Huh? China arrests 50 schoolchildren?

Any army of the Chagatai Khanate or the Golden Horde (unlikely) or Tamerlane's brief and bloody empire, coming to visit China without visas, would have gone north of Tibet, through the Gansu corridor, an area that any Chinese emperor worth his salt has kept a good grip on for a very long time, or through the Mongolian steppes to the north. The Tarim basin and Dzungaria have, like Korea, been in and out of Chinese control at various times.

And if collective memory of the time when Tibetan armies could threaten the security of China a thousand years ago justifies the modern Chinese conquest of Tibet, maybe England should lay claim to Denmark and Norway.

It is an interesting irony, that nervous Russians can look at China, and nervous Chinese can look at Russia, and both see their old nemesis - the Mongols, who themselves are now harmless, on a geopolitical scale that is.

Now, returning to the south slopes of the Himalayas, and the frontiers of Indian and Tibetan civilizations, would a king of Nepal, from medieval times to the arrival of the British, have had any dealings with the emperor of China? Or would China have been as remote to a Nepali as England or Russia?




------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001
 
With the greatest respect to Ruel; the argument that China is justified in occupying Tibet because, several hunded years ago, the Tibetans posed a military threat to China simply won't hold water. By that logic, the English government would be justified in garrisoning Edinburgh because of the Scottish border raids of the middle ages. Or nuking France, come to that.

I have to confess that I find arguments of this kind raised by pro-Chinese apologists to be somewhat glib and self-serving, and essentially the same as those put forward by the proponents of British imperialism in the 19th and early 20th centuries, or Roman imperialism in the 1st century AD; but as far as I'm concerned, the last word on the politics of buffer zones and territorial annexations goes to the British general Caractacus, who unsuccessfully opposed the Romans nearly 2,000 years ago; "They make a desert, and they call it peace"

So much history; so many lessons; so few of them learned.

My views on these issues are simplistic in the extreme. I don't hold with any government pushing anybody around; their own citizens, or people living in another country.

The folksinger Leslie Fish put it rather well -

"He's just another bully, when he pushes folks around;
Just a bigger, badder bully; I don't want him in my town.
I don't care what his reasons are for stomping you and me;
But by his works I know him; and this is tyranny."
 
I know this much. I missed being in a street where Maoists shot and killed five people by 30 minutes. If they had shot me I would be a hell of a lot less tolerant of them than I am now.

I try to view it all as the Dalai Lama does but it ain't easy because he's a saint and I'm a sinner.

Very intelligent posts, gentleman. I am reminded of my old college history professors and this is meant to be a genuine compliment.

------------------
Blessings from the computer shack in Reno.

Uncle Bill
Himalayan Imports Website
Khukuri FAQ

[This message has been edited by Bill Martino (edited 06-13-2000).]
 
Well, I suppose I did say I'd take Ruel up on this argument, fool that I was...

Perhaps I should have made myself more clear. I had no intention of "slamming China" or of "supporting Tibet." All I was trying to say was "Communism sucks," and I won't back down from that statement no matter what "type" of Communism we're talking about.

No one here is slamming the Chinese people; in fact, I am pretty sure that few would object if I were to say that the Chinese people themselves are the ones suffering the most under their current regime.

As I said previously, I have heard the whole pro-China, anti-America or anti Tibet-argument before and I just ain't buyin' it.

These people are killers. Let's not forget that.

Also, putting the childish term of 'sucky Maoists' into my mouth was really just a bit more condescending than I would have liked.

Grad student or no, I won't be talked down to like that by anybody. My days of holding my tongue for fear of offending my leftist professors are over and done with.

-Dave
 
Between 2020 and 2050 Red China is going to have the capability to project power. They want hegemony. This is a collision course with US interests. We better plan to fight them now.
It is interesting that the Jews started modern terrorism.It came back to haunt them. The Mossad did some really sloppy work. Killing the non player in Sweden comes to mind. They`ve lost their HUMINT edge now.
It didn`t do the rest of us any good either.

[This message has been edited by FNG (edited 06-14-2000).]
 
"The Jews" didn't start modern terrorism any more than "The Russians" or "The Italians" started it a couple of generations before. The term goes back to revolutionary socialist and especially anarchist movements of the late 19th century, which is about when high explosives (more destruction in a small package than can be had with black powder) came onto the market, enabling one or two rebels to make as big a "statement" as a thousand peasants with pitchforks and torches.


------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001
 
1. Tom: Please re-read my posts; I specifically said I wasn't excusing or rationalizing China's occupation of Tibet. I was just saying that there are historical and demographic forces which have led to the it happening. I'm not, as you said, "pro-Chinese," but fair is fair, and I am trying to be fair. The situation is not simply "China is evil" or "communism" is evil." It's more complicated than that, and that's all I was trying to point out. Oversimplifying the problem won't lead to a real solution for the Tibetans.

2. Dave: You did say "suck" and "communism" together somewhere above, so I wasn't trying to attribute something to you that you didn't say. What I've tried to do is to understand the causes of the situation in Tibet, because understanding the causes is the best way to a solution. Yet because I've tried to do this, you've basically ignored the content of my postings and labeled me "pro-China, anti-Tibet." And this, despite the fact I said I study Tibetan Buddhism!

I have not been condescending to you; if you felt that way, I'm sorry, but it seems more like you're just being polemical. For instance you said, "No one here is slamming the Chinese people" and then go on to say "These people are killers. Let's not forget that." Like I said, fair is fair, and frankly this alone shows that I have been more fair than you.

3. James: The Tibetan King Srongtan Gampo, founder of the eponymous dynasty in the late 6th-early 7thc., cemented political alliances with both China and Nepal by receiving princesses in marriage from each. So they were aware of each other from at least that time. Not much later (mid 7thc) the famous Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Xuanzang made his rounds of the Buddhist holy sites. Then not long after that, Tang emperors were collecting tribute from Nepal (see Ranitsch, "The Army of Tang China"). So the Chinese and Nepalese have been acquainted from at least the early Tang period.
 
Communism , in any form has proven itself to be the enemy of "the people " , not the great equilizer that it claims to be . Communism has killed more people than the Nazi's ever did , their beliefs have proved to be equaly barbaric , and EVIL . Pres. Regan had it right when he said communism ( in any form ) is the enemy of the WORLD. Our currant leaders in the not so white house see it differantly , but those students in Tianiman Square might have somthing to say about that if they could . .... No excuses , communism IS EVIL , period. Good intentions , as they say pave the road to HELL !!!
 
A person willing to die for his cause is worthy of respect regardless of the rightness of cause.

It's the person who is willing for ME to die for HIS cause that I consider it to be always open season on. There really ought to be a bounty on them too, if for nothing else but to help defray the cost of personal ammo expended in the public's interest.

[This message has been edited by Rusty (edited 06-14-2000).]
 
Well, at least nobody has said "meet me with your choice of weapon" -- yet.

As an proud enlisted man I sometimes was required to visit the officer's wardroom for various reasons. I noticed a sign in it which read:

Not to be discussed:

Religion
Politics
Women

And I thought to myself, I wonder what the officers talk about!

------------------
Blessings from the computer shack in Reno.

Uncle Bill
Himalayan Imports Website
Khukuri FAQ
 
Rusty said, "if for nothing else but to help defray the cost of personal ammo expended in the public's interest."

Did you know that in China, the family of an executed person is charged the cost of the bullet? (~US$0.25) Something I learned when I was over there!
 
Religion - your relationship with your universe.

Politics - your relationship with your fellow man near and far.

Women - your relationship with one single, overwhelmingly significant to you, other.

What could be more important to talk about and learn of, given adequate food, shelter and clothing for the moment?

In one movie, a Gene Wilder one maybe, someone is hanging off the edge of a cliff or the like and another person asks him if he needs any help. The response is " Oh, only all I can get. " I can relate to that.

[This message has been edited by Rusty (edited 06-14-2000).]
 
Ruel: I did know that but I don't understand the culture enough to really understand it. Assuming the sentence was "just" - and after being hearing officer at some thirty plus parole revocations I'm still confused with the concept.

I'm ambivalent on the cost to the family deal. Some cases, they've failed their duty, and it seems logical. Other cases, the family has gone above and beyond all calls.
 
The notion of "gentlemen" letting an argument get out of hand sounds peculiar in today's use of the word "gentlemen." It is less peculiar if when you realize that "gentlemen" comes from the same root as "genes" and refers to the "gentry" - nobility, with a feudal warrior tradition. West Side Story has lower class youth gangs behaving like the nobility of Verona in Romeo and Juliette.

In European and Euro-American history, it was a long struggle to curb upper class men's disposition to personal violence. Well into the 19th century in European armies, as well as the US Army, it was customary for enlisted men to get into fist fights, and for officers and gentlemen to fight duels.

Nowadays in America we expect lowlifes (or at least poorly educated youth) to respond to insults with deadly force, and gentlepersons to call their lawyers.

I wonder how this works in other cultures. In Nepal, for example, would somebody high up or low down on the social ladder be more likely to reach for a weapon when offended by one of his peers?


------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001
 
James, with the Maoist movement today I'm not sure how people respond to anything in Nepal but when I lived there it was more common for the village folks to resort to the use of a weapon -- almost always a khukuri -- and city folks to duke it out. Caste seemed to have little or nothing to do with it.

------------------
Blessings from the computer shack in Reno.

Uncle Bill
Himalayan Imports Website
Khukuri FAQ
 
Hi Rusty, I also feel it's a terrible burden to thrust on a family that has done all it could. Even if the gesture is on symbolic, it implies that the blame is theirs.

From what little I know of Chinese history, though, they've been doing it that way since early imperial times -- whole families were punished for the crimes of one member (cf. Haw, "A Traveller's History of China"). I'm glad we don't do that here, or else I'd be paying out many quarters!(:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top