On Mar 16, 10:56=A0pm, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 9:38=A0pm, James <j0069b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Maybe Tibetans thought they were because Peking was too busy trying to
> > servive after being carved up like a turkey by western powers.
>
> In those days, there were no such thing as "independence". =A0Each
> "area" was controlled by a tribal chiefton. Back in the second
> millium, Emperor Han Wudi of the Han Dynasty sent one of daughter to
> be a wife of a Tibetan ruler to cement a tributary relation****p. =A0That
> was the beginning of China/Tibet inter-relation****p..
Yes, 700-800 years ago Tibet ruled parts of Pakistan. But of course
goddamn chinks can keep Tibet, while our own "Tibet" like Native
America and First Nations in Canada can be excused and rationalized
with "long, complicated history", "not feasible", etc.
There's an old Chinese saying "measure other's heart by measuring ones
own heart". Will the Tibet activists in the West evern hold ourselves
to the same standards, eg. returning all the stolen, decimate our own
"established sovereignty" to free our own subjugated people?
|
