Since apparrently my attempt to not derail the Cartoon thread with a discussion of Tibet apparently happened anyway I'm starting a Tibet thread so we need not derail the topic of anger over the cartoons depicting Muhammed. I'll start things off. Yes its true that during the Great Leap Forward / Cultural Revolution (GLFCR) all of China suffered along with Tibet but the fact that all of China suffered in no way should excuse the fact that great harm and much damage was done to the Tibetan people who had no say in deciding to participate. The PRC forcibly annexed Tibet the Tibetans didn't voluntarily rise up to join the PRC and for the most part were happy with their previous way of life. This previous way of life for the average Tibetan wasn't a materially good way of life and yes they were ruled by a medieval theocracy. Still it was their system and they didn't ask for change themselves. In regard to the suffering that the Tibetans suffered its true it was comparable to the rest of China but given the signifigantly smaller size of Tibet's population along with the sparseness of it it was far more disastrous. Most estimates put it at about 20% of the population was killed. While some might also claim that their was no systematic plan to destroy the culture the evidence belies that. The Red Guards did systematically destroy temples, religious materials, force clergy to renounce their religion, kill them, jail them and even go as far as force monks to publicly have sex with nuns to destroy their vows of celibacy. The Red Guards were crazed but they knew very well what they were doing. Again things like this happened all over China yet that doesn't excuse that the Tibetans were essentially bystanders caught up in the crisis. To say that just because it happened to Han Chinese too doesn't excuse it anymore than to say that because more Jews were killed by the Germans it wasn't so bad that a lot of Gypsies were killed also. Finally in regard to where Tibet has come since its again undeniable that materially the province has improved in terms of infrastructure and economics and has grown in population. The problem is that most of the population growth has been in Han Chinese to the point that the Tibetans are almost a minority in their own country. The infrastructure and economic improvements have come at a costs to the environment and traditional Tibetan culture to the point that Lhasa resembles a Soviet industrial town more than Shangri La and where Mandarin is spoken more than Tibetan. The problem with all of this is that everything that has been done to Tibet has not been the choice of its own people. While yes the Tibetans prior to 1950 lived a feudal existence where most were either in the theocracy or living in serfdom. That was their country and they should've been allowed to determine for themselves how their country was run. Frankly to me it was the height of arrogance for the PRC to presume, and continue to presume, that they know what is best for the Tibetans. Far greater than even the arrogance when the Bush Admin. claims the right to unilaterally liberate the Iraqis. What is even more ironic is that the PRC has an easy out to the situation. The Dalai Lama has said he is willing to negotiate with the PRC and isn't calling for outright independence. He has asked that Tibet be given autonomy and local governence but at the same time to have Tibet remain part of the PRC and leave foreign and military affairs to the PRC. Basically he's asking for Tibet to have the same arrangement that Hong Kong has and what the PRC is offering to Taiwan. In my opinion if one country two systems is good enough for Hong Kong then it should be for Tibet and by doing so the PRC would remove a major diplomatic embarrassment while still fulfilling its mission to remain a united country. There we go now I await the inevitable flaming to come meanwhile feel free to continue debating the cartoon issue without derailign it with a Tibet debate.
I have no problem with anything you said, Sishir. I'll leave it to others to argue your view of Tibet. I'll just add, not being able to help myself , that America did inexcusable things to the native peoples of this country. That doesn't excuse what China has done to the Tibetans, in my opinion. Keep D&D Civil.
On a slight side note, I heard the Dalai Lama speak this year. Man he's such a badass. Really really cool guy and very smart.
That is completely correct and "the everyone does it" excuse still doesn't make such things wrong. Related to this Ottomaton brought this up in another thread that there is a clash of worldviews in these situations. Many of the Chinese honestly believe that the PRC is helping the Tibetans. This is an attitude that was prevalent during the heyday of colonialism and was also widely held in the US regarding Native Americans. That colonialism was good for the locals because it introduced them to Western Civilization, modern economics and industrialization. I've noticed this same attitude frequently crop up in debates about Iraq and also in the Admin's rhetoric that invasion of Iraq is necessary for the Iraqis to bring them democracy. To me this is just repackaging of "White Man's Burden" and IMO the Chinese inregard to Tibet and some of the the other ethnic minority regions have something of a "Han Man's Burden" and see themselves as bringing civilization to backwards societies.
What some people don't realize, and this applies to China regarding Tibet, and the US regarding Native Americans (in my opinion), is how out of touch the vast majority of the the people are/were to what was really happening. One only has to look at newsparer articles and books/novels written during the period to see how romanticized the frontier was in the United States. (of course, Hollywood later had a field day doing the same thing) In my opinion, the vast majority of Chinese people truly have a distorted image of the situation in Tibet, helped by the state controlled media. In the United States, our media was trying to sell papers, magazines, and "pulp fiction." On the frontier in the States, while there where certainly those who worked hard to have good relations with the Native Americans, the truth is that too many saw them as "in the way," and were assisted in getting them out of the way by the government people on the scene, state and local, who were often reacting to what they percieved as a threat to settlers (real or not), and the government in Washington, which actively attempted to push the Native Americans out of areas that big business wanted to exploit. There were lobbyists back then, as well, and corruption. From where I sit, I see the same thing happening to Tibet. Keep D&D Civil.
Sishir, everything you said was about true. But I have to disagree with you on one thing. Nobody is really giving excuse to Chinese government putting those harms on native people in Tibet and average Han Chinese everywhere. There was no excuse, and that was simple fact. The reason I brought up that they suffered along side with other Chinese during those years, was simply to dismiss the claim about systematic destruction. In my opinion, as history can back it up, Chinese used to think China is the middle of universe, the best place ever exists, and they were the best people. They wanted to show that they are generous, caring and love to help. In old days, foreigners could come to China for free and stay there for free, to learn all kinds of craftships, including bridge building etc. Historically, Chinese treated foreigners very well. First, it was simpe false superiority; then, about 150 years, it became admire. But they treated foreigners well. Minorities are sometimes considered the same. You might argue how much suffering they endured, but you could never point out one period in history, even or especially under communist regime, Chinese targetting minority for systematic destruction. Again, average Chinese didn't suffer any less. It's not excuse, but fact. More importantly, it's evidence that Chinese do NOT target minority groups. As for Dalai Lama, he was in fact kidnapped by those landlords around him. In 1951, communists entered Tibet, AFTER Dalai and Banchan Lamas signed agreement for "Tibet Liberation". 3 years later, both Dalai and Banchan visited Beijing and met with Mao. There was no argument about governence and control and land. Things changed when those slave owners and landlord realized that their land might be given to serfs, the rebel was started and pressed down. It has nothing, nothing at all to do with religion, minority or culture. It was a simple uprise from slave owners. One can argue all one wants about how independent Tibet was, but in fact, it was part of China since middle of 1200's. In fact, Banchan's role was increased by some emporor in Qing dynasty, to balance Dalai's impact. You just can't say anything about that in independence. Without Britans messing around in 20's, there would probably no argument at all. Chinese central government doesn't see Dalai Lama as rightful and lawful representative of the land of Tibet, rightfully so. Therefore, they would not negotiate with him. They consider him as spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddists, rightfully so. So, he can talk about religion, but not the land or goverment. You said that "He has asked that Tibet be given autonomy and local governence but at the same time to have Tibet remain part of the PRC and leave foreign and military affairs to the PRC". According to current Chinese law, that is the case right now in Tibet. I know it's easy to claim local governence on paper, but in reality it is always remotely controlled by central government. But in reality, what else can you expect? Central government doesn't want money or resource from Tibet local. There is no resource, and they in fact have been receiving support for all past 50 years. The central government simply wants to keep that piece of land. I truly don't see anything wrong with that simple motive. I am not saying they did a good job to protect that unique culture, but that's no EXCUSE for foreigners' desire to seperate that land from China. It is hard for Chinese government to look good, because they are communists, which is evil by default. But I hope and believe they can learn from the past, also from other countries, do a better job to be more sensitive to religious faith and culture difference, to preserve the Tibetan culture. Meeting now, can't write any more
There are several things wrong with your post. I'll try to respond to you topic by topic. Tibet has been part of China since 1400s. That's a historical fact you need to get accustomed to, Sishir. In the 13th century, Emperor Kublai Khan of Yuan Dynasty helped establish the first Grand Lama, who was to preside over all the other lamas as pope over his bishops. Tibet was thus incorporated into the greater Chinese empire under the Mongolian ruling and has remained in China ever since. All subsequent Chinese governments, from Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, Republic of China, and People's Republic of China, have succeeded the Yuan Dynasty in exercising de jure sovereignty and de facto power over Tibet. In 1951, the treaty, Plan for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, was signed by representatives of CCP, the Dalai Lama, and the Panchen Lama, providing the rule by a joint administration under representatives of the central Chinese government and the Tibetan government. According to the Melvyn Goldstein's book (1997), "The Snow Lion and the Dragon", contrary to popular belief in the West, the Han Chinese took care to show respect for Tibetan culture and religion. When the young 14th Dalai Lama was installed in Lhasa, it was with an armed escort of Chinese troops and an attending Chinese minister, in accordance with centuries-old tradition. No aristocratic or monastic property was confiscated, and feudal lords were allowed to continue to reign over their hereditarily bound peasants. CCP started the "liberation" slowly, relying mostly on persuasion in an attempt to effect social reform. Among the earliest reforms were reduction of usurious interest rates, and building a few hospitals and roads. These good intentions rattled the heck of Tibetan ruling class, comprising the lama monasteries, the secular aristocracy, and the government officials appointed by the Dalai Lama's advisors, who, with less than 5% of the overall population, were worried that the days of their ownership of serfs, monopoly on wealth, political and "spiritual" powers over the vast land were probably numbered if the underclass serfs were to gain a foot. With the aid from CIA in money, arms, and personnel training, the ruling class staged bloody but unsuccessful uprising against CCP's PLA in the late 1950s. Although Dalai Lama defeated and fled to India under a covert CIA rescue operation, followed by the exodus of many of his hard core supporters, the remnants of the Dalai's followers still caused great troubles to CCP in its subsequent governing of the Tibet. The timing of the event wasn't great for China, which was just recovering from the disastrous Great Leap Forward and about to experience the Great Famine in the early 60s' which killed tens of millions of Chinese. Of course this was followed by the notorious Great Cultural Revolution which led to even more devastation on Chinese people (my own family was the victim of cultural and class struggles) and the whole nation. While it's entirely possible that CCP may have used heavy handed tactics to deal with the Tibetan rebels in the aftermath of Dalai Lama's revolt, and some despicable and brutal acts may have been committed by individual PLA soldiers and Red Guards, there was absolutely no substantiable evidence that CCP engaged in any race specific and systematic destruction of the Tibetan people. To single out their victimhood in the absence of historical perspective is ridiculously naiive, if not outright purportedly manipulative. In fact, I'll go further to defend Mao's policy on race relations. As early as 1953, Mao wrote in the essay "Criticize Han Chauvinism": "In some places the relations between nationalities are far from normal. For Communists this is an intolerable situation. We must go to the root and criticize the Han chauvinist ideas which exist to a serious degree among many Party members and cadres, namely, the reactionary ideas of the landlord class and the bourgeoisie...which are manifested in the relations between nationalities.... In other words, bourgeois ideas dominate the minds of those comrades and people who have had no Marxist education and have not grasped the nationality policy of the Central Committee." In 1956 Mao again raised the issue in his more famous speech "On The Ten Major Relationships": "We put the emphasis on opposing Han chauvinism. Local-nationality chauvinism must be opposed too, but generally that is not where our emphasis lies.... All through the ages, the reactionary rulers, chiefly from the Han nationality, sowed feelings of estrangement among our various nationalities and bullied the minority peoples. Even among the working people it is not easy to eliminate the resultant influences in a short time.... The air in the atmosphere, the forests on the earth and the riches under the soil are all important factors needed for the building of socialism, but no material factor can be exploited and utilized without the human factor. We must foster good relations between the Han nationality and the minority nationalities and strengthen the unity of all the nationalities in the common endeavor to build our great socialist motherland." As it can be seen, from the very beginning, Mao didn't regard minority races, Tibetan included, anything inferior than the Han majority. Sure you can accuse some of his CCP followers didn't obey Mao's instructions, but at least Mao set the record straight and he was the head of the party and country for a good number of years. The enemies that Mao perceived were not any minority race, but the previous ruling "minority" classes in the pre-PRC era, who Mao thought were still not giving up their desire to overtake CCP's rule to regain their lost wealth and status. One thing to note is, as a Marxist, Mao was particularly opposed to religions. To him, religions are shams that lock up people's mind and spirit, and are in oppposite end to Marxist atheism. It just happened, which is unfortunate, that Tibet people were very religious to begin with, more so than average Han Chinese. So the destruction (here the term is more appropriate) of temples and other religious symbols were deemed more sinful and painful by the Tibetans. Actually IMO, Mao would have been a huge hypocrite if he had allowed the rampant superstition and religious worshipping unscathed in Tibet but completely abolished everything religious everywhere else in China, wouldn't he? After all, Mao was determined to set all people free, no matter who they were.
I can't believe you could write these in straight face, but then again, you have a different upbringing from mine so it's entirely possible you think this way. The following is an overview of the pre-CCP feudalist-monastery Tibetan society to demystify the portrayal of Tibetan theocracy as a veritable Shangri-La by most major Western news media, travel books, novels, and Hollywood films. There were two main classes existing in Tibet: the serfs and the aristocratic serf owners. The majority of the population lived like serfs in Europe's "Dark Ages," or like African slaves and sharecroppers of the U.S. South in the good ol' days. The aristocratic masters owned the people, the land and most of the animals. The serfs were forced to handed over most grains they harvested and demanded all kinds of hard labor. Rigid and brutal class system made it impossible for serfs to move up in lamaist social order. They were treated like despised "inferiors." Serfs could not use the same seats, vocabulary or eating utensils as serf owners. Touching master's belongings could be punished by whipping. The masters and serfs were so distant from each other that in much of Tibet they spoke different languages. It was the custom for a serf to kneel on all fours so his master could step on his back to mount a horse. Ruling class Tibetans routinely had servants carry them up and down stairs just because they were lazy. Masters often rode on their serfs' backs across streams. The only thing worse than a serf in Tibet was a "chattel slave," who had no right to even grow a few crops for themselves. These slaves were often starved, beaten and worked to death. A master could turn a serf into a slave any time he wanted. Children were routinely bought and sold in Tibet's capital, Lhasa. About 5 percent of the Tibetan people were counted as chattel slaves. And at least another 10 percent were poor monks who were really "slaves in robes." Underclass Tibetans couldn't just set up free farms in the vast empty lands. Serfs could not live in Tibet without a master, otherwise they would be picked up as outlaws. Contrary to the denial by the Dalai Lama and his supporters that there was no discrimination against women in the pre-CCP Tibet, being born a woman was considered a punishment for "impious" (sinful) behavior in a previous life. The word for "woman" in old Tibet, kiemen, meant "inferior birth." Lamaist superstition associated women with evil and sin. Anything women touched was considered tainted -- so all kinds of taboos were placed on women. Women were forbidden to handle medicine. A widow was a despicable being, already a devil. No woman was allowed to use iron instruments or touch iron. Religion forbade her to lift her eyes above the knee of a man, as serfs and slaves were not allowed to life the eyes upon the face of the nobles or great lamas. Women were burned for giving birth to twins -- twins were considered proof that a woman had mated with an evil spirit. Upperclass women were sold into arranged marriages. Custom allowed a husband to cut off the tip of his wife's nose if he discovered she had slept with someone else. The patriarchal practices included polygyny, where a wealthy man could have many wives; and polyandry, where in land-poor noble families one woman was forced to be wife to several brothers. Rape of women serfs was not uncommon -- under the ulag system, a lord could demand "temporary wives." Serfs were taxed upon getting married, taxed for the birth of each child, and for every death in the family. They were taxed for planting a tree in their yard and for keeping animals. There were taxes for religious festivals, for singing, dancing, drumming, and bell ringing. People were taxed for being sent to prison and upon being released. Those who could not find work were taxed for being unemployed, and if they traveled to another village in search of work, they paid a passage tax. When people could not pay, the monasteries lent them money at 20 to 50 percent interest. Debts were handed down from father to son to grandson. Debtors who could not meet their obligations risked being placed into slavery for the rest of their lives. In the Dalai Lama's Tibet, torture and mutilation were common punishments inflicted upon runaway serfs and thieves. A. Tom Grunfeld wrote in his 1996 book, The Making of Modern Tibet, "Buddhist belief precludes the taking of life, so that whipping a person to the edge of death and then releasing him to die elsewhere allowed Tibetan officials to justify the death as 'an act of God.' Other brutal forms of punishment included the cutting off of hands at the wrists, using red-hot irons to gouge out eyes; hanging by the thumbs; and crippling the offender, sewing him into a bag, and throwing the bag in the river." In 1959, Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, and breaking off hands. There were instruments for slicing off kneecaps and heels, or hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling. The Tibetan people called their rulers "the Three Great Masters" because the ruling class of serf owners was organized into three institutions: the lama monasteries, the secular aristocracy, and the government officials appointed by the Dalai Lama's advisors. Before the CCP revolution, no laborer in Tibet had ever been paid wages for their work. While serfs worked 16- or 18-hour days to make living -- keeping only about a quarter of the food they raised, the ruling class posssessed enormous amount of wealth and led extravagant lives. Observed Englishman Sir Charles Bell, a typical official spent an hour a day at his official duties. Upper class parties lasted for days of eating, gambling and lying around. The aristocratic lamas also never worked. They spent their days chanting, reciting religious dogma and doing nothing else. The Dalai Lama, widely regarded internationally as a non-materialist holy man, was in fact the biggest serf owner in Tibet. His family directly controlled 27 manors, 36 pastures, 6,170 field serfs and 102 house slaves. When moved from palace to palace, the Dalai Lama rode on a throne chair pulled by dozens of slaves. His troops marched along to "It's a Long Way to Tipperary," a tune learned from their British imperialist trainers. Meanwhile, the Dalai Lama's bodyguards, all over six-and-a-half feet tall, with padded shoulders and long whips, beat people out of his path. This ritual is described in the Dalai Lama's autobiography. As signs of the lamas' power, traditional ceremonies used body parts of people who had died: flutes made out of human thigh bones, bowls made out of skulls, drums made from human skin. After the revolution, a rosary was found in the Dalai Lama's palace made from 108 different skulls. It was widely reported that the lamas engaged in ritual human sacrifice -- including burying serf children alive in monastery ground-breaking ceremonies. The central belief of lamaism is reincarnation and karma. Each living being is said to be inhabited by an immortal soul that has been born and reborn many times. After each death, a soul is supposedly given a new body. According to the dogma of karma, each soul gets the life it deserves: Pious behavior leads to good karma--and with that comes a rise in the social status of the next life. Impious behavior leads to bad karma and the next life could be as an insect (or a woman). Wrote Grunfeld: "From a purely secular point of view, this doctrine must be seen as one of the most ingenious and pernicious forms of social control ever devised. To the ordinary Tibetan, the acceptance of this doctrine precluded the possibility of ever changing his or her fate in this life. If one were born a slave, so the doctrine of karma taught, it was not the fault of the slaveholder but rather the slaves themselves for having committed some misdeeds in a previous life. In turn, the slaveholder was simply being rewarded for good deeds in a previous life. For the slave to attempt to break the chains that bound him, or her, would be tantamount to a self-condemnation to a rebirth into a life worse than the one already being suffered. This is certainly not the stuff of which revolutions are made..." Well the revolution did come, albeit slowly. Whatever wrongs and new oppressions introduced by the Chinese in Tibet, after 1959 they did abolish slavery and the serfdom system of unpaid labor, and put an end to floggings, mutilations, and amputations as a form of criminal punishment. They eliminated the many crushing taxes, started work projects, and greatly reduced unemployment and beggary. They established secular education, thereby breaking the educational monopoly of the monasteries. And they constructed running water and electrical systems in Lhasa. The rights enjoyed by the Tibetan language in education and in courts and the lives of Tibetans have been improved immensely compared to the Dalai Lama's rule before 1950. To wit, the GDP of Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) today is 30 times that before 1950; TAR has 22,500 km of highways, as opposed to 0 in 1950; all secular education in TAR was created after the revolution; TAR now has 25 scientific research institutes as opposed to 0 in 1950; infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 to 0.661% in 2000; life expectancy has risen from 35.5 years in 1950 to 67 in 2000; each Tibetan couple can have up to 3 children, comparing to the 1 child restriction on the Han Chinese, for crying out loud; the collection and publishing of the traditional Epic of King Gesar, which is the longest epic poem in the world and had only been handed down orally before; allocation of 300 million Renminbi since the 1980s to the maintenance and protection of Tibetan monasteries.
Sweet, I was waiting for the Chinese Nationalism to show up on here. You certainly took your time wnes.
Well, my opinion of Dalai Lama has been changed somewhat over the time to the more favortie side after hearing a number of things he has said, if a man's words mean anything. Whatever his past associations with the CIA and various reactionaries, he speaks often of peace, love, and nonviolence. And he himself really cannot be blamed for the abuses of the ancient regime, having been but 15 years old when he fled into exile. In 1994, in an interview with Melvyn Goldstein, he went on record as favoring since his youth the building of schools, "machines," and roads in his country. He claims that he thought the corvée (forced unpaid serf labor for the lord's benefit) and certain taxes imposed on the peasants were "extremely bad." And he disliked the way people were saddled with old debts sometimes passed down from generation to generation. Furthermore, he now proposes democracy for Tibet, featuring a written constitution, a representative assembly, and other democratic essentials. In 1996, the Dalai Lama issued a statement that must have had an unsettling effect on the exile community. It reads in part as follows: "Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes-that is the majority---as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. . . I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist." And more recently in 2001, while visiting California, he remarked that "Tibet, materially, is very, very backward. Spiritually it is quite rich. But spirituality can't fill our stomachs." Now that's a message that should be heeded by the well-fed Buddhist proselytes in the West who wax nostalgic for Old Tibet.
For political issues such as Tibetan independance and Taiwan independance there's always a number of international players advocating their agendas, winning over popular support by spreading myths or even lies. Freedom of speech has no defense against such intentions. Therefore materials on Tibet from the Chinese side do not weigh less than the materials from the so called free world, before scrutiny. For a country like the USA that thinks it's dangerous to have religion and politics mixed up, it's without common sense to make a 180 degrees turn and thinks an absolute theocracy in the Tibetan province of China is in the best interests of its people. As for Tibetan people should decide their own destiny, mind you, there's no such thing as self determination under a totalitarian theocracy. It's like saying the body parts in the movie Matrix have self determination. One thing is clear, although the Tibetans suffered from the choatic times in China, they aren't subject to systematic and ever lasting discrimination and oppression from their monk masters who gave them sub human treatment for hundreds of years. In fact, the Tibetans now are above the Han people, they get free points in academic tests and push the Han students aside in university entrance. Now it should be the Hans turn to protest such racial discrimination in favor of Tibetans and other minorities.
One more question, does any American here support self determination of the Indian descendants, in form of public voting deciding weather Texas and Virgina etc. should be independant and back to their power?
You seriously believe that becoming a minority in their own land is beneficial for Tibetans? Keep D&D Civil.
I can't answer for the Tibetan people on that question. For me, if I don't need to take crap from the monk masters and be their slaves, while having racial policy in favor of me, and my living standard improves by tenfold or more, I might consider that possibility. I guess there's a reason that the native Indians are not rebelling against the Americans now, despite them becoming minorities on their own land, and their land is much better and bigger than the barren plateau of Tibet, and whatever reason that might be, it's not something ridiculous.
You're talking to the wrong person about Native Americans. If you read my post earlier, I went to great lengths to point out how screwed they were during the expansion of the United States. The difference is, what is happening in Tibet is happening now. Keep D&D Civil.
If you are so high on keeping other races as the primary race on their land, you should support letting the Native Amercians be independant and found their own country, while banishing the whites. Weather it happened in the past or present don't matter, you can't sentence a man, put him in jail, and later on found out he's innocent without doing anything to reverse the situation. Time is just an excuse.
I've had this discussion before. Talking to you about Tibet is like talking to a brick wall. I'd rather pull up a chair and talk to the side of my house. Keep D&D Civil.
Maybe that's the best way to convince others that you are right, but I doubt whether you really want to convince anyone, including yourself. Otherwise, you would be debating wnes point by point of historical events, with fact and reasoning to prove how Chinese side of story is wrong, and your information is the correct one. Instead, you can only talk empty, just like to a brick wall, about minority suffering without any substance and context. By the way, didn't you mention again and again before, that the best way is to let people of the land to decide for their own?
I believe a contracts a contract...as it has always been. If the CCP wants a war to make Tibet or Taiwan official, let them...as it has always been. Interesting write-up, wnes. Did you write all that?