Stephen Griffiths' letter (South China Morning Post, August 1) in reply to mine (Post, July 27), is so emotionally prejudiced that it scarcely merits a reply, but one or two points need to be clarified for readers whom he may have misled. My letter did not take sides, but merely quoted a fact of history that has been repeatedly distorted. I leave it to Chinese historians to correct me if I am wrong, but according to my limited knowledge, Tibet has been a peripheral territory of China since the seventh century. Relations have sometimes been strained, but usually they have eventually settled their differences by royal intermarriage since the Tang Dynasty. Left to themselves in modern times, I have no doubt that China and Tibet would again reach agreement between themselves, but foreign interference makes that task more difficult and no doubt makes things worse for the Tibetans. Mr Griffiths says I 'do not care' about this issue. His judgment is wide of the truth. I read widely about the struggles of all nations seeking justice and freedom. That study includes the present struggle of the 'Amerindians' who were deprived of their whole country by British colonials and who still seek compensation and limited self-rule from the aggressors who now rule their country under the names of the US and Canada. One cannot turn back history, even though the history of the colonial occupation of America is much shorter than that of the occupation of Tibet. But one can make amends. Yes, Mr Griffiths, I have heard of propaganda and I therefore reject most of what I read in the media when it comes from 'unofficial' or 'unknown' sources. I prefer to read factual accounts, well-researched and objectively recorded. And no, I would not dream of dismantling a nation's culture, but would foster its preservation. ELSIE TU Kowloon
