Bush 'Plans Iran Air Strike by August'

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?

Beijing already has all the power. She doesn't need to prove anything
to anyone least of all to people like you. Beijing has a National
Policy for Minorities of which Tibetans form a group that receives the
most attention. 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.
http://www.everyculture.com/Russia-E...-Policies.html

I made no claim that Beijing's Tibet policy is good for the Tibetans.
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.

Your responses so far is to patronize the Tibetans by saying that all
their problems can be solved if only Beijing cared. 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. You really have some personal issues to resolve
first.

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. 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.
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. 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. You have neither the intellectual
nor the moral authority to speak for them.








================================

Chinese Policy on Minorities
http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Minori...in-policy.html
General

These fifty-six are extremely diverse. Some of the minorities,
including the Hui and the Zhuang, are very similar to the Han; others
are very different, for instance, the Turkic peoples of the west such
as the Uygurs or Kazakhs, or the Iranian Tajiks. The Minority
nationalities occupy about 60 per cent of China's territory,
including, above all, the vast western areas.

Policy

Chinese policy officially opposes forced assimilation and allows
autonomy to the minority nationalities, so that they can retain their
own characteristics. Under this policy, the government has set up
numerous autonomous areas throughout China. The policy's real effect,
however, can best be described as integration.

Policy on Secession

Both policy and reality are fiercely opposed to outright secession,
which the government has suppressed brutally on several occasions.
Such occasions occurred in the years of 1959, 1987, and 1989. Most of
the minorities have succeeded in integrating reasonably well with the
Han, but independence or secessionist and wishes have remained strong
among a few, particularly the Tibetans. Ethnic dissent among some
nationalities could easily develop as an issue in the coming years.

Census Situation

In the 1953 census 41 minority nationalities were specified. In the
1964 census, there were 183 nationalities registered, among which the
government recognized only 54. Of the remaining 129 nationalities, 74
were considered to be part of the officially recognized 54, 23 were
classified as "other nationalities" and the remaining 32 were
classified as "indeterminate." The numbers of population has some
suspect due to the re-registration of significant numbers of Han
people as members of minority nationalities, an action which brought
with it personal benefits. Also some did so as it relates to the
substantial (though not total) exemption of members of minority
nationalities from the family planning policy of "one family one
child".

"PaPaPeng" wrote in message
...

Belonging to a Chinese minority group brings useful
privileges such as being allowed to have more children

An interesting statement.

Someone asked me the other day why India's population is still climbing at a
hell of a rate when the Chinese population is pretty stable, and why can't
the Indian government impose 'child quotas' in the same way they do in
China.

I explained that any Indian government that tried would be out on their
arses at the next election, that India is a democracy and that people there
take that democracy very seriously indeed.

I wish people would take politics as seriously here.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

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. You¹re 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?
You¹re 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 don¹t 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 you¹re 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 didn¹t 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 haven¹t claimed that it is the "Government¹s fault".
I¹ve 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 haven¹t claimed to speak for them I don¹t 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