In article ,
wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:08:31 -0700, (JJS)
wrote:
So we are back to the "white man's burden" excuse again. Look
we both know that it doesn't matter what the life style of Tibet
is. This is all about power so why keep bringing up how good
this is for Tibet when is has nothing to do with helping Tibet.
Well I guess you could say that the Chinese are 'helping' themselves
to the resources of Tibet.
Geezee how many times did you have to repeat a grade before you got
your 3Rs right?
Take a deep breath and calm down. Youıre beginning to act childish.
Beijing already has all the power.
Which I have agreed is correct several times. Why repeat what we
have agreed to? Do I need to type it in capitals for you to
understand?
She doesn't need to prove anything
to anyone least of all to people like you.
Where did I say they had to prove anything to me?
Youıre becoming irrational.
Beijing has a National
Policy for Minorities of which Tibetans form a group that receives the
most attention.
Lucky for Tibet or should that be unlucky?
Belonging to a Chinese minority group brings useful
privileges such as being allowed to have more children and these
children have preferential admission to institutions of higher
learning, the passport to the good life. As such quite a number of
identifiable community groups seek Minority status.
You do realize donıt you that power over a group is maintained not
only with force but with privileges? This is pretty basic when
one group is trying to maintain control over another.
http://www.everyculture.com/Russia-E...to-China-Minor
ity-Policies.html
I made no claim that Beijing's Tibet policy is good for the Tibetans.
You say this so why keep bringing up how good it is for them?
"being allowed to have more children and these
children have preferential admission to institutions of higher
learning, the passport to the good life'"
To put it politely youıre being inconsistent.
What Beijing does is pragmatism. Its a damn lot chaper and easier to
pay displaced Tibetans to get by than it is to try to force feed them
ill thought out "Tibet" solutions. Your experience in the west had
seen many multi-million dollar welfare type attempts go to waste. All
those failures do is to reinforce the target group's sense of failure
and the futility of their lives. The smarter ones develop a penchant
to game the system for whatever dollars they can get before another
do-good project goes south.
It may surprise you but I agree.
Your responses so far is to patronize the Tibetans by saying that all
their problems can be solved if only Beijing cared.
Sigh. No I merely asked if more local control of their lives would work
out better for Tibet. You have a knack for distorting what I write.
In the same
breath you contradict yourself "if only Beijing would leave them alone
to work out something at their own pace and time" Tibetans will
achieve nirvana.
I didnıt write or insinuate that Tibet would reach ³nirvana². I asked if
it was possible for them to develop with less Chinese intervention than
we see today. You seem to have a low opinion of the people in Tibet.
Why it that?
You really have some personal issues to resolve
first.
Oh the irony!!! 8^D
That New Town resettlement for Tibetans displaced by climate change
actually tells many stories. There are no laws that keep them there.
There are no restrictions as to what work they can engage in. There
are no laws to say they cannot go back to their old style of life (or
a new style if they chose to do so) anywhere in Tibet or elsewhere in
China.
You don't need laws when you completely dominate another group
of people. There are different ways control them. You can move
large numbers of Han into Tibet and change the demographics to
the point that the locals realize that they need to play the game
by the new rules.
Yet they stay and they remain bored out of their frigging
minds. The incontrovertible fact then is there is nowhere in the
whole vast country of China that they can they recreate their former
lives. The world has changed and its not the Government's fault.
Pay attention. I havenıt claimed that it is the "Governmentıs fault".
Iıve been asking about how the Chinese government is handling the
situation and why they have selected this approach to the problem.
Therefore all this talk about preserving their culture won't bring
back their former lives. The best and perhaps only way they can
practice it is in the form of festivals. For their everyday lives
they must adapt to realities, and that is to find some form of work
they can do.
And not for the first time I agree but this isn't what we
are really talking about is it?
What this form will take is something neither you nor I
have a clue on since neither of us have been to Tibet let alone what
their hopes and capabilities are.
We agree again.
You have neither the intellectual
nor the moral authority to speak for them.
Since I havenıt claimed to speak for them I donıt see the sense in this
statement. Your post may hold the record for the most Straw Man Arguements
contained in a single post.
Joe
SNIP