Dear Editor,

I would like to offer a different perspective from that of Margaret Amato ("How can U.S. support China?" April 24 Post letters) regarding the cost of the torch relay and issues about China in general, something different from what's usually presented by the American mainstream media. I bet a letter like this will never stand a chance to get published by some media like CNN. But since Milpitas Post is the local newspaper that I read and trust, I would like to give it a try this time.

First of all, as a Milpitas resident originally from China, I personally oppose the idea of hosting the 2008 Summer Olympics in China. Nearly every Olympics loses money, so I would rather see the money spent on more meaningful things in China like improving the education system or the standard of living. However, I have been very disappointed at seeing how it has gotten politicized in a series of recent events, especially the torch relays in London, Paris and San Francisco. Most people do not realize that the chaos and high cost of the torch relay do not come from the torch relay itself, but the violence caused by some pro-Tibetan protesters. Whether their course is just or not, it should not be the excuse for their violence just like there should be no excuse for terrorism. However, such violence was largely ignored and tolerated by the British and French police, to such an extent that the same person who attacked the torch bearers in London showed up and attacked a

female torch bearer (on wheelchair) again the next day in France.

As for the issue of Tibet, it's far more complicated than most people here know. Most pro-Tibetan protesters in San Francisco don't even know where Tibet is located on the world map, not to mention how deeply they really understand the issue. I wonder how many of them know that serfs and slaves accounted for more than 95 percent of the population in Tibet before the 1950s, whose birth, death and marriages were controlled by their slave masters. Even though the Dalai Lama was a religious leader in Tibet, he was more or less also a political figure who represented the interests of the slave master class. A primary reason for the rebellion and exile of the Dalai Lama in the 1950s was because the Chinese government carried out the land and social reforms too rapidly (a mistake) such that those slave masters suddenly found themselves out of lands and slaves. From that particular perspective, the situation was kind of like that of the American Civil War. That kind of social and land conflict has been a common theme throughout the human history, with history books usually written later on by the winning side, not necessarily the morally right side, of those conflicts. Should the land of the American West belong to the native American Indians or not? Should the land of Hawaii belong to the native Hawaiians or not? Should there be affirmative action or not? So on and so forth. Looking back on history, the conflicts on Tibet can be traced back to late 19th and early 20th centuries when the British launched two invasions into Tibet in an attempt to build up an exclusive colonial influence in the region, and to separate Tibet from China and ultimately turn it into a "buffer zone" against British-controlled northern India. After their opium war (with the aim of forcing China to import British opium), the British forced the Chinese Qing Dynasty government to sign the Chefoo Convention, which allowed the British to "visit and explore" Tibet. In 1904, the British invaded Tibet and massacred Tibetan soldiers and civilians. So from that perspective, much of the regional conflicts and particularly disputed borders between China (including Tibet), India and Pakistan today were caused directly or indirectly by the colonial Britain.

Yet those truths about Tibet are rarely if ever mentioned by the mainstream American media. Why? I wonder. Having been "brain-washed" by the media in China, and then "anti-washed" by the "free" media in the United States, I think I now have a better idea than those who have only lived in only one system. I see the mainstream media in both systems not much different from each other. They both generate propaganda. One system tells me one half of the truth, the other tells me the other half. As for which side of the truth each side takes, all comes down to ideologies. The media in China are controlled by the state, whereas the mainstream media in the United States are owned and controlled by the special interests, whose interests are represented by the politicians in the government. So in essence they both represent the interests of the ruling class. Both of them want to "educate" their people that their system is superior and the other system is evil in nature.

As the only major communist country left in the world, there is then of no surprise why China got so much negative publicity by the U.S. mainstream media. As for voting for politicians, people in China only have the right to vote yes (at least on the grassroots level), whereas people in the United States get a lot more perceived freedom and democracy, which nevertheless always produces a win-win situation for the ruling class via the two party system. Nothing can demonstrate that better than the fact that even George W. Bush can be American president for two terms in a row. As for the effectiveness of the propaganda, one just needs to look at how many Americans really believe that the war in Iraq is not for oil but for their so called "freedom" and "liberty," despite of the facts that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S. occupation and escalated ethnic conflicts, and much more Iraqis have lost their homes, having no electricity or even clean drinking water. If those half a trillion dollars on the war were spent elsewhere like Africa, the world would have certainly been a better place, instead of a chaos as it is today.

Hopefully some people can start thinking outside of the "matrix" after reading this.

James Tie

Milpitas

Dear Editor,

This is a response to Margaret Amato's letter printed April 24.

Is this the "pot" calling the kettle "black?"

I do empathize with Ms. Amato and support her over China's unspeakable human rights violations, which do not fit well as host of the Olympics. She also speaks of the recession and the cost of Olympics, but I believe she has some "tunnel vision" and she should totally open her eyes to the real world:

The Olympics is an international organization headquartered in Switzerland. The Olympic committee of 70 people from around the world decides where the next Olympics will be held. The Olympics originated as a Greek tradition. During the month of their Olympics, the "Sacred Truce" was proclaimed. This proclamation halted any wars, disagreements, and executions for 30 days. Most people have forgotten about the "Sacred Truce." Politics should remain outside the Olympics.

Now, for every American feeling like Ms. Amato, which is quite understandable, there are probably a thousand Chinese sounding off about our atrocities of the 1,033,000 Iraqi violent deaths since the U.S. invasion in 2003. These deaths are over and above the natural death rate with Saddam in charge. Nine percent of these deaths, about 100,000 were from our aerial bombs, rockets, and missiles. I assume these deaths are one-third children, and one-third women and one-third men. Figures too high for you to believe? How many is acceptable?

The money we spend on the Iraq war per day ($1 billion to $2 billion) would pay for all our expenses to China for our entire U.S. Olympic team, would it not. The Iraq fiscal report shows their government having a budget surplus. There are more U.S. contractors, run with foreign workers in Iraq, than there are U.S. soldiers in Iraq. All are being paid with U.S. dollars. We get no oil revenue from Iraq. We pay for everything. There are at least 742 U.S. military bases outside of the United States that we pay for and we are building more around Iraq, and all the neighboring countries, ending in "stan." Romania also.

Want to get our money back in the United States of America? You want to live in soon to be third world country? No? End the war! Get rid of most of the U.S. military bases outside of the states! Let the United Nations do its job. Lead the world by "example" as we used to do. Wean ourselves off oil for transportation, heating and power. Quit making ethanol from our food. What a scam! Create new products, that China can't make.

Every U.S. kid has to go to college. Our brain trust is "running on low."

Butch Martens

Milpitas