AviationBanter - View Single Post

**PaPaPeng**

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:52:00 -0700, (JJS)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:28:30 -0700, (JJS)
wrote:

I know is looks like the Chinese have adopted the "white man's burden".
You know bringing civilization to the less fortunate whether they
want it or not e.g. Tibet.

Joe

On the contrary. Tibet is being developed for China's benefit as
Tibet's resources and vast space is needed.

True.

Development will not wait
for Tibetans slow to get into the game.

I know this is where the "whether they want it or not" comes in.

Tibetans are in the best
position to benefit from this investment as the rules are already in
place to let them have first pick.

Well there's the problem. The large immigration of Chinese to Tibet
could be considered a threat by the local Tibetan population. They
might argue that the first pick goes to the Chinese or those Tibetans
loyal to the Chinese rather than the general population. At least that's
how it usually works in the rest of the world.

The real problem here is finding enough qualified Tibetans. Those
qualifed will have no problem finding employment. You still need at
least a high school equivalency to work in a white collar job. To a
Han Tibet is a hardship post. But if that's where the jobs are
they'll come, earn what they came to earn and then go east after a few
years. The jobs will always be available for qualified Tibetans.

As for manual jobs the Han immigrants are paid as poorly as Tibetans.
And there is a problem of language to manage a Tibetan work crew. In
any case these are dead end jobs. The only solution is for Tibetans
to acquire employable skills.

But the Tibetans must also have
the attitude, aptitude and the ability to take advantage of these
opportunities.

I know this is where the "whether they want it or not" comes in.

To quit with barely a grade 6 education with no
(Chinese majority or foreign) language skills dooms one to making a
living off equally disadvantaged fellow Tibetans. (Being a monk
inures one to life's hardships but is quite useless for making a
living.)

I agree but when does it become someone else¹s choice (non-Tibetan)
that they change the way they live their life? I'm not saying
that the local population had a better life style before the
Chinese decided to improve things. I'm just wondering who gets to
decide what happens in Tibet.

Do read the May National Geographic special issue on China. See the
vast deserts. See the poverty and backwardness in marginal farmlands.
Due to global climate change Tibet is drying up and farming and
herding can no longer sustain a livelihood. The world is changing and
their old style of life has disappeared forever whether they like it
or not. The question then is can they adapt to the new life that has
been forced upon them by nature.

Turn to page 74-75 a double spread showing Tibetan youths and
government housing in the background built to house Tibetans displaced
by climate change. The caption suggests that the Tibetan youths are
visitors. Those Tibetans resettled in these new towns receive
government subsidies enough to get by on. But they are bored out of
their frigging minds because of lack of suitable employment. They are
pastoral people not urbanites. In this sheltered environment Tibetan
culture cannot thrive because it is out of context with their
traditional way of life. By the same context no amount of government
funding or support will keep alive Tibetan culture as a way of life.
Change is not an option. It is a relentless certainty.

Do take a look at the Tibetan youths again and compare them with the
Han in other pages. They look differerent enough that without my
dwelling on it you can see they will have a problem getting hired. I
have deleted the rest of my rant as I have no alternative or
optimistic solutions for Tibetan problems in a fast changing world.
No amount of good intentions or pablum slogans on your part nor on the
Chinese side will solve anything.

Your Afro-American experience is an excellent parallel.

I don't see the parallel.

Providing barely earned advantages to all 2.5 million Tibetans in a
population of 1.3 billion Chinese is no problem at all. But these
advantages must still be earned regardless of at how low a level.

I know this is where the "whether they want it or not" comes in.

Joe