XPost: soc.culture.china, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.latin-america   
   XPost: soc.culture.europe, rec.sport.tennis, soc.culture.iraq   
   XPost: soc.culture.palestine   
   From: acoustic@panix.com   
      
   In article ,   
   bmoore   wrote:   
   >You use too many words, as always, but you seem to be saying that even   
   >if the Tibetans do not favor Chinese rule, they aren't capable of   
   >self-rule and therefore must accept Chinese rule, however nasty that may   
   >be. That's easy to say from the comfort of an armchair, but Chinese   
   >brutality in Tibet is real, and thousands or millions of words don't   
   >change that reality.   
      
   You're the one who hijacked the thread to cast doubt on this   
   statement that no one has raised in this thread:   
      
     "Chinese rule is favored by the Tibetan people"   
      
   Actually, rst has given you a few pieces of evidence already.   
      
   If the Tibetan people had not supported or at least acquiesced in   
   large numbers, the CIA-backed rebellion would not have been greeted by   
   the Tibetan people with such apathy or even antipathy.   
      
   And more recently, so-called "dissidents" from China, referred to as   
   poets, etc., wrote and loudly denigrated happy Tibetans who have   
   chosen to accept a life that comes with good money serving as guides   
   to tourists.  Clearly, these complaining "dissidents" are small   
   minorities compared with the happy Tibetans in China.   
      
   And then there are these FT-orchestrated self-immolations where young   
   or feeble-minded people, often orphans, were duped to commit the   
   high-value photo-journalistic drama for propaganda purposes in   
   Dharamsala, London, and other western capitals.   
      
   If we would keep in mind that there are at most about 200 thousand or   
   so Tibetans in exile and six million Tibetans in China, you know that   
   people are generally contented.   
      
   See, if succession votes are allowed in Texas, Hawaii, Alaskas, Oregon,   
   or California, you can bet that the outcome in favor of Washington   
   rule is highly uncertain in each case.   
      
   So don't take my objective approach to the Tibetan self-rule issue as   
   weakness.   
      
   I am only admitting that nobody really know how the vote will turn   
   out.   
      
   But just as Americans have acquiesced to Washington rule does not mean   
   that Americans are very happy with our government in Washington.  And   
   the Chinese communist rule in Tibet can hardly be viewed as brutal   
   considering how dark Tibet was under the theocratic lama rule before   
   the communist came.   
      
   Even Da Lama raised eyebrows in the 1990s saying that he was "half   
   Marxist and half Buddhist".   
      
   Why did he say that?   
      
   Ostensibly he said capitalism is a dead end.   
      
   But Da Lama has alwasy been a politician in his blood.   
      
   He said that to appeal to his constituents who had begun to turn   
   favorably to Chinese rule because of land reform, education and   
   healthcare for all, and equality between sexes.  And then China turned   
   to a free market economy, i.e., the path of a "capitalist roader".  Da   
   Lama was hoping that his rhetoric would stem the flow of support to   
   the other side.   
      
   Unfortunately for him and the lamas, China's economic policy has done   
   one thing that is essential to take a whole society from feudalism to   
   modernity.   
      
   People have basic needs: love, good health, and happiness (not just   
   the opportunity to pursue such a thing).   
      
   And you might pooh-pooh my words as too many.  But they explained why   
   Tibetans are not opposed to China rule but in fact continue to warm to   
   it.   
      
   lo yeeOn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)