fc4c94f4   
   XPost: soc.culture.china, soc.culture.indian, soc.culture.usa   
   XPost: talk.politics.tibet   
   From: thomaswheat1975@gmail.com   
      
   On May 16, 6:54 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:   
   > In article <518c31f3.605891...@news.giganews.com>,   wrote:   
   > >That is no excuse to take over their country and make them a minority   
   > >as China is doing in Tibet , Xin Jiang and Inner Mongolia   
   >   
   > But your statement indicates that you are very, very confused.   
   >   
   > Given my subject line, your single sentence response begins with the   
   > impression that you were talking about Tibet being taken over when you   
   > talked about "their country".  But when you started talking about   
   > making "them a minority", you are comparing them also with A, B, and   
   > C, where A = Tibet, B = Xin Jiang, and C = Inner Mongolia.   
   >   
   > So, it appears that you were comparing A with A and B and C.   
   >   
   > While it may be logical admissible, it does not make sense to compare   
   > A with A in a linguistic context where words are conveyed to mean   
   > something for communication purposes.  It is especially true when A   
   > does not compare well with B or C.   
   >   
   > While A can vacuously compare with A itself, it contributes to no   
   > information.   
   >   
   > A does not compare well with B because ethnic Tibetans remain the   
   > majority of the TAR while it is possible that ethnic Han Chinese are   
   > getting to be comparable in numbers to the Uighurs.   
   >   
   > A also does not compare well with C because there is not a comparable   
   > ethnic struggle in Inner Mongolia.   
   >   
   > Furthermore, the critical issue of political importance is that A and   
   > B and C have all been a part of China long before the communists took   
   > over.  Just compare the map of China in the Qing dynasty (for nearly   
   > three hundred years of history) with the current one and compare the   
   > map of the Republic of China (1911-1949) with the current Chinese map,   
   > and you will see that the current map contains no more territory than   
   > its two predecessors.  In fact, the ROC claimed Outer Mongolia as its   
   > own, which is a large piece of land, just as its predecessor did but   
   > China does not.  But all of them claim A, B, and C as part of its   
   > territory.   
   >   
   > So, there is no basis to talk about China "taking over" A, or B, or C,   
   > regardless of the ethnic composition in those areas.   
   >   
   > As to ethnic composition in any region in the world, it changes all   
   > the time.  As long as sovereignty is not a question, there is no basis   
   > for a complaint about ethnic composition, unless you do not believe in   
   > the freedom of movement within a country.   
   >   
   > In the US, ethnic composition has changed rapidly in recent years.   
   > Only petty sour grapes types complain about the hispanic population   
   > becoming the majority in such and such a state.   
   >   
   > Of course, the US killed all the American Indians to become what it is   
   > today.  China has not pursued such a policy.  There is no evidence   
   > that China's policy in Tibet is meant to harm ethnic Tibetans.  It is   
   > pure VOA, RFA type propaganda in collaboration with Da Lama and his   
   > TGIE cohorts.   
   If Tibet was such a happy place for the Tibetans, then why did over a   
   100 tibetans set themselves on fire to protest chinese communist rule   
   >   
   > Now consider the fact that some Tibetans count the Mongols as their   
   > forebears and thus lamented the loss of its past glory.  So, a legit   
   > question is to ask how did they manage to lose that glory?   
   >   
   > My guess is you can't blame the CCP for robbing it from the Mongols or   
   > the Tibetan lamas.  While Mongols couldn't hold their far-flung empire   
   > for more than some four score and x number of years, the Tibetan   
   > lamas stayed alive only by agreeing to be somebody else's vassal or   
   > tributory state.   
   >   
   > Of course, the Chinese suffered their own humiliation before the whole   
   > world when Imperial Japan and colonialists from the West entered China   
   > at will and carved up its prime real estate along the coasts.  And   
   > when a group of Chinese believed that with righteousness, they could   
   > fight off the invaders with their own bare fists, they got shot dead   
   > right away or if they got captured, their heads got chopped off with   
   > the shiny swords the imperial Japanese soldiers wielded in full public   
   > view.  One can relive such grusome moments by viewing photos from   
   > history books.   
   >   
   > At least the intellectuals among the Chinese people at the time knew   
   > what was wrong.  They looked inside themselves.  And they fought their   
   > way out.   
   >   
   > But let's focus on these three groups that existed in China: the   
   > Tibetans under the lamas, the Nationalist soldiers, and the communists   
   > along with their peasant allies.  We know that the lives of the lamas   
   > were extremely decadent while the masses were illiterate and   
   > relentlessly exploited.  (In Heinrich Harrer's Seven Years in Tibet,   
   > he recounted the first dinner he was invited to have dinner with the   
   > "Holy Mother", i.e., the mother of Da Lama and the record-holder of   
   > being the mother of the largest number of Incarnations, he counted 40   
   > dishes at the banquet of many guests.  And this was happening among   
   > the Tibetans in the "noble class" while the masses had to work from   
   > morning to dark, panting and moaning at the hard work they had to do   
   > to survive.  Tibet under the Lamas was clearly heading to trouble   
   > because the system was so inequitable.)  And we also know that the   
   > Nationalist under Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek was getting U.S.   
   > military and economic aide to fight the communists.  But who was   
   > supplying the communist guerrilla soldiers?  Hardly anyone, except   
   > maybe the Soviet Union.  They might have given them so rifles,   
   > grenades, and ammunition.  Mostly, on a one-on-one basis, they were   
   > poorly equipped and could not have fought off the Nationalists, not to   
   > defeat them.   
   >   
   > The fact that the communists successfully took over China, with little   
   > fighting, shows that they won by the force of logic - not by force of   
   > luck.   
   No they won because the Nationalists were so corrupt they were selling   
   US supplied weapons to the communists and they were simply without   
   morale. In Tibet they simply overan the country. The Tibetans had a   
   80000 man police force against 90000 PLA troops. The fact that they   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)