From: yjhbhc@dante.lbl.gov (Joe Huang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Tibet and ...
Keywords: nah
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:23:49 GMT
Reply-To: yjhbhc@dante.lbl.gov (Joe Huang)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.106

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> ...has been desperate for a post from me providing details on
>MS> the estimated Tibetan deaths as a result of China's
>MS> annexation/occupation of Tibet.  I have posted information about
>MS> ...
>MS> I shall first make the figures from the Tibetan Government in
>MS> Exile more concrete by providing breakdowns by geography and by
>MS> cause of death.  These two tables are not justifications for the
>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.

>> Secondly, how do you define
>> "Chinese brutality"? Based on what you accept the overriding charge? From
>> what I know, PRC government does not treat her people as well as citizens
>> in the western countries, and that is what we all work for improvement. But
>> generally speaking, minorities in China enjoy more "previladges" than Han
>> Chinese, so I can't accept so-called "Chinese brutality". 

It's easy to overlook the hardships suffered by others, and highlight their
supposed priviledges. I'm referring to events such as the suppression of the 
revolt, the exodus of 80,000 Tibetans, the mass destruction of monasteries,
the Cultural Revolution, the heavy military presence of the PLA, and the 
continuing rounds of martial law. I suppose one can rationalize that much of the 
same also befell the Chinese, but misery in company makes a weak argument. 
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.

>> 
>> >     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. 

Joe Huang
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china