Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gary Ng who wrote (92414)	4/11/2003 3:14:48 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

China definitely has a legitimate claim on Taiwan (as they did to HK even if HK had become a separate country under the British). This is certainly not the case with Tibet. As to the examples you mentioned, it is no secret that the natives were pummeled and destroyed. Their treatment was totally wrong and unethical. However, it is also true that at least in case of Alaska and many northern states, the natives did not form what could be considered a State or Country. They were nomadic tribes who used the land. But the civilization and the country was built by the Europeans. This still doesn't justify all the wrongs they suffered, but it is not in the same league as the examples we were discussing. More to the point, there was a great line in the movie "Gangs of New York". A "native" was defined as one who is willing to give up his life for his country. So I will say that when the Chinese are willing to give up their lives to defend Tibetan's way of life and the Tibetans are willing to do the same for Chinese, both can be considered one nation. Until then, it is a forced occupation from both people's perspective. If China had actually considered Tibet as being Chinese, there would have been no need to relocate the population. ST