A Tibet Thread

any thing new? I think not.

 

I believe wnes wrote that himself, which was nothing new. There are
tons of materials about pre-CCP Tibet. Some may not be very objective
but that should give you a glimpse of what had happened. It's just
Pro-Tibetians choosing to ignore that.

Sirsir, I couldn't believe how you could write your post in a straightface.
Yeah, they didn't asked for change. Serfs thought they were inferior because
of bad deeds in their previous birth, thanks to Dalai Lama. Serf owners didn't
want change because, well, they were serf owners.

 

Regardless of what Tibet was like before the Communist takeover - the fact of the matter is that most of them are not happy living udner the thumb of the CCP and most of them would prefer they be left alone regardless of what form of self government takes its place (at least most that I've talked to).

It's like the US' Vietnam war - many Vietnamese who fought in it weren't so much doing for the glory of the proletariat or world socialism but as a form of self determination, seeing the Americans as a continuation of French colonialists. Regardless of the fact that socialism sucks - there's a lot to be said for being able to choose your own destiny - something the Tibetans have been denied under the guns of the PLA.

 

Sishir, I normally enjoy your posts simply because I see you as a very reasonable debater. In numerous Tsunami and New Orlean posts, one could also easily see that you are a very warm-hearted person. But one thing I really have to point out to you, that the double standard a few of you hold, especially in the Tibet discussion, is so obvious that it makes me wondering whether Americans can and will at least try to be unbiased and objective, once the evil word "communist" is involved in discussion. I am very disappointed in the answer I found out personally.

You, including others, do not want to admit that Tibet is part of China directly. But you said "the Chinese claim isn't without merit", and Sam also admitted that Tibet was part of China over some period in history. It's a long history, much longer than American one. So, basically Chinese government is controlling Tibet area now, and give Tibetans relatively more autonomy than average Chinese, on paper. It is the reality, which is never disputed in UN, by any official statement of any government in the world, unlike Taiwan issue. Historically, everyone agrees that at least there were periods that Tibet was part of China; currently, Han Chinese and Tibetans live together in Tibet, as Chinese citizens.

Now, you and some others told us that Tibetans suffered under communists especially during those crazy years, but not as much as they did before communists took control over China, because they were slaves and serfs before.

Again, you and some others told us that they don't want others to decide for them what life they should live.

In conclusion, you told us that Chinese government should negotiate with Dalai Lama, basically return Tibet to Tibetans.

Now, my question is how do you know what the majority of Tibetans want? Just based on those noises from a certain groups, who are funded by Western countries, whenever Chinese government officials visit anywhere? Or, did any of you, really set foot on Tibet, conducted a scientifically designed survey to Tibetans? Or, the idea just pop out based on your "understanding" of communists - Everything they said or done is evil by default, even if they cite the simple fact that the Sun rises from the East?

Let's take a brief look at American history. There was NO single day in history, when the land of America belonged to any part of Europe, before Europeans settlers came. So, there wasn't any merit based on history alone. Europeans came and killed and drove Native people away, declared control over the land, and set up countries. Then they started to move more and more people here. There was NOT a single Native American asked Europeans to come and kill and take over their land.

The existence of US and Canada is undisputed in UN. Nobody ever questions its authority over that land; nobody ever started any movement to return that land to the Native people, even without any historical event to support the "invasion".

Let's take a look at Iraq. A sovereign country was invaded by US. There was no proof that Iraqis invited US army to change their way of life. But they were still “liberated” no matter how.

As Deckard mentioned “sincerely”, that what Europeans did to Native Americans was wrong, and he already criticized the action. But that’s past history. What happened in America is happening in Tibet now, and it must be stopped. Tibet has to be returned to Tibetans, and Chinese must leave them alone. I am just curious, what’s happening in Tibet? Are Chinese systematically committing ethnic cleansing? Or they are building Tibet with Tibetans? If one is so sold on principles, shouldn’t one do much more than just posting on a bbs that what Americans did to native people was wrong? Shouldn’t he/she start the movement, to drive everyone except native people out of the land of America, including Europeans, Asian, and Africans? Shouldn’t one start the movement to withdraw from Iraq right away, instead of all kinds of excuses that “we did wrong by entering, but we can’t leave that to these people”? If those movements were too dangerous and might get oneself thrown in jail, at least as a conscious firm believer of principles, maybe one can start to move out the land first, because that doesn’t belong to your ancestors, nor belong to you.

But hey, whom am I kidding? There was no historical event to support the actions, and there was no invitation from the people of those land, Native American suffered for the benefit of great Americans now, and Iraqis suffered for the benefit of whatever purpose. Since those righteous ones already sincerely criticized them, let’s just move on. However, even with history agreed by Western and Eastern scholars, without any objection from any country officially, despite the current status, Chinese must return Tibet to Tibetans. Because there were periods in history it was not clear as cut due to Western interference? Because Tibetans suffered ALONG SIDE WITH average Chinese, despite those slaves and serfs were set free?

Sishir, nobody flames you, but it was quite irresponsible to claim about systematic destruction in Tibet without facts to backup, and it was unreasonable to suggest Chinese government to negotiate with Dalai Lama about the land of Tibet. He doesn’t own that land, Tibetan Chinese and all other Chinese do, and that does not include you and me. Dalai Lama doesn’t have a say, and most of us here on this bbs don’t have a say either.

I would recommend Americans who make suggestion about which land should give to what people, and which government should talk to what person about what land and what people, they should ask themselves a simple question, whether they would question the ownership of land of America, or Texas. Whatever reason you want to use in other arguments, isn’t it better suited for the latter discussion?

I learned the word “hypocrisy” long time ago, but not until I engaged in lots of discussions here in D & D, I learned the true meaning of that word in life. I also see that written in my face when I look into the mirror. Hopefully you don’t.

 

While I don't really believe in the "well if CHina shouldn't occupy Tibet then the US should give back it all the land to native americans" argument - this really doesn't help the case very much and makes it look weaker, for two primary reasons:

1. The amount of self-determination and self-government granted to Native Americans by the US today is far, far beyond anything most Tibetans (or Han Chinese for that matter) could ever hope for in their wildest dreams. While the reservation system has its problems (poverty, mainly) - you cannot say that the US doesn't grant Native Americans the right to self-determination. In fact, most Native American nations have rights that supersede that of many state governments.

2. As the US grew up and "matured" as a nation - it did in fact GIVE BACK a lot of its colonial gains.

Let's go back to the last time the US invaded a bunch of countries for the purpose of territorial expansion and annexed them: the Spanish American War in 1898. During this war, which was an imperialistic war if there ever was one - the US occupied Cuba, the Phillipines, and Puerto Rico

Does the US still occupy Cuba? no - it's an independent, sovreign state - with the exception of the Military base at Guantanamo which is leased from the government- Cuba has been an independent nation since 1902.

Does the US still occupy the Phillipines? no - while the US took much longer to get out of the Phillipines and ran it as a de facto colony until after WWII, in the postwar era the Phillipines became truly independent in the practical sense.

Does the US still occupy Puerto Rico? Somewhat, Puerto Rico is still a US territory - however, the US has given the Puerto Ricans the choice (through a popular referendum) to become independent, become a US state, or continue as a territory on multiple occassions, the most recent being a few years ago, and they voluntarily CHOOSE to remain a part of the US (due more to economic issues rather than a lack of nationalism, I would suspect). Of course this type of referendum would never happen in Tibet under the CCP.

All of this happened a long time before the Chinese invaded and occupied Tibet in the 50's - By that point in time, it simply became unacceptable among the community of nations to just go around invading and annexing other peoples against their will and absorbing their culture. Times change.

 

Sam, you are not discussing the matter, but rather arguing for the sake of argument. I say that because you simply twisted the fact. PLA entered Tibet AFTER Dalai Lama and Banchan Lama both signed the agreement of "Tibet Liberation". No shot was fired at the time. Dalai Lama and Banchan Lama visited Beijing and joined the conference and met Mao and other CCP leaders three years later. How could you say with a straight face that Chinese invaded and occupied Tibet?

Shots were fired and people died when the slave owners rebelled and kidnapped Dalai Lama, who was 15 years old at the time, mind you. As the head of the people agreed, the majority of the people didn't oppose, no violence whatsoever when they entered, how's that an invasion? Without history tie and mutual acknowledgement that they are the same people in same nation, how would that happen?

Can you say the same thing when Europeans took over the land of America? THAT was an invasion and occupancy.

You say Americans GRANTED Native people far more rights than any Chinese could imagine. I don't know what to say about that claim. It was their land, now you grant them great rights. How many years did Texas belong to US? how many years was Tibet part of China? Tibet is one of the semi-self-autonomous territories of China. Before the liberation, those people were slaves and serfs, are you telling me they don't have much more rights now comparing to 50 years ago?

You want examples of US's good deeds to GIVE BACK colonial gains? China gave back everything in South East Asia long before European invaded and occupied the land of America, way before the word of "democracy" existed! Chinese do not have a single military base in any other countries. On the other hand, if they have a dozen military bases over the world, nobody is going to question their authority over their own land. Similarly, nobody is going to or dare to question US authority in Texas.

It was allowed 200 years ago but not 50 years ago? Who's to set the timeline? Just like the French did those dozen nuclear weapon tests in some colony islands before they are sure they can stimulate everything on computer, only then they became righteous figures to support ban of nuclear tests.

I guess there is really no point to argue about this any more. You are talking to a brick wall, so am I. I won’t chime in again in future Tibet talks.

 

real_egal, I call the Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet that because in October 1950, roughly 40,000 PLA soldiers invaded Tibet, made short work of the tiny Tibetan army, and Chinese rule began in Tibet - or should I say, Xizang or whatever the Chinese want people to call it now - and then set to work reneging on the 1951 agreement - which was signed AFTER the invasion, btw.

Do you want me to call it a liberation? I'd be hard pressed to do that, especially after the 1959 uprising in which anywhere from a few thousand (PRC figure) to a few hunderd thousand (Tibetan exile provided figure) Tibetans lost their lives and the various military crackdowns before and since.

I know people are sensitive about certain things - but when you send an army to another place, fight their army, and then stay there - you are invading and occupying, no question, unless you are in denial via the magic of the euphemism. The US invaded Iraq in 2003. China invaded Tibet in 1950. Those two statements are true.

I don't know if it's accurate to say that China 'gave back" anything in SE Asia - they fought many wars with Vietnam, for example over it. Anyway - let us assume that you are correct and they did voluntarily cede back territories - why can't they do the same in this century in Tibet? If we both agree that giving up a territory you annexed to its native peoples is a good thing.

The timeline was set by global events. 200 years ago it was accepted to hang people for petty theft. 2000 years ago it was ok to marry 10 year old girls. Now it is no longer ok. Times change.

By 1950 - it was no longer acceptable to go around invading & annexing other peoples - there was a little thing called World War 2 which established that principle - which the Chinese benefitted immensely from with respect to the Japanese.

No, nobody would question US ownership of Texas - but then, nobody's going to question Chinese ownership of Manchuria either. However, if the US invaded Texas in 1950 - you're damned right there would be people questioning it today.

Your choice of calling it a brick wall is correct - i don't think there's that much you can say to refute that.

 

I'd like to caution both sides of Tibet debate on drawing the illusional parallel between "White Men's burden" and "Han-Chinese' burden" with regard to their mistreatment of the repective minority races, namely, the Native-Americans in USA and the Tibetan-Chinese in China. This misunderstanding is primary based on the irrelevant comparison between the European immigrants' exploration of the American Wild West and Han-Chinese' continuous exercise of sovereignty over its own territory.

Nope, China's West is not American West, and Tibetan-Chinese are not Native Americans.

Tibet is a region of China. It has been since the 13th century. One needs to refer to Chinese history and Chinese historians to learn about it. The historical data, in the form of mllions of files in both Chinese and Tibetan recording historical facts over more than seven centuries are being kept in the archives of Beijing, Nanjing and Lhasa. Yet it is only virulently anti-China Tibetan secessionist propaganda written in English which is automatically accorded the status of unassailable truth.

Chinese descendant or otherwise, [on the Tibet issue] the China bashers' attitude reeks of colonialist arrogance.

The relationship between majority Han-Chinese and minority Tibetan-Chinese does NOT historically parallel that of European-Americans and Native Americans. The territory of modern China includes Tibet not because "Han-Chinese conquered Tibetan-Chinese" the way European-Americans conquered American Indians and Hawaiians.

Instead both Tibetans and Hans, along with many other ethnicities, were conquered by the Mongols under the rule of Genghis Khan and his grandson Kublai Khan from 1271 to 1368. When the Mongol or Yuan Dynasty collapsed, it was supplanted by a Han-Chinese dominated Ming Dynasty, which inherited jurisdiction over the Mongol empire, including the Tibetan region. This is how Tibet, and of course Mongolia, became part of China.

Let's look at the so-called "muddled" history of Tibet territory "dispute" involving, guess who else, the Britain.

Near the end of Qing Dynasty, British aggressors invaded China's Tibet twice. The Tibetan army and civilians rose to resist but were defeated. In the second aggressive war against Tibet, the British army occupied Lhasa, and the 13th Dalai Lama was forced to flee from the city. The Brits compelled the Tibetan local government officials to sign the Lhasa Convention. The high commissioner of the the Ministry of External Affairs of the Qing government stationed in Tibet refused to sign it, leaving it ineffectual.

Britain took advantage of the political chaos in China after the collapse of the Qing Dynasty and the new birth of the Republic of China in 1901, and put before the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs a five-point demand, indicating the denial of China's sovereignty over Tibet. Chinese government squarely rejected the demand.

In 1913 the British government inveigled the Tibetan authorities into declaring independence with the supervision and full support by British. Simply the British would like to turn Tibet into British colony like India. Once again British failed.

In the summer of 1942, the height of Sino-Japan War, the Tibetan local government, with the support of the British representative, announced the establishment of a "foreign affairs bureau," and openly carried out "Tibetan independence" activities. These actions were made public and condemned by the ROC government, which issued a stern warning. Under this pressure, the Tibetan local government had no choice but to withdraw its decision and reported the change to the national government.

The bottom line is that Tibet was not "invaded" or "annexed" by China in 1959. Because by then the Tibetan region had been part of China for seven centuries, five centuries longer than these United States of America have even been in existence. One does not "invade" or "annex" what is already one's own territory. Beijing dispatched troops to prevent secession by the serf-owing elite which objected to the abolition of slavery, not to implement annexation. Hardly the same thing.

 

Talking about untrustworthy regimes, do they include Her Majesty's The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire? A White man's moral at his best, huh?

 

Indubitably - but you what you can say for the British empire that you can't say about the CCP Empire? The most important thing is that it ended - and the British went home. Sometimes they left the foundation for prosperity and stability in their wake (The US, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong). Sometimes they left behind chaos. (see Africa, Nepal) Many times they left behind a bit of both (India) - but the important thing is that it ended.

It's too bad that Younghusband and the Brits decided not to stick around in 1906 - I maintain that a half-century under the British crown followed by withdrawal would have been a hell of a lot better than the treatment the Tibetans got by the PLA and the CCP up until recently - which is pretty sad.

 

PRC has NOT invaded, occupied, and robbed any foreign nation in its entire existence. Good swing, Sam, but you missed completely.

As far British invading and occupying Tibet, well, the Brits did try to stay. Unfortunately their collective imperialistic ass couldn't withstand the harsh environment of the Tibetan High Plateau, not to mention the complete lack of paved roads for their four-wheelers to supply the goodies for them to survive. (Incidentally, I suggest next time you travel to Tibet, be sure forsake the roadways and the (Lhasa) Airport constructed by the Chinese Yellow Perils, but ride a mule or yak, or simply walk, or better yet, ride the back of a willing Tibetan to your shangri-la.) Too bad the Brits didn't learn enough spiritual fulfillment and body healing tricks from the lamas to stay, instead they retreated to the warm and cozy Indian colony to grow more opium.

 

I'm amazed at how many people have the fallacious belief that the PRC hasn't invaded anybody.

Putting Tibet aside - it is an indisputable that the PRC invaded Vietnam in 1979, and I have no doubt, would have stayed had they not suffered so many casualties in the 1 month or so of fighting (official figures put PRC casualties around 35 - 50,000 but I have heard much higher estimates from some other people). Likewise,the PRC invaded India in Ladakh and Assam on various occasions, and still hold on to parts of Ladakh.

Where in god's name did you hear this? This is just plain wrong.

The British expeditionary force (I should say, for the sake of being correct, though it was nominally a british force, and under british command, most of the troops were Gurkhas & Sikhs) invaded in 1904 and had zero trouble with the Tibetan forces in skirmishes near Gyantse. It was such a massacre even by the standards of the day that even then people found the whole thing distasteful.(the British troops were well trained and used state of the art 20th c. weaponry (cannon, rifle, machine guns etc - oh, and "four wheelers"? They didn't use cars/trucks for heavy transport in 1904 - they really hadn't even been invented yet.); the Tibetans were militias used magic buddha necklaces and 300 year old muskets. Not a month later they marched into Lhasa. Younghusband negotiated a treaty which would have laid the grounds for Tibet as an independent nation/semi-protectorate of Great Britain - but due to internal political struggles and outside factors (the waning of Russian strength, and the end of the great game era in general, as well as the change from Tory to Liberal government in London) - the treaty was emasculated.

The British had no trouble militarily while they were there due to "high altitude". Quite the opposite - their troops were Gurkhas which means that they were from Nepal - one of the few places as high as Tibet. Likewise the British held on to even higher altitude regions in the high Karakorums in Pakistan such as Gilgit and Chitral for many years despite fierce military opposition. So I don't really know where you're coming up with this, wnes. Boy, talk about somebody who"missed completely"....

(PS, most of this info I took from the books The Great Game and Trespassers on the Roof of the World by Peter Hopkirk - the preeminent scholar of the era - and some from Tournament of the Shadows, whose authors names I forget)

Ahhh- good old fashioned accusations of racism (from those arguing the paternalistic case of the occupiers, no less) - the way all Tibetan threads generally end. (ironically, a lot of Yao Ming threads end up this way too...)

You know wnes, I have been to Tibet, and I've traveled on foot, mule, yak, bus, jeep, plane, and even boat (river).
And I enjoyed every bit of it. I hope to again some day. I only hope it hasn't changed much more than it has over the last few years - but I get the feeling that's a futile hope.

 

Unless an armed conflict is strictly fought along a boarder, there is no way either conflicting party can avoid entering the territory of the other side. In the China-Vietnam war China did not invade and occupy Vietnam for anything other than tactical military combat purpose, neither did it loot its southern neighbour during the military operation like your highly adored moralistic British Army did to its conquered nations. Two weeks into the conflict, PLA captured Lang Son, a vital center in Vietnam's northern provinces, and around same time, reached coastal town of Quang Yen, some 100 miles from Hanoi. Sure there were pretty heavy casualties, but PLA did its military success without using Agent Orange, nor any other illegal weapons, instead fighting a just war fair and square.

Although the heavily equipped Brits (with cannons and machine guns) defeated the Tibetans who were only armed with primitive weapons such as spears, arrows, catapults and homemade guns, the intruders couldn't stay long in the harsh winter when they were fearful the Tibetan resistance would disrupt their long and tenuous supply chains, causing them to starve to death. Other factors like you mentioned play some role, but this was the important one.

Hey, everybody loves some adventurous, exotic, and short excursions, but few can sustain prolonged primitive means of transportation on treacherous mountain trails for their entire journeys. I serious doubt you are one of those few brave souls. But nevertheless, my point was while you were indulging in your joyful ride, did it ever occur to you that without those projects strenuously implemented by your despised CCP, what would life be for a former Tibetan serf?

 

wnes - when an army of a state crosses into the territory that it doesn't control - that's an invasion - which I guess you tacitly concede since you go on to boast about the "success" of China's invasion of vietnam.

I don't know how you got from "The PRC has never invaded anyone ever ever" to "Yeah but our Vietnamese invasion was better than yours!" in the span of one post but you did.

(incidentally, not like it matters, anyone would be hard pressed to define the invasion of Northern Vietnam as a "success" - the PRC gained no territory permanently, suffered as many casualties in one month as the US did in 10+ years in Vietnam, and the Vietnamese did not pull out of Cambodia [where they fighing the china-backed khmer rouge] which was the alleged justification for it - but yeah - the sneak attack invasion of Vietnam was otherwise a "fair fight" because of no Agent Orange- so China gets the "fair fight" prize for that invasion. Congratulations. I have read that the one "success" was that, because the USSR did NOT intervene on Vietnam's side, it exposed them as being unable/unwilling to be of much use in SE Asia.)

Says who? Like I said, the British managed to occupy harsh or harsher terrain in the Karakorums againsts fierce local opposition - and last time I checked an englishman (and their Gurkha and Sikh soldiers) could survive on tsampa just like a Tibetan.

Where are you getting this? Find ONE single solitary historical source for this assertion. The Royal army kept pretty extensive records as did the Foreign Office and the rest of the relevant British officialdom of the time. I've read quite a bit about this period and I've never heard that before as being any real factor - the Brits invaded in 1904 and stayed around till 1906 - couple of winters in there and they didn't exactly starve.

wnes - I did more before 5 AM (EST) last year than most have done in their entire lives - but I appreciate you questioning my bravery. It's too bad that these discussions always end like this. I don't think I've come close to insulting you personally once (which is a record for me on this BBS).

Anyway what would a former Tibetan serfs life be like? I don't know - it's difficult to predict that. Maybe it would be like your average Ladakhi - which is not that bad in my experience. But maybe not. This is of course assuming this former Tibetan serf wasn't killed or imprisoned during the various PLA crackdowns of the past half century.

 

The statement I made was PRC never invaded, occupied AND ROBBED [emphasis added to aid your thorough understanding, Sam] any foreign country.

The PRC publically announced their intention for the military campaign two days before the war, so it was anything but a surprise to the battle tested Vietnamese troops. The reason for the war was to stop Vietnam from the harrassment and massive expunge of generation of Chinese descendents legally residing in that country, and from inciting frequent small scaled armed conflicts, with the specific goal to destroy Vietnam military structures along Chinese - Vietnam border. Since the Chinese military didn't engage in indiscriminatory killing of innocent civilians with such tactics used by US military as carpet bombing and employment of illegal weapons, the casualty was expected -- but not nearly as much as you claimed. The Chinese troops retreated to their own border after successful execution of the preset goal. Before we further derail the Tibetan discussion, let's get back to your peculiar love affair with Britain's transgression against much of the Asian and other parts of the world for almost a century and why your benevolent global humanitarianism suddenly ceases to function. Perhaps you could explain why these do-gooders possess tons and tons of Chinese treasures originally only found in the former Beijing's Yuan Ming Yuan, and why Yuan Ming Yuan was extinct for that matter.

Says Foster Stockwell, an American writer who grew up as the son of missionaries in southwestern China (Chengdu) near Tibet, in his essay "Myth and Reality" [of Tibet].

Should I be flattered? Or does it matter you haven't insult me personally but you insult and belittle PRC and the Chinese at every possible turn? I used to think you are one of those so-called "equal opportunity offender," but I am now less convinced. Please spare me the usually I-have-been-to-China-many-times or I-have-many-Chinese-friends BS. The Japanese Imperial Army loved China so much that they spent some 10 years in China. Your China-related posts speak volume about your general attitude towards China and the Chinese. Examples include making light of the Japanese atrocity against the Chinese. Sure we may agree a lot on our dislike of policies of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration, but that doesn't mean I should take kindly your China bashing any more than somebody else. Again, I could be wrong in my assessment of you, but your posts always seem to be sprinkled with some irresistible hostility against China -- something too obvious for me to ignore.

Maybe you should first ask the serf what are the odds of him living longer than 36 years of age under Dalai Lama.

By the way, Sammy, did you disclose your D&D posts to the Chinese you met about them and their country while your were there?

 

I'm pretty sure you've lost wnes.

Fisher also has more posts, so therefore by the laws of physics, you are eliminated from this discussion.

 

Tibet was not an independant entity recognized by the UN during China's taking back. It's a region of China for hundreds of years which was out of its normal orbit during China's turbulent years. If a man got hit by the glorious invaders like the British, Russians and Japanese, and lost some property,I think it would be his right to pick it up later on.

Samfisher, I found all your excuses on why the USA shouldn't return the Natives their land pretty weak. You think a man can rob people's house, kill their men and give them a few nickels and then go to heaven with his sin repented? or it's legit because you did it at a time when everyone else was doing it? and you can imply the Chinese abusing Tibetans without turning your head to the fate of the native Americans after the "great rights" you say the US government gave them? what great rights would cause the population of the native Americans to decrease by millions? the right to get buried after being abused to death?

Yeah, I hate I couldn't explore the great grass land where numerous Indian tribes lived, at least you get to see the Tibetan buildings and people.

 

wnes - the fact that you're making a distinction between "invaded occupied AND ROBBED", as if the lack or addition of robbery makes it inherently right or wrongr - pretty much underscores the utter weakness of your position - but if if will make you happy - I'm sure acts of larceny were commited during the various invasions & occupations of the PRC, such as the looting of Tibet.

Again, just to give you yet another history lesson - the "battle tested Vietnam troops" were mostly in the South and in Cambodia in 1979. In the northern highlands where the Chinese invasion occurred, most forces were local militia or police, old men, whose war ended after Dien Bien Phu 25 years earlier.

I don't know why you think I love the British - as I said before, in a point that you continue to ignore - I said that the best thing about the British Empire was that it ended. They no longer occupy terrotories against their inhabitants will. This is something we cannot say for China, or the United States unfortunately. But again - the Chinese treatment of the Tibetans from 1951 onwards is oppression & borders on cultural genocide (it has been called genocide by various NGO's and IGO's) - so I don't see how the British could have done much worse, short of killing them all.

Oh, and Foster Stockwell? I've never heard of him, and he doesn't seem to have published much. http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref...25?search-alias=aps&keywords=foster stockwell He's certainly not a contemporaneous source if he's still writing books today.

He is listed on the internet as a "consultant" for Chinese publishers - I can see why with a strict party line essay like this (which it looks like you were copying and pasting from yesterday, now that I read it. Has he published any historical papers in journals? I'd like to see them and see what his sources are. He doesn't give any in his essays. As I said, contemporaneous memoirs and archives from Younghusband and the Foreign Office are voluminous from that period, which has been quite well researched. So it would be interesting to see where he's getting this from.

http://journeyeast.tripod.com/myth_and_reality.html

As for the rest of the "you hate china and chinese " bullsh-t - I have no desire to deal with whatever motivates you to make those statements.

Yes, I criticize the Chinese government. It has done a lot of bad things, and continues to do them. Likewise, I criticize the US government. It has done a lot of bad things and continues to do them. And people on the other side, say "you hate america, you hate china" blah blah blah. The politics of nationalism and the resulting inferiority complexes is so tiresome sometimes - but I'm not going to shut up about it - ever.

A funny thing that I've noticed on this message board is that whenever the discussion turns to US politics, Chinese and/or Chinese American posters are allowed to join in on any criticism of the US government - including yourself. Which is fine with me, since I criticize our governmetn and particularly the current regime and its various criminal activities and misadventures as much as anyone. When we have these debates, nobody really ever accuses you, wnes, or Sishir Chang or anybody else of being racist anti-american xenophobes (well, not any more than I get accused of the standard "you hate america" crap) . But whenver the discussion turns to criticism of china, people get very defensive and accusations of racism are the rule and not the exception.