Walker’s gerrymandering editorial devoid of historical factI agree with the Drew Walker’s basic premise in his editorial on gerrymandering: heavy-handed use of the practice is generally not such a good thing for our republic. His reasoning for this conclusion, however, does not seem to be based at all on historical fact.He opens with the implication that Franklin Roosevelt is largely responsible for instituting the process in the 1930s, when in actuality it was such an established problem in 1812 that the term was coined, for Gov. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. The original gerrymander, designed by the governor to include mostly voters inclined to support his party, was deemed by the Boston Gazette to stretch like a salamander across the state. This was 70 years before Roosevelt was born, and 120 before he was elected. Suffice it to say that I don’t think he figured very heavily at all into the discussion among the writers at the Boston Gazette.Furthermore, Walker bases his argument against Louisiana’s second congressional district on the assumption that the state’s largely Democratic legislature would have, like Gerry, designed districts to protect their party. While this no doubt affects all the state’s districts on some level, it is belied by the fact that since the election of 1988, the state’s delegation has never been less than half Republican. If Democrats in their overwhelming legislative majority had made the districts for themselves, it stands to reason that they would have taken advantage of the 1990 and 2000 censuses to redraw the boundaries that were obviously no longer in their favor.Even that scenario would require that Louisiana Democrats be analogous to national Democrats, since the position of congressman is, after all, a national position. The state Democratic Party would actually have to want the national party to win seats, but the state legislature itself is hardly partisan. For example, the Louisiana House of Representatives, majority Democratic, designated a Republican in 2007 as its speaker.Again, there is no doubt that partisan politics played a role at the fringe in designing the second district, but the primary concern for this particular district is that the city of New Orleans should be kept largely intact. This isn’t a perfect copy of Walker’s vaunted North Carolina requirement that districts follow county lines, but by no stretch of the imagination does it validate the misplaced outrage he directs at it.Eric Schroedergeneral studies seniorResponse to China’s Imperialism Challenges Tibetan Culture, LifestyleThe article China’s Imperialism Challenges Tibetan Culture, Lifestyle published on The Daily Reveille on Feb. 27, by Joe O. Masterman, from U-WIRE, accused China’s governance over Tibet since 1950’s of premeditated, conspicuous destruction to Tibetan culture. I cannot agree with Mr. Masterman. I feel necessary to present my opinion, and I believe the voice from the Chinese community here at LSU is worth listening. As an individual, my view is not necessarily consistent with the Chinese government. I will make my point as clear and reasoned as possible. I will try my best to give citation sources through this response. First of all, Mr. Masterman’s accusation is based on that the Chinese invasion in 1950 is illegal occupancy. However, the legitimate status of Tibet as an independent sovereign nation in 1950 is highly questionable, or in another way, did not exist. During the last empire dynasty of China, Qing (AD 1644-1911), Tibet was under a comprehensive supervision by the officials residing at Tibet that were designated by the central government [1]. The status of every Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama, the two most important spiritual leaders in the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism and political leaders of Tibet, only came into effect after being officially enthroned by the Qing central government [2], whose role of granting authorization has been passed to and continuously practiced by the following central governments of Republic of China (ROC, mainland governance: 1911-1949) and People’s Republic of China (PRC, 1949 – ). In fact, for religious convenience, the Qing emperors entered into Tibetan Buddhism as the reincarnation of the patron bodhisattvas [3]. When Qing Dynasty fell, the 13th Dalai Lama unilaterally declared independence in 1912, but withdrew his declaration two years later and request a Chinese suzerainty instead [4]. As a sign of subordination, Tibet sent representatives to attend the Drafting Committee for the new Chinese Constitution and the Chinese National Assembly in 1925, 1931, 1946 and 1948 [5]. Due to the chaos of civil wars and foreign invasions in the eastern part of China that weakened the ROC central government, Tibet had enjoyed self-governance during this period, although there remained directions from the central government. Tibet was still far from actual independence. No country ever recognized Tibet as an independent sovereignty country in any time, and every country recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet except Great Britain, who has, however, officially abandoned its obscure position and provided full recognition in Oct. 2008 [6]. Therefore, when ROC was defeated in the civil war and fled to Taiwan in 1949, PRC inherited the former’s right over Tibet, and reinstate an effective administration later, which is legitimate. Complex in international laws as the issue seems, it is much more obvious when it comes to the long history of communication between Tibetans and other ethnic groups in China. The Chinese and Tibetan languages both belong to the Sino-Tibetan language families. When Tibet was first formally incorporated into China’s Yuan Dynasty around AD 1249, Tibetan Buddhism became the official state religion of Yuan through its influence on the ruling Mongols, and once again reached this special status in Qing Dynasty [7]. Trade and marriage have lasted for thousands of years, making the vast land between the Han Chinese regions and Tibet home to some 30 ethnic groups, including Han and Tibetan themselves (this is why Dalai Lama’s proposal of a purely Tibetan Greater Tibet unrealistic. The proposal also harms Chinese citizens’ right of traveling and migration). Tibetan astrology is similar to the Chinese zodiac [8]. Another example is about Tibetan art. The Han Chinese are now familiar with Guozhuang, a form of Tibetan Dance, and the LSU Chinese students even played it in authentic Tibetan costume (I was wondering where they made these costume in the US) in our Chinese new year party this year. Indeed, the two peoples share a lot. Second, Mr. Masterman states that Tibetan is a peaceful people, and Tibet was a peaceful wonderland before 1950. He called the Tibetan people “examples of piety, brotherhood and peacefulness”. Unfortunately this is more of a beautiful illusion than actual facts. Tibet has seen no less war than any other places of the world, both within Tibet and with its bordering ethnic groups, and can be defensive or offensive. There were religious wars between different schools of Tibetan Buddhism, for example, when the first Dalai Lama gained political power around AD 1620. Mass homicides and assassination also occurred [9]. In the worship system of Tibetan Buddhism, there is a female divine warrior who is by no means related to peace and mercy. Palden Lhamo, the tutelary deity of Tibet and its government, who killed her son and used his skin as her saddle blanket, usually appears in paintings crossing a sea of blood [10]. But this is not debasing the Tibetan people. It is so common and almost inevitable for any ethnic group to be involved into warfare in history. Utopia does not come from deliberately dismissing the miserable facts. Technology and progress from the Chinese central government, or “the evil plan” as Mr. Masterman prefers to call, are still technology and progress as I see. The Tibet before the PRC’s takeover is an undeveloped economy, a strict caste society, and a theocratic monarchy based on serfdom, which has been proven by extensive studies [11] [12].  The separation of spiritual authority and secular power, which is the foundation of modern nations since the Enlightenment, does not exist in Tibet before 1950 and in today’s Tibetan Government in Exile (TGIE). The total Tibetan population in China rises from 2.8 million in 1953 to 4.6 million in 1990[13], which ruled out the genocide allegation from the pro-TGIE supporters. Life expectancy has risen from 35.5 years in 1950 to 67 in 2000 [14]. The infant mortality rate had fallen from 430 per 1,000 in 1951, 91.8 per 1,000 in 1990 to 35.3 per 1,000 by the year 2000 [15]. Not only enjoying huge tax exemption, Tibet also heavily depends on investment and subsidy from the central government [16]. With these figures I am trying to point out here, that this is real progress that improves the living quality of Tibetans and makes Tibet a better place to live. Progress is always a good thing. Tibet is undergoing big change, but it is modernization (and westernization) instead of “cultural genocide”. If Tibet welcomes development, then highways, railways, Internet, state inspected public education system, television towers and quickened pace of life are necessities. In this aspect, the Chinese government is doing what a modern government ought to do: providing public service. If the dual linguistic street signs and education in Tibet are the means of the Chinese government to diminish Tibetan culture, what about the numerous English signs in other Chinese cities? What about the 300 million Chinese who are learning English? Is the Han Chinese culture less unique, or do the Han Chinese deserve this “debase” because they are not beautifully exhibited as an example of piety, brotherhood and peacefulness?  In the era of globalization, one should find a balance point between maintaining traditions and reforming, instead of refusing changes in the first place. Fortunately, the Tibetan people have embraced the outer world, meanwhile keeping their religion and most of the original lifestyle. It is absolutely a bad idea to send them back into the medieval ages in the names of their tradition or culture. There are other minor mistakes in the column article. The Iron Mountain, where according to Mr. Masterman a shrine was located , is actually called Chagpori ([17], it took me some time to search for the right name), and the Tibetans do not name their mountains in English. There was once a shrine on it. But according to a traveler who has been there [18], during the 1959 rebellion some canons were placed up on Chagpori, therefore the Chinese destroyed the place. In fact that traveler was in disfavor of the Chinese in his/her logs, so he/she was not likely to provide an excuse for the Chinese government. Well, I am not judging whether the destruction of the place is right. I am digging the details. Intentionally demolishing a shrine to erase a culture is one thing, destroying a military spot is another. These two cases should not be mixed. Near the end of his article, Mr. Masterman said, “Thousands of kilometers of railways have been built connecting Lhasa to many major Chinese cities; express train from Beijing was completed in 2006”, however, because building railways on the high-rise Tibetan Plateau is so difficult and expensive, only one single-track railway has been built to connect Tibetan Autonomous Region and the neighboring Qinghai province. The operational speed is 120km/h, and 100km/h in sections on permafrost, eliminating the possible glory of the trains running on this railway to be entitled “express train” [19]. What’s more, the word in the title, imperialism, was often used by the state controlled media to attack United States and the Soviet Union in 1960’s and 1970’s. In the country Mr. Masterman criticizes with “imperialism”, the word itself is outdated and hardly seen now. Encountering this cold war wording in the title was such an anachronistic surprise to me. As a summary, this response to Mr. Masterman’s article mainly states three points: China has legitimate sovereignty over Tibet. Tibet has been considerably benefited as a part of China, and its change from thedevelopment is natural and benign. Mr. Masterman’s accusations are ungrounded.
I myself stand against human rights violation. However, please be noted that I am not morally judging anything in this article. I am not endorsing the Chinese government either. All I provide here are the evidences and the logic for my points of view stated above.  In contrast with Mr. Masterman’s easy article without any sources noted, I provided verifiable sources, and wherever possible, I tried to pick the independent sources that seem less connected to the Chinese government. As a non-expert, I gave my best efforts to learn this problem here. Because I believe, regardless of races and positions, the commonly shared abilities to gather and judge empirically verifiable evidences, logically analyze, critically think, and prudently conclude provide the possibility for people holding different opinions to communicate, thus truth will earn the acknowledgement it deserves. Qinqin Luphysics graduate student