news.groups | Google-ryhmät

soc.culture.tibet: An Outsider's View

1. R. Russell Allbery

Näytä profiili

Lisäasetukset 1 loka 1993, 06:44

Uutisryhmät: news.groups

Lähettäjä: r...@leland.Stanford.EDU (R. Russell Allbery)

Päivämäärä: Fri, 1 Oct 93 03:08:12 GMT

Paikallinen: Pe 1 loka 1993 05:08

Aihe: Re: soc.culture.tibet: An Outsider's View

  Välitä | Tulosta | Yksittäinen viesti
  | Näytä alkuperäinen
  | Raportoi tästä viestistä | Etsi tämän kirjoittajan viestit
  

j...@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang) writes:

>The one thing that every moderator needs is the confidence of the
>people who he is moderating. If the moderator is perceived as
>consistently favoring one side or another, then the moderation won't
>work well no matter how objective or unbiased the moderator tries to
>be. For example, imagine Rush Limbuagh moderating a Bush-Clinton
>debate (or for that matter a politics newsgroup). This sort of thing
>simply won't work because no matter how Mr. Limbuagh tries, Clinton
>supporters will always mistrust him.

>This is roughly the problem with the moderation of the proposed
>soc.culture.tibet group.

Yes, this would be a problem in a standard debate where the moderator
asks questions. However, in a newsgroup situation where all the
moderator does is post articles written by others and does not attempt
to start threads or direct them, there is no need for the posters to
even think about the moderator. They don't need to trust him/her; all
the moderator does is post their statement or inform them that what
they wrote was insulting or inappropriate for that group.

TV debate moderation isn't a perfect analogy for newsgroup moderation.
It does demonstrate that moderation is not censorship, though.

>r...@leland.Stanford.EDU (R. Russell Allbery) writes:

>>Therefore the owners of the computers can choose to carry or not carry
>>anything they please. Newsgroup creation is the process by which the owners
>>decide what to carry.

>And if the owners of the newsgroup make up their minds based on "free
>speech" or "censorship" issues, what is wrong with that?

There isn't a problem. I would argue that free speech is not being
violated. The point of my statement was that moderation is not censorship
and therefore inherently evil. Whether it is appropriate to a specific
group is another issue. I believe that it is appropriate to this group
because it is being placed in a hierarchy that should not be a flame sink,
and because the topic draws flames.

>>NOTHING can be gained by denying property rights, and everything can be lost.

>I don't think that anyone is denying property rights. The question is
>given that sysadmins can do anything they want with their machines,
>what standards should they use to decide what to carry or not. That
>question has largely been settled by a voting mechanism, so that
>question now becomes what standards should people use to decide what
>they should vote on.

Dave is making statements implying that all moderation except for
announcement groups is evil, threatens the integrity of Usenet, and
should be abolished. I am contending that the owners of the computer
can do whatever they please and his morality argument is invalid. As I
said, whether moderation should be used on this particular group is
another question that I've answered elsewhere.

>The problem with soc.culture.tibet is that the supporters of the group
>have ticked off a large enough segment of the Usenet community so that
>I don't think that the group has any chance of passage under RFD#3.
>One might try to argue that the objections against moderation are
>stupid and irrelevant, but when it comes down to it, it really doesn't
>matter. The only thing that matters to the passage of the group is
>whether the supporters can get 2/3 (+100) votes and right now that
>seems quite doubtful.

The reasons why I am voting on an issue that does not affect me are:

1. This group is likely to see reactionary no votes by Chinese posters
based on ethnic bias. I do not believe that any of the vocal
opposition to the group would do this, especially since many of
them do support a Tibet group under a different charter, but I
think there are some people (who probably haven't gotten into this
debate) that will vote on this basis. For me, this is a despicable
reason to vote no, and hopefully my yes vote will balance that
somewhat. Please note that I am *not* accusing all Chinese of bias.
However, the fact remains that some people look at things from an
ethnic, us-against-them perspective. I have no doubt that there
would be reactionary votes from Tibetans on a Chinese newsgroup.

2. There will be reactionary no votes by moderation-haters. There are
people on the Net who do not believe that moderation should exist,
even though it has been part of Usenet from the beginning. Hopefully,
my yes vote will partially offset these people.

With these groups, as well as people with more legitimate complaints,
voting against the newsgroup, it very well may be hard to get the 2/3.
(100 votes will be easy.) However, there is also a group of people (at
least I hope there is) who have been ticked off by the opponents of
this group, who as a whole have been *far* more abusive, arrogant, and
rude than the proponents, not to mention openly defying Usenet rules.
All in all, I think it is too close to call.

>>However, let's assume for a second that the
>>moderators really will be biased. So what?

>So this annoys the heck out of me and I vote NO. If there is any
>chance that I myself am going to be "shut out" of a newsgroup, I don't
>see any reason why I should support it.

By that criteria, you will vote against all moderated newsgroups. Whenever
a group is moderated, there is always a chance someone will be shut out.
If that is your stand, if you really oppose all moderation, then that is
your right. I think the position is incorrect, and I will oppose it.

>>YOU are attempting to control what forms of groups should be permitted in
>>Usenet, and I find that much worse than even a biased group.

>Going back to your property rights analogy, the rules for passage of a
>newsgroup gives me some de facto ownership of part of Usenet. I'm
>simply using this "property right" in the way I see fit, and I really
>don't see why that should trouble you.

You can individually vote however you want. That is the way the system
works. What bothers me is the reason why you oppose a group. Some
people want to form a group with certain regulations on a distributed
system. I think Usenet works better as an anarchy, with as few set rules
as possible, and I don't think acceptable or non-acceptable moderation
policies should be enforced. I guess it comes down to what you and what I
consider to be the purpose of Usenet.

Välitä

2. Arnold Chu

Näytä profiili

Lisäasetukset 1 loka 1993, 07:32

Uutisryhmät: news.groups

Lähettäjä: c...@pit.bear.com (Arnold Chu)

Päivämäärä: 30 Sep 93 21:07:43 GMT

Paikallinen: To 30 syys 1993 23:07

Aihe: Re: soc.culture.tibet: An Outsider's View

  Välitä | Tulosta | Yksittäinen viesti
  | Näytä alkuperäinen
  | Raportoi tästä viestistä | Etsi tämän kirjoittajan viestit
  

R. Russell Allbery (r...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

.....
: I will vote IN FAVOR of a moderated soc.culture.china.
: A newsgroup must meet four criteria, IMHO, in order to warrant creation.

....

: 4. If proposed as moderated, the moderator(s) must be unbiased and capable
: of moderating the group. After reading the posts of Michael J. Wilson
: and Nima Dorjee, I have no doubts about their ability or their ethics.
: They have stated a desire to have all points of view represented on
: soc.culture.tibet and have shown excellent restraint during this
: prolonged flamewar. Jan Isley, as a proponent of the group and one of
: the more vocal supporters, has exposed himself to more attack. However,
: his stated position on what should be accepted and what should be
: rejected agree with the charter, and he also has stated a desire to be
: even-handed. I am as confident in the ability of these moderators as
: I can be with any moderator I have not personally met.

From their various posts, I gain the impression that they are generally for a
politically independent Tibet. I am also confident that they would try to be
as fair as possible. However, it is human nature to be more critical of
sentiments one disagrees with and less critical of those one agrees with. If
the aim of the group is cultural and not political discussion, would not a set
of moderators with more diverse political opinions make a better choice ?

...

: TIBETAN INDEPENDENCE
: In many ways, this is the key to the whole debate. Most opposed to the
: group believe that the proposed moderators are biased towards Tibetan
: independence and will use the group for propaganda. Putting aside the fact
: that the proposed charter has *no* statement supporting this bias, there is
: no indication that any of the moderators intend to refuse all posts opposed
: to Tibetan independence. It is impossible to *prove* that a moderator is
: unbiased. The proposed moderators have demonstrated their even-handedness
: as much as they could.

The first RFD called for the inclusion of CTN which prominently carry artcles
from pro-Tibet-independence organizations. There is every indication
that such sentiments WILL be expressed in the proposed SCT. This is perfectly
fine as long as alternate viewpoints are fairly presented. However, the
onus is on the proponents to convince the Usenet community that they will be
fair. Merely stating, "trust me." is inadequate.

In the ASCII virtual world, we have nothing to guide us in judging
others except for their words. The belligerent languages of some of
the proposed moderators/advisors are evidences AGAINST being even-handed.
More open discussion of their views in more restrained languages would
have been more convincing.

Regards,

A. Chu

Välitä

3. R. Russell Allbery

Näytä profiili

Lisäasetukset 2 loka 1993, 02:28

Uutisryhmät: news.groups

Lähettäjä: r...@leland.Stanford.EDU (R. Russell Allbery)

Päivämäärä: Fri, 1 Oct 93 23:31:02 GMT

Paikallinen: La 2 loka 1993 01:31

Aihe: Re: soc.culture.tibet: An Outsider's View

  Välitä | Tulosta | Yksittäinen viesti
  | Näytä alkuperäinen
  | Raportoi tästä viestistä | Etsi tämän kirjoittajan viestit
  

c...@pit.bear.com (Arnold Chu) writes:
>R. Russell Allbery (r...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

[On proposed moderators--rra]

>From their various posts, I gain the impression that they are generally for a
>politically independent Tibet. I am also confident that they would try to be
>as fair as possible. However, it is human nature to be more critical of
>sentiments one disagrees with and less critical of those one agrees with. If
>the aim of the group is cultural and not political discussion, would not a set
>of moderators with more diverse political opinions make a better choice ?

Well, first, cultural discussion cannot be divorced from political discussion in
this case. There will be political posts, and there will be political flames.
My worry with joint moderators is that the one opposed to Tibetan independence
will automatically pass flames opposing Tibetan independence. Essentially, the
problem is that I do not trust the opponents of the group that I have heard,
and I do trust the proposed moderators (although Jan Isley is a bit
problematic). The reason for this is that over the course of more than a
month of flamewar, it is the opponents of the group who have raised specious
arguments, accused people of racism, refused to compromise or acknowledge
attempts to compromise, and openly defied Usenet rules. I do not want any
people with those attitudes moderating *any* group, let alone a controversial
one. Now, if someone could show me a reasonable, rational person on the
opposite side, then I would be quite willing to consider joint moderation.
Actually, Arnold, you have been fairly reasonable in the posts that I've read.
Jan has stated that he has offered the position of advisor to several people.
Perhaps in the now ongoing private discussion, someone could propose that one
of the more rational opponents of moderation be a moderator.

>The first RFD called for the inclusion of CTN which prominently carry artcles
>from pro-Tibet-independence organizations. There is every indication
>that such sentiments WILL be expressed in the proposed SCT. This is perfectly
>fine as long as alternate viewpoints are fairly presented. However, the
>onus is on the proponents to convince the Usenet community that they will be
>fair. Merely stating, "trust me." is inadequate.

After reading the discussion on CTN ad nauseum, I firmly believe that it is
unbiased. You are apparently of the opposite position. I have absolutely
no desire to argue that subject; everything that can be said has been said.

>In the ASCII virtual world, we have nothing to guide us in judging
>others except for their words. The belligerent languages of some of
>the proposed moderators/advisors are evidences AGAINST being even-handed.
>More open discussion of their views in more restrained languages would
>have been more convincing.

Michael Wilson and Nima Dorjee have not been belligerent, IMHO. Jan has
reacted to people, but I do not remember him starting a flamewar. However,
it does take two to flame and neither side has conducted themselves at all
well. I still think that all of the proposed moderators, including Jan,
will be impartial.

Välitä

4. Tingli Pan

Näytä profiili

Lisäasetukset 2 loka 1993, 07:22

Uutisryhmät: news.groups

Lähettäjä: utin...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan)

Päivämäärä: 1 Oct 1993 23:15:11 -0500

Paikallinen: La 2 loka 1993 06:15

Aihe: Re: soc.culture.tibet: An Outsider's View

  Välitä | Tulosta | Yksittäinen viesti
  | Näytä alkuperäinen
  | Raportoi tästä viestistä | Etsi tämän kirjoittajan viestit
  

In article <1993Oct1.233102.21...@leland.stanford.edu>,
R. Russell Allbery <r...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:

- Näytä siteerattu teksti -

Is this a constructive compromise mentioned by Richard? From your words,
all the proponents are reasonable, calm, rational people while the
all the opponents are not. Please remind Richard Carter about it and he
might find another starting ground for the compromise.

>opposite side, then I would be quite willing to consider joint moderation.
>Actually, Arnold, you have been fairly reasonable in the posts that I've read.
>Jan has stated that he has offered the position of advisor to several people.
>Perhaps in the now ongoing private discussion, someone could propose that one
>of the more rational opponents of moderation be a moderator.

Jan can offer hundreds advisors as he likes. More than the countries in
UN.

>After reading the discussion on CTN ad nauseum, I firmly believe that it is
>unbiased. You are apparently of the opposite position. I have absolutely
>no desire to argue that subject; everything that can be said has been said.

A good point, you are qualified to be a moderator too.

>Michael Wilson and Nima Dorjee have not been belligerent, IMHO. Jan has
>reacted to people, but I do not remember him starting a flamewar. However,
>it does take two to flame and neither side has conducted themselves at all
>well. I still think that all of the proposed moderators, including Jan,
>will be impartial.

Again, this is another suggestion for the compromise mentioned by Richard,
and expecting me to join in. I must miss something here.

Tingli Pan

- Näytä siteerattu teksti -

Välitä

5. R. Russell Allbery

Näytä profiili

Lisäasetukset 2 loka 1993, 09:37

Uutisryhmät: news.groups

Lähettäjä: r...@leland.Stanford.EDU (R. Russell Allbery)

Päivämäärä: Sat, 2 Oct 93 06:41:32 GMT

Paikallinen: La 2 loka 1993 08:41

Aihe: Re: soc.culture.tibet: An Outsider's View

  Välitä | Tulosta | Yksittäinen viesti
  | Näytä alkuperäinen
  | Raportoi tästä viestistä | Etsi tämän kirjoittajan viestit
  

- Näytä siteerattu teksti -

Please note that I am not part of any compromise proposed since I am not
a proposer of the group, just a person who supports it. I am not therefore
involved in the e-mail converations. Also, if you re-read what I wrote,
you will note that I said the proposed moderators, with the possible
exception of Jan Isley, were calm and rational people. I did not say that
the proponents of the group were calm and reasonable, since to a large
extent they aren't. I did say that the opponents I have heard are, by and
large, not particularly calm and rational, and I stand by that statement.

>Jan can offer hundreds advisors as he likes. More than the countries in
>UN.

I'm not particularly interested in advisors. I'm interested in moderators.
I note from another post that Jan has offered a moderators post to Wing
and Joe Wong (? I probably have that wrong). This is the compromise that
is being referred to, and I applaud Jan for it.

>A good point, you are qualified to be a moderator too.

I have absolutely no desire to be a moderator. I have way too much to do
the way it is, and Tibet is not a particular interest of mine. I was
drawn into this debate for other reasons.

>Again, this is another suggestion for the compromise mentioned by Richard,
>and expecting me to join in. I must miss something here.

Judging from the other post, the compromise has been rather successful so
far. It is a shame that a newsgroup creation compromise has to resemble
a peace treaty.

Välitä

6. Richard B. Carter

Näytä profiili

Lisäasetukset 2 loka 1993, 18:24

Uutisryhmät: news.groups

Lähettäjä: carte...@synapse.bms.com (Richard B. Carter)

Päivämäärä: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 16:00:07 GMT

Paikallinen: La 2 loka 1993 18:00

Aihe: Re: soc.culture.tibet: An Outsider's View

  Välitä | Tulosta | Yksittäinen viesti
  | Näytä alkuperäinen
  | Raportoi tästä viestistä | Etsi tämän kirjoittajan viestit
  

In article <28iv8f$...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> utin...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

(Tingli Pan) writes:

>Is this a constructive compromise mentioned by Richard? From your words,
>all the proponents are reasonable, calm, rational people while the
>all the opponents are not. Please remind Richard Carter about it and he
>might find another starting ground for the compromise.

I think that there is as much variation among the proponents of s.c.t. as
there is among the opponents. The group does not speak with one mind.
As far as I know Russell is a newbie to this discussion and is not in
direct contact with anyone on either side of the debate.

>Jan can offer hundreds advisors as he likes. More than the countries in
>UN.

Are you saying that you are not interested in compromise or are you simply
saying that you do not trust the proponents?

>Again, this is another suggestion for the compromise mentioned by Richard,
>and expecting me to join in. I must miss something here.

I don't think that anyone *expects* anything of you Tingli. I merely asked
whether you are willing to join in finding a compromise solution.

--
***************************************************************************
R.B. Carter Internet: carte...@bms.com

Välitä

7. Tingli Pan

Näytä profiili

Lisäasetukset 2 loka 1993, 19:03

Uutisryhmät: news.groups

Lähettäjä: utin...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan)

Päivämäärä: 2 Oct 1993 12:02:12 -0500

Paikallinen: La 2 loka 1993 19:02

Aihe: Re: soc.culture.tibet: An Outsider's View

  Välitä | Tulosta | Yksittäinen viesti
  | Näytä alkuperäinen
  | Raportoi tästä viestistä | Etsi tämän kirjoittajan viestit
  

In article <1993Oct2.160007.2...@synapse.bms.com>,
Richard B. Carter <carte...@synapse.bms.com> wrote:

>In article <28iv8f$...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> utin...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
>(Tingli Pan) writes:

>I think that there is as much variation among the proponents of s.c.t. as
>there is among the opponents. The group does not speak with one mind.
>As far as I know Russell is a newbie to this discussion and is not in
>direct contact with anyone on either side of the debate.

I was afraid the whole round of argument will start again because a
newbie dropped in.

>>Jan can offer hundreds advisors as he likes. More than the countries in
>>UN.

>Are you saying that you are not interested in compromise or are you simply
>saying that you do not trust the proponents?

So far, yes.

>>Again, this is another suggestion for the compromise mentioned by Richard,
>>and expecting me to join in. I must miss something here.

>I don't think that anyone *expects* anything of you Tingli. I merely asked
>whether you are willing to join in finding a compromise solution.

Correct, now my opinion is very clear.

Tingli Pan

- Näytä siteerattu teksti -

Välitä

8. Tingli Pan

Näytä profiili

Lisäasetukset 2 loka 1993, 19:00

Uutisryhmät: news.groups

Lähettäjä: utin...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan)

Päivämäärä: 2 Oct 1993 11:58:11 -0500

Paikallinen: La 2 loka 1993 18:58

Aihe: Re: soc.culture.tibet: An Outsider's View

  Välitä | Tulosta | Yksittäinen viesti
  | Näytä alkuperäinen
  | Raportoi tästä viestistä | Etsi tämän kirjoittajan viestit
  

In article <1993Oct2.064132.3...@leland.stanford.edu>,
R. Russell Allbery <r...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:

>utin...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan) writes:

>Please note that I am not part of any compromise proposed since I am not
>a proposer of the group, just a person who supports it. I am not therefore
>involved in the e-mail converations. Also, if you re-read what I wrote,
>you will note that I said the proposed moderators, with the possible
>exception of Jan Isley, were calm and rational people. I did not say that
>the proponents of the group were calm and reasonable, since to a large
>extent they aren't. I did say that the opponents I have heard are, by and
>large, not particularly calm and rational, and I stand by that statement.

That is exactly my understanding of your statement.

>>Jan can offer hundreds advisors as he likes. More than the countries in
>>UN.

>I'm not particularly interested in advisors. I'm interested in moderators.
>I note from another post that Jan has offered a moderators post to Wing
>and Joe Wong (? I probably have that wrong). This is the compromise that
>is being referred to, and I applaud Jan for it.

Why you applaud? since Wing and Joe are falling into the category of
'not particularly calm and rational and you stand by that statement'.

>>A good point, you are qualified to be a moderator too.

>I have absolutely no desire to be a moderator. I have way too much to do
>the way it is, and Tibet is not a particular interest of mine. I was
>drawn into this debate for other reasons.

I'm relieved.

>>Again, this is another suggestion for the compromise mentioned by Richard,
>>and expecting me to join in. I must miss something here.

>Judging from the other post, the compromise has been rather successful so
>far. It is a shame that a newsgroup creation compromise has to resemble
>a peace treaty.

But on different size of stage.

Tingli Pan

- Näytä siteerattu teksti -

Välitä

9. Wing Ng

Näytä profiili

Lisäasetukset 1 loka 1993, 16:39

Uutisryhmät: news.groups

Lähettäjä: w...@pegasus.com (Wing Ng)

Päivämäärä: Thu, 30 Sep 93 23:54:07 GMT

Paikallinen: Pe 1 loka 1993 01:54

Aihe: Re: soc.culture.tibet: An Outsider's View

  Välitä | Tulosta | Yksittäinen viesti
  | Näytä alkuperäinen
  | Raportoi tästä viestistä | Etsi tämän kirjoittajan viestit
  

In article <1993Sep30.041839.6...@leland.Stanford.EDU> r...@leland.Stanford.EDU (R. Russell Allbery) writes:

>number of other groups or create their own group.

>TIBETAN INDEPENDENCE
> In many ways, this is the key to the whole debate. Most opposed to the
>group believe that the proposed moderators are biased towards Tibetan
>independence and will use the group for propaganda. Putting aside the fact
>that the proposed charter has *no* statement supporting this bias, there is
>no indication that any of the moderators intend to refuse all posts opposed
>to Tibetan independence. It is impossible to *prove* that a moderator is
>unbiased. The proposed moderators have demonstrated their even-handedness
>as much as they could.

This was ancient point. All the proposed moderators are pro-Tib.
indep., they swear they will be impartial in this emotionally charged
area. The only way to demonstrate evenhandedness is to have some
nonsupporter of Tib. indep.

>RACISM
> Several opponents of soc.culture.tibet have accused the proponents of
>being racist. I consider this to be beneath contempt. It is the lowest a
>person can stoop in an argument to make unsupported accusations against
>one's opponent. Furthermore, some have implied that all who support Tibetan
>independence are simply biased against Chinese, and are racists. May I
>remind you that Tibet *was* independent, and that it was conquered by a
>Communist country. This is sufficient cause for an independence movement.

Any cultural group may work to make it an independent national state.
Sometimes there is a war, sometimes not, sometimes they are successful,
sometimes not. People may sympathisize with them, some don't. There is
no moral imperative that independence is always right, the American
South in Civil War lost and many people judged their cause was not right.

>Note that I do not state whether I am in favor of independence or not; that
>is irrelevant. There is a motive for independence besides racism, and the

that's right, it's irrelevant.

- Näytä siteerattu teksti -

These are the misconceptions widely held in the West that should
be refuted and discussed in an open forum.

Many of us, incl. myself, talked about this before. Briefly, Tibet
was undoubtedly independent up to 1200 A.D., after which it became
a loosely bound part of the Chinese Empire. In 1911, when ROC was
established, Qing Empire troops were expelled from Tibet, but Tibet
never declared indep., never even notified ROC that it claims to
be indep., and never recognition from any state in the world until
the 1940s, when according to Lefty, it got recognized by Mongolia
(which itself was not recognized by any state except the USSR),
and Nepal.

Whether Tibet was a fully indep. invaded by another country, or
a part of China not under central control from 1911-50 is a very
important issue, and everyone in the West is uniformly fed this
position, as this post amply demonstrates.

>must come up with enough references to refute standard reference works in
>order to be taken seriously.

>AN UNMODERATED COMPANION GROUP
> Several people have asked that an unmoderated companion group be proposed
>along with the moderated group. I have no problem with this, provided that
>the unmoderated group is placed in the talk.* hierarchy. I do not believe
>that soc.* was originally intended to be a flame hierarchy. In David
>Lawrence's official list of active newsgroups, the talk.* hierarchy is
>specifically described as debate-oriented, while the soc.* hierarchy is not.
>Tibet has demonstrated its ability to draw flames, personal attacks, off-
>topic posts, and raving lunatics, and an unmoderated discussion of it does
>not belong in soc.*.

Unmoderated talk.politics.tibet _is_ being proposed, and I hope will
come out in a few days.

Wing

Välitä

10. R. Russell Allbery

Näytä profiili

Lisäasetukset 2 loka 1993, 02:58

Uutisryhmät: news.groups

Lähettäjä: r...@leland.Stanford.EDU (R. Russell Allbery)

Päivämäärä: Fri, 1 Oct 93 23:50:02 GMT

Paikallinen: La 2 loka 1993 01:50

Aihe: Re: soc.culture.tibet: An Outsider's View

  Välitä | Tulosta | Yksittäinen viesti
  | Näytä alkuperäinen
  | Raportoi tästä viestistä | Etsi tämän kirjoittajan viestit
  

w...@pegasus.com (Wing Ng) writes:
>r...@leland.Stanford.EDU (R. Russell Allbery) writes:

[snipped--rra]

>>It is impossible to *prove* that a moderator is
>>unbiased. The proposed moderators have demonstrated their even-handedness
>>as much as they could.

>This was ancient point. All the proposed moderators are pro-Tib.
>indep., they swear they will be impartial in this emotionally charged
>area. The only way to demonstrate evenhandedness is to have some
>nonsupporter of Tib. indep.

If the non-supporter of Tibetan independence simply passed all posts agreeing
with his/her position, we would be back where we started. In order for joint
moderation, we would need another moderator who is even-handed and reasonable.
I am open for suggestions (which doesn't mean much since I have no say in
the matter), and I hope that Jan is too.

[snipped--rra]

>>Furthermore, some have implied that all who support Tibetan
>>independence are simply biased against Chinese, and are racists. May I
>>remind you that Tibet *was* independent, and that it was conquered by a
>>Communist country. This is sufficient cause for an independence movement.

>Any cultural group may work to make it an independent national state.
>Sometimes there is a war, sometimes not, sometimes they are successful,
>sometimes not. People may sympathisize with them, some don't. There is
>no moral imperative that independence is always right, the American
>South in Civil War lost and many people judged their cause was not right.

Tibet has more justification than simply the fact that they are a cultural
group. They *were* an independent country at one point, and were conquered
by the Communist Chinese government. (I know that's another argument--see
below.)

Comparing the American South to Tibet is a bit tenuous. The American South
was never an independent country, they did not have a markedly different
history than the North, and they did not have a long tradition and culture
of their own. In addition, that entire issue was complicated by slavery.

>> Since several people may challenge my statement that Tibet was independent,
>>here are my sources:

[quotes from the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia and the World Almanac and
Book of Facts snipped--rra]

>>These are two standard reference works that showed up when I did a keyword
>>search for Tibet on my reference CD-ROM. Other encyclopedias I have checked,
>>including World Book, have made similar statements. The fact that Tibet
>>was once independent is the accepted position. Anyone opposing that position

>These are the misconceptions widely held in the West that should
>be refuted and discussed in an open forum.

If you wish to discuss them after some form of Tibet group has been formed,
feel free. In that forum, you can go on about your opinions and understanding
of the subject and be well within topic. However, if you wish to use the
history of Tibet as a point of evidence in this discussion, you must support
your position. You have not done that. I have.

>Many of us, incl. myself, talked about this before. Briefly, Tibet
>was undoubtedly independent up to 1200 A.D., after which it became
>a loosely bound part of the Chinese Empire. In 1911, when ROC was
>established, Qing Empire troops were expelled from Tibet, but Tibet
>never declared indep., never even notified ROC that it claims to
>be indep., and never recognition from any state in the world until
>the 1940s, when according to Lefty, it got recognized by Mongolia
>(which itself was not recognized by any state except the USSR),
>and Nepal.

Allow me to restore my complete sentence, which you cut in half. "Anyone
opposing that position must come up with enough references to refute standard
reference works in order to be taken seriously." You have not given any
references at all.

This is my perspective. I have two standard reference works with a long and
distinguished history, composed mostly by professional researchers and college
professors. They have both been through multiple revisions and have been
analyzed for mistakes many times. They both have a practice of indicating
when a statement is controversial or not agreed upon. They both state
unequivocally that Tibet was independent. On the other side, I have one poster
to Usenet. I have no credentials, no evidence, and no references.

Which one am I supposed to believe?

>Whether Tibet was a fully indep. invaded by another country, or
>a part of China not under central control from 1911-50 is a very
>important issue, and everyone in the West is uniformly fed this
>position, as this post amply demonstrates.

In the United States, unlike China, academic texts and the news media are not
censored. It is impossible to "feed" someone a position in the United States
if they have any ability of independent thought. I am reasonably well-read in
politics and do not rely on any single news source for my opinions. I have
never seen evidence that Tibet was not independent. It is considered a
captive nation by the United States Congress, which sets foreign policy for
the United States (there are quite a few posters on this subject with a
rather abyssmal lack of understanding of US politics). Given the lack of
evidence you have given and the wealth of evidence I have seen, the
obvious conclusion for me to draw is that you are either incorrect or biased.

>Unmoderated talk.politics.tibet _is_ being proposed, and I hope will
>come out in a few days.

I am happy to see that the proponents are going to put it in the talk.*
hierarchy. I had seen proposals for soc.culture.tibetan unmoderated, and
I hoped that would not be the final placement.

Välitä