Tibet at the hands of the Chinese 
rulers.
 
>I don't think anybody on the net objects to what you call "the rights to
>self-determination". The risk is not to abuse these rights and realize them
>only at the appropriate time. I'm sorry I view the "new found self-determina-
>tion of the former Soviet republics" with a little reservation. I don't 
>oppose their independence but I regret the violence and hatred invoked 
>in the region. How do you like what's been going on in the former 
>Yugoslavia? Do you see more "new found self-determination" or more "new found
>hatred"?
 
Nobody wants to see violence in these situations.  But violence doesn't 
spring out of no where.  In the former Soviet republics and in Yugoslavia
there were deeply held hatreds dating back many years.  Clearly, over 
40-70 years of unity did not eradicate these hatreds.  China is not 
doing much better in its occupation of Tibet.  
 
>Look at our recent 150 yrs' of history. Don't you see that
>this is the longest period that we have enjoyed for peaceful development?
 
China has been at peace for the last 150 years? You can't be serious.
 
>Fortunately, I think the Chinese have developed the sophistication to
>ward off distractions and radical confusions. This can lead the way to
>a rare opportunity (in recent history) for Chinese as a whole (incl. 
>Tibetans) to build the economy and a democracy. 
 
China is itself a model of "radical confusions."  A "cultural 
revolution" one moment and greater intellectual freedom the next.  One 
moment it promotes raging capitalism and at the same time claims to be 
following some socialist ideal.  
 
Tibetans know all about Chinese "sophistication to ward off distraction."
It amounts to torture, plunder of monasteries, brutal repression of 
unarmed dissent, martial law, expulsion of foreign media, etc., etc.
 
>My advice to Mr. Richter,
>if you can't deal with this sophistication, shut the hell up and give
>us a break because nobody is going to listen to you (I'd like to spend
>my time "more effectively", according to one of your recent postings).
 
True, I can't deal with this "sophistication."
 
>Are you really so proud that those aborigines who didn't "like and trust"
>... are dead?
 
No I am not proud.  What about you, are you proud of the Chinese 
record in Tibet?
 
>>Why 50 years?  Will it take that long to extract the uranium, gold, 
>>timber, etc. out of Tibet?
>
>The Chinese have been prospecting for "uranium, gold, timber, etc" in that
>part of China but in vain for a while. Would you mind enlightening them on where
>exactly in Tibet can one find these resources? Don't use your ignorance
>as your "valid arguments".
 
Sorry to disappoint you: 
  1. Gold strike in Amdo: a "beacon of hope for thousands of Chinese" 
     while the grazing lands of Tibetan nomads have benn "ravaged in 
     areas where the miners strike gold."  " In Qumarleb county some 
     50,000 to 60,000 gold miners now far outnumber the 17,000 local 
     people -- Tibetan herdsmen.  The miners have damaged more than 
     86,000 acres of grazing land there."  (Daniel Southerland, "In 
     Qinghai, the Wild West of China.  Battling Miners Scramble for 
     Gold," _Washington Post, 15 December 1988.)
  2. Timber in Kham: In the upper reaches of Minjiang, the forest cover has 
     fallen from 30 percent in the early 1950s to 18.8 percent.  The 
     result has been dramatically increased environmental degration 
     from higher wind speeds, more severe droughts, decreased snow fall 
     and a shorter frost-free season."  (Dong Zhiyong, "Present 
     Situation of Forest Administration in Southwest region of China and 
     Its Role in River Basin Management, _Watershed Management 
     Proceedings_, ICIMOD, Kathmandu, October 1985, p.2.)
  3. Uranium:  China has uranium developments underway.  I will post 
     refs when I have a chance. 
 
>This is the right attitude. Please be consistent and locate uranium, gold
>timber, etc as your "something constructive".
 
Done for 2 of 3.  
 
>>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.  
>
>Note one similarity: the US North "invaded" the US South to wipe out
>slavery. Tibet was "invaded" by the rest of China and slavery in the
>former was abolished. The US South never asked the US North for the "favor"
>either.
 
As already mentioned in a previous posting, I do not condone what 
happened in the US civil war.  
 
>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.
 
Nothing that I do or say or write is going to have any effect on hatred
between groups.  So don't worry.  By the way, Tibetans are not Chinese.  
I know, this is hard for you -- again, Tibetans are not Chinese.  
 
>Everybody has to take a stand and really believe what he or she thinks is
>the truth. In this case, most PRC nationals believe that Tibet is an
>integrate part of China. It happens that the current Chinese regime takes
>the same stand.
 
Most PRC nationals learned their history from the PRC government, is that 
not correct?  This "history" cannot be trusted, as the schools were 
an integral part of the propaganda machine in the PRC.  
 
 
In article 1538 yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang) writes:
>Now, the question becomes: is Tibet a colony or not? If you have made
>your point clear that you only support self determination of colonies,
>I think nobody will argue with you, because we all support this, and
>has been supported this.
>
>Now, I am wondering if our definitions on colony are different, if a
>group of people has joined into a country for hundreds of years, and all
>the people has been enjoyed all the rights of the citizens of that 
>country, can we call the land of those people as a colony?
 
Tibetans have never joined China.  Tibet was forceably annexed to 
China. 
 
 
In article 1539 liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li) writes:
>Generally speaking, anyone who has access to the net has at least a college
>degree and deserves respect intellectually. Please don't use such ambiguous
>terms to intimidate them.
>
>In history, truth doesn't always go with someone who always quotes "the 
>people" and the Chinese have had extremely rough experience with such
>hypocrites, period.
 
Again, I ask what is your point?  Why can't I use the term "Tibetan 
people?"  Do you have linguistic expertise that I lack?

-- 
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