Tibet

Dennis Su

After reading James Koo's article on the never-ending search about Tibet's sovereignty, my reaction is : Aiee Yaa, the eternal difference between the academic intelligentsia and the cold real world of money and power. The difference is almost as fundamental as between male and female. Since there is no safe way to jump into such controversial subject, one can only draw on the traditional saying to help: you guys can talk till the kingdom come, while the world keep on turning.

James Koo's research is commendable and so is his professor friend.  I don't think one can dispute all the historical facts presented in  the article. What the article lacks is the objective of the whole  exercise. So are we, the enlightened ones, the comfortable and the  free, suppose to do after knowing this piece of history ? Go tell  the current Chinese government to leave Tibet alone ? Or are we  simply do a collective sigh and let it go.

Modest and simple these assumed objectives may seem, my pessimistic  view suggests that we will fail in both attempts. To begin with, by  the fact that we did not lift one muscle when the Indonesian burnt,  looted and killed the Chinese and the Timorese; when the Serb and  the Albanian had a field day with the Muslims; nor when the Russian  leveled towns in Chechnya; nor when Myanmar Army wiping out the  Karen tribes; nor when the Sikhs and Hindus blew each others up; nor  when the Huttos(?) and the Tutusc(?) chopped the arms off each  others; why should we get all excited now because of another blunder  left by one of the last imperialists before our time. All major  powder kegs in the world today are leftover mess excreted by either  the British or the French after the WWII : Palestine,  Pakistan/India, Yugoslavia, Indo-China, Algeria, Middle East, Congo, etc.

These are just a few groups of people settling their differences in  the past decades. We certainly need a few volumes to fill if we go as far back as to the turn of the 20th century, or a whole library  to fill if we go as far as the Yuen or the Qing dynasties. And now  we are told that the Tibet issue used to be a slice on the  Imperialists' pie, are we giving up our comfortable life style to  rally for Tibet's independence ? Nooooo.

All creatures great and small are subjected to the rule of the  strong dominates the weak. Period. No if nor but. (Unless one is  into S & M. But that's deviation from the norm.) Alpha male gets the first choice that goes for all mammal including humans.  Countries or tribes are groups of organized humans. Big fishes eat  small fishes and big bugs eat small bugs. So the world goes. China  wants to claim Tibet ? Fine. The world shows that different  languages, cultures, histories don't necessarily mean different  countries. It may sounds unfair or even brutal but at least in some  case it means less blood shed and less human suffering. Recent  history even proves that big brother looking over a bunch of small  fry works better than each fry setting up its own territory then  kill each other off.

How much of the world's past and present wrong do we want to right ?  If you are reading this, you are a Pui Ching "red and blue" and we  were educated not to sit idly and watch such inhumanities happening. We just have to choose how much and in what extent can one little old me do.

One can joint the Red Cross, Green Peace or Blue Cross and be a  volunteer. ( By the way, where is yellow)

One can joint the mercenary and fight it out. In fact, in the days when men were men, (women too) they jointed the foreign legions or  the Spanish Republic or any revolutions to spill their blood for a  good course. Even in China, for the Double Ten revolution, May  Fourth Movement, the Sino Japanese war etc. millions of Chinese  youth with what we call "hot blood" fought for what they believed.  Nowadays, all one hears is which net stock to buy. (also see below)

One can joint a temple, church or any other religion or cult to  escape this mess and to redeem oneself and be at peace with one's  world. By the way, any one who read Ann Rand knows that money is a  religion too.

One can work hard, make lots of money and then pay to have people  listen to his or her " how to save the world" as either a politician  like Geo. W. Bush or a guru like Falun Gong's Mr. Lee.

And that's why a collective sigh will not do.

If you read this far, give yourself a pat on the shoulder. You are  redeemable. Now, where is the salty and witty writer when we need  him to enlighten us with his "three kingdoms".