|
Grex > Agora41 > #112: Why Americans ,in general, are so dumb in geography? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 360 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 100 of 360:
| 
Apr 30 16:29 UTC 2002 |
Native Americans have more self-determination in the US than Tibetans do,
though they generally have self-determination on land that wasn't where they
originally lived and wasn't where they wanted to be.
|
gull
|
|
response 101 of 360:
|
Apr 30 17:12 UTC 2002 |
Now I'm imagining Tibetin-run casinos in China.
|
mary
|
|
response 102 of 360:
|
Apr 30 17:36 UTC 2002 |
Tibet was unlucky to not have massive oil deposits or anything
else the United States needs.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 103 of 360:
|
Apr 30 17:52 UTC 2002 |
It's also a timing thing. The major push to "Chineseify" Tibet started during
a time when the PRC was completely closed to the West.
|
realjp2
|
|
response 104 of 360:
|
Apr 30 17:54 UTC 2002 |
CAn we please adopy a less goofy sounding word for that, say, Sinofy? Which
is, completely coincidently, the title of my next album?
|
sarkhel
|
|
response 105 of 360:
|
Apr 30 20:44 UTC 2002 |
re: 97 Dear if every thing is fine at Tibet, why so many religious leaders
are escaping from there to India? huh PRC where the majority people dont know
brushing teeth.Please dont ignore the feelings of the people of "the roof of
the world". What is surprising why and how a democratic country can support
PRC "Own garden"? Occupy a garden and bark "its mine"...
|
scg
|
|
response 106 of 360:
|
Apr 30 21:10 UTC 2002 |
To be fair to China, people in the US in general have a lot more freedom than
people in China generally do. Of course, that's not remotely a justification
for anything.
|
avin
|
|
response 107 of 360:
|
Apr 30 23:44 UTC 2002 |
re : #100, whose land is it anyway? Certainly . not the early Europeans who
rushed in there ld and settled....everyone is an immigrant to the true sense
of the term in the US....in fact the whole of North Americas.
|
mdw
|
|
response 108 of 360:
|
May 1 00:27 UTC 2002 |
Tibet is also completely land-locked, and surrounded by the world's 2
largest communist superpowers. It's not as if the US ever had any real
option when it came to changing anything in Tibet.
The greatest losers in Tibet are the Pandas -- their native bamboo
habitat is being swiftly eliminated in favor of land for chinese
farmers.
|
sarkhel
|
|
response 109 of 360:
|
May 1 00:44 UTC 2002 |
re53 does privatisation solved all the problems/ Is it a magic medicine? If
so its better to privatise the Gov't. every where.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 110 of 360:
|
May 1 01:04 UTC 2002 |
re #108: Which "two largest communist superpowers" would those be?
|
realjp2
|
|
response 111 of 360:
|
May 1 01:05 UTC 2002 |
The Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services.
|
mdw
|
|
response 112 of 360:
|
May 1 01:29 UTC 2002 |
Um, oops, I was thinking of Mongolia, and should have said "was
surrounded" in any case. Tibet is surrounded by a combination of the
world's tallest mountains, and the world's largest surviving communist
superpower, and a whole bunch of people who don't really like the US
very much. The friendliest are probably the Indians, who are already
engaged in a land war with China and to a lesser extent with Pakistan.
|
realjp2
|
|
response 113 of 360:
|
May 1 01:33 UTC 2002 |
China is not a superpower.
|
pthomas
|
|
response 114 of 360:
|
May 1 05:23 UTC 2002 |
Mongolia is democratic.
|
oval
|
|
response 115 of 360:
|
May 1 08:37 UTC 2002 |
the only communist countries i can think of are china, n. korea, and vietnam..
others?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 116 of 360:
|
May 1 11:25 UTC 2002 |
Think cigars..
|
mcnally
|
|
response 117 of 360:
|
May 1 11:32 UTC 2002 |
I think a few of the ex-Soviet republics are still run by Communists
as well, although whether they are still officially Communist or just
run by former party members I'm not 100% sure.. (for example, Islam
Karimov's administration in Uzbekistan..)
|
eprom
|
|
response 118 of 360:
|
May 1 12:10 UTC 2002 |
Cuba & Laos
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 119 of 360:
|
May 1 13:23 UTC 2002 |
There's at least one in Africa, isn't there?
|
avin
|
|
response 120 of 360:
|
May 1 17:55 UTC 2002 |
re : #112, please let me correct you on this : India is more on a war-terms
with the Pakis than with China. Offhand concerns include how to deal with
those massive terrorist training camps that the Pakis allegedly back and send
them to Kashmir. As for China, the war is more of China's core comptence in
the areas of manufacturing..lo-quality cheap goods made in China has flooded
the Indian markets. For the moment, India has alomost nothing to fall back
on (vis-a-vis PRC) except that of the software.presently growing @ some 40%.
|
jazz
|
|
response 121 of 360:
|
May 1 19:33 UTC 2002 |
It irks me that people have an idea that someone who leaves a country
becomes confused or forgets who they are; they're being exposed to new
things, and people exposed to new things change. They're not confused or
forgetful, they're acting in a different way from people that still live in
the same country do, because they're in different circumstances.
|
sarkhel
|
|
response 122 of 360:
|
May 1 21:36 UTC 2002 |
Mr.Jazz, whats your point? It seems you dont have any.Why you are biting the
bytes of grex? Infact in this discussion, originated by Mr.avin, what exactly
we learn? I am confused.
|
oval
|
|
response 123 of 360:
|
May 1 21:54 UTC 2002 |
<thinks he wants a discussion on the 'war on terrorism' in india>
otherwise i don;t get you and A$'s point either..
|
jazz
|
|
response 124 of 360:
|
May 3 15:34 UTC 2002 |
My point is that cultural snobbery, of any strain, is bullshit.
|