Regarding the article “Mao and Minneapolis,” Eliot Cutler is naïve if he believes that the Chinese government’s repressive policies in Tibet stem from “wrestling with the line between church and state” [Oped, “Mao and Minneapolis,” July 31, 2008].

Beijing’s concerns in Tibet are far less philosophical. It seeks to maintain coercive control over a population in which pro-independence sentiment runs high, and in which Buddhism is closely linked with the Tibetan national identity.

Mr. Cutler also insinuates that unrest in Tibet stems from Tibetans’ attempt to establish some sort of theocracy, rule by “monks or mullahs” rather than a “Jeffersonian ideal.” The Tibetan government-in-exile is a democracy, which is more than one can say about the Chinese government.

One point on which I agree with Mr. Cutler is his assertion that “where you stand depends on where you sit.”

From where I sit as a Tibetan-American attorney, Mr. Cutler’s analysis misses a key point. The Tibet issue is not primarily about church and state or even religious freedom: it is about a people’s right to self-determination.

Until this right is realized, the Tibet issue will continue to be a problem for China far after the Beijing Olympics.

NIMA TAYLOR BINARA

Board of Directors

Tibet Justice Center

Berkeley, Calif.

“City Soon Will Be Found in Translation”

I read with great interest your article, “City Soon Will Be Found in Translation” [New York, July 23, 2008].

My parents spoke Yiddish and Hungarian in Europe. They learned Hebrew in Israel.

When my mother arrived here — she came first because of the quota system — she had to learn English. My father, rest his soul, my younger sister, and I came later, on the next boat. We also had to learn the language.

There is one language missing that needs translators, Yiddish.

Many Jewish people speak that language here in Brooklyn and throughout the world.

CECELIA KLEINBART

Brooklyn, N.Y.