From: EE102@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK (Gao Mr ZhiJie)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:00:32 GMT
 <1992Sep29.003105.12208@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <BvCIoH.39A@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
 <1992Sep30.091451.9494@nntp.hut.fi> <BvEG76.FKt@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: University of Liverpool

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
>In article:<BvDBFD.3ys@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>  richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C.
Richter) writes:
>> Some netter wrote:
>>China "annexed" Tibet in Yuan Dynasty. It is contraversial as to the location
>>f the border of the "original country" called Xizang. What was the size
>>of the "original country" called Canada?

>Then why did China invade Tibet in the 1950s?  In 1991 the Chinese
>government proudly celebrated the "Peaceful Liberation of Tibet."
>Invitations were sent by China's embassies to prominent politicians
>and government officials, but few accepted.  In fact one wrote to the
>embassy in Ottawa to inquire, "If China is celebrating the Peaceful
>Liberation of Tibet, then what, may I ask, did China liberate Tibet
>from?"
  * Petty, they didn't go.  So they will never know what did Chinese
    communists liberate Tibet from.
    Anyway, they are not interested in knowing that in the first place.

>There are over 100,000 Tibetans in India and Nepal alone (there are
>more in dozens of other countries), all either left Tibet or were
>orn after the 1959.
>.irrelevant stuff deleted...
>If I there is something about which I am not accurate, then provide
>refuting evidence.

 Judging by the fact that there were about 300,000 Tibetans
 in Sikkim alone. The accuracy of your figures for Tibatans in India
 is questionable. And of course, not every Tibetan is or used to be
 Chinese.                                          I appreciate
 your knowledge about the distribution of the Tibetan population
 within China is very impressive in comparison of average Westerners
 who usually don't know anything about China except some abstract
 concepts like 'human rights abuser' etc. that they learned from the
 media of the 'free world' in in well arranged time scale.

>>In  article <liqiang.717806030@kramden> liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li)
writes:
>stuff deleted .....                                 After you have seen
>>what has happened to Bosnia, Crotia, Serbia, Georgia, Armenia, Assabajian(?),
>>etc., you still think these "peaceful" processes are peaceful? Respecting
>>people's choices doesn't mean creating ethnically pure zones or "countries".
>>Racial separation was sth S. Africa used to do and abandoned last yr?

>Tibetans do not want Chinese to keep the peace for them. The Chinese
 ********************************************************************
>government could show some maturity and let Tibetans decide for
 ***************************************************************
>themselves, ...  irrelevant stuff deleted...
 ***********

 This sounds like political proclamation rather than argument in debates.
 You can't speak on the behalf of Chinese living in Tibet and I don't
 you are automatically qualified for representing the Dalai Lama and His
 associates just because you believe in every thing in the
 Holybook of His Holiness.
 You never know the answer before a 'democratic vote' free of
 CCP control of media and also free of the Dalai Lama & Co's
 psychological pressure through religious organs.


>>In article 1453 yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang) writes:
>>Do you think it is also an invasion that the Union's force
>>marched to Gorgia? If it is so, than invasions don't mean bad.

>Absolutely.  And if the US South wants independence then the question
>should be addressed, peaceably by referenda, I would hope.  Do you
>think the Tibetan people are capable enough to decide for themselves
>in a referendum?

 They will be capable of doing that once all Chinese ( including Tibetans
 of course )are capable enough to decide the nature of the China's gov't
 through democratic procedures.
[ That's where, I guess, the economy comes in. (I note that this is a
point some their netter raised.)  But it would be too much to expect you
to agree with me. ]

>>From my understanding of your words above, Canada (only one of many
>>Western countries) is going to consider the right of self-determination
>>in the country. Thus may I ask you to wait until the problem of your
>>country is fixed and then to teach Chinese what to do.

>I don't expect to teach you anything; I am merely expressing views
>which Tibetans and many others hold on the political situation in
>Tibet.

    Mind to tell me whether you are paid-up spokesman of His Holiness.
    If so, I don't even bother to argue with you. ( Disqualified :-( )

>There are many PRC nationals in the West learning all kinds of things.
>Unfortunately, for them, some of the things they learn here are a
>little uncomfortable to them.  One of those things are that peoples
>of all types have rights to self-determination, and increasingly
>they are demanding that those rights be fully realized.  We are
>learning that in Canada.  It *is* uncomfortable for *all* of us.

   That's how lecturing starts. :-)
BTW, do you mean they had to learn what they disliked. That will be
torture rather than discomfort.

In article 1457 phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng) writes:
>>Aboriginals in Canada do not want other people to organise the country
>>for them. The Canada government should show some maturity and let the
>>Aboriginals decide for themself.  All Canadians except for the
>>aboriginals should leave the country immediately and leave the whole
>>Canada to the aboriginals.

>The aborigines *are* deciding for themselves.  They have taken part
>as full partners in the constitutional debates.  They have accepted
>the process, and they are looking forward to further negotiations
>with the Canadian and provincial governments.

   The arguments of Canadian aborigines sounds irrelevant to me. But may
   I note the plain fact that the aborigines were collectively
   killed by the white settlers and they then were purposely kept
   suppressed economically, politically and educationally until they were
   practically close to extinction and posses absolutely no threat
   to drive the whites out of their homeland ( or any part of it ) before
   any thing can be called 'negotiation' started and every thing settled
   in the whites terms.  THAT is really some thing makes me uncomfortable
   to learn.

>>In article 1458 ldong@hila.hut.fi (Liyun Dong) writes:
>>If everybody in China enjoys a 5 or 6 digit salary, there may be some
>>discussions about whether to let people in minority region to vote for
>>their future.

>What does economics have to do with it?  Or do you mean, "Once the
>'treasure house' (Xizang) has been fully exploited for the benefit of
  ************************
>Chinese, and everyone in China has enough money in their pockets, then
>let's talk."

  Where did YOU learn that? You are murdering Chinese. :-(

>irrelevant stuff deleded.....
>>(Min He) writes:

>>Wait a minute! Could you please tell me when China invaded Tibet? 1950?
>>k, was Tibet a sovereign country then? Which countries recognised Tibet
>>is a sovereign country then? How many country had diplomatic relationship
>>with Tibet then? Before you claim that Tibet used to be a sovereign country,
>>at least think of these questions.

>China invaded Tibet starting in 1950.  Chinese forces attacked the
*******************************************************************
>Potala in 1959.
***************

  Is that His Holiness version of the story? It won't automatically
  become truth just by repeating though.
  Hope you don't have any problem accessing other sources apart from His.
>>Inner Mongolia is now >95% Han.  Tibet (=Xizang+Qinghai+parts of Gansu,
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Give the source please!!! If it is true, I really have learned somethin
>>from you.

>The book _The Forgotten Tribes of China_.
>--

   Is the author a China hater?

>The difference is that India did not invade and hold with force a
>sovereign country called Tibet.
         **********************

     Is Sikkim that sovereign country you called Tibet? Well it used to
     a *country* governed by Tibetans and recognised by the world
     community. Where it is now?

>irrelevant stuff deleted...

--
>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