Tibet, the devil's advocate asks...

[Childlike Empress]

Anyone else who got a PM from.. well, buddha himself?

No.

Somehow i feel ignored and unenlightened but on the other hand, maybe Buddha knows that i love the Koan "If you meet Buddha, kill him".

 

[mrbaracuda]

Koan?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Yeah, Koan. Maybe you should look it up. It's the internet we're in, remember? Informations like this are easily found in it. Informations that are still not so easily found are about personal motivations, so it would be useful to many people here if you would tell us what it meant for you that your sister converted to islam. Maybe than we can understand your stance on clowns like Geert Wilders better, and, more important, we can understand you better. Wouldn't that be great? But not here, please.

 

[shadron]

I doubt that this will ever happen while the Dalai Lama's considerable fortune, comfort, influence and opulent lifestyle is entirely dependent on him maintaining a different stance.

Let's consider this a minute. First of all, the news seems to be saying that the Dalai Lama has been saying over and over that he doesn't want a free Tibet; he wants an autonomous Tibet. I presume the exact definition of autonomous would be the subject of some negotiation, but that is what he says (others in the movement may seek more, but we're discussing the DL here).

Secondly, how much "considerable fortune, comfort, influence and opulent lifestyle" would the DL have if China turned around today and gave him the country, lock, stock and barrel? Setting aside influence, perhaps more than the typical Tibetan peasant-surf, but as much as he has enjoyed these last 50 years? If you think that, perhaps you need to look into some National Geographics about how the Tibetan palaces look and are appointed. Unlike Sadam, the infrastructure that would enjoy now isn't up to his accustomed expectations, I assure you. If greed and opulent living were his goal, I'd think he'd just stay away.

Perhaps he takes his ruling Tibet seriously; nobles oblige and like that. That is the only way I can think of him really wanting to resume the throne. Perhaps he also has religious scruples, if he really believes himself (and his follower, who will be chosen by the Chinese, if they have any say at all about it, and they do) to be god. And maybe a touch of nationalistic passion for "his" people.

Thailand still runs on a god-king, and I don't see that really messing up Thai lives. If you think he is just a figurehead, remember what he did about ten years ago when the military started acting up against the Prime Minister. He called the Army COS and the PM in, and the problem was Settled, and the COS didn't come out smelling of roses. Most Thais seem to live well. Hell, right down to it, GB does a sort of pseudo-feudal as well (now there, in my view, is a figurehead, though I grant that that may be because of my brown nosed glasses).

 

[Wolfman]

One important thing to point out here -- the "Tibetan movement" is hardly a unified movement. When he first started, the Dalai Lama pushed for independence; but for many years, he has simply been asking for greater freedom and less religious persecution, not for independence. And I think that his expressions in this regard are sincere.

However, there are many others who still seek for independence; in fact, there is a growing schism within their movement, of younger people who both want to abandon his pacifist stance, and who want to push for complete independence.

During the recent protests in Tibet, for example, where Tibetan protesters resorted to violence, not only did the Dalai Lama condemn that violence, but stated that if it continued, he would step down as the political leader of the movement, since he could not condone such actions.

There are a lot of people within the whole "Free Tibet" movement who are actually calling for the Dalai Lama to be replaces as a political leader (but remain as spiritual leader), and replace him with someone who supports more direct (ie. violent) actions in pushing their agenda. I don't think it is fair to lay everything these people do at the feed of the Dalai Lama.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Thanks so far for all the thoughts and insights. I shall not comment on the comments to my post, except, as stated, it was a devil's advocate contribution, and I'm aware of the inherent inacciracies and provocations.

I think there has already been some very interesting angles, including some that I have not otherwise seen in the Tibet debate, and this was my purpose.

My own view is that the Dalai Lama appears sympatic and sincere, but I don't feel that neccessarily implies that he is qualified to rule a country. Certainly China has a historic claim to Tibet, but it is my hope that we will some day reach the point where historic claims to territory have no value. All that should count is the opinion of the people living in the territory (and that may give rise to some interesting border rearrangements ).

As for the present situation, we can only hope that the typical Chinese pragmatic stance wins over the equally typical Chinese stubbornness and fear of loosing face, and makes everybody relevant sit down, preferabley around the same table (but other options exist) and figure out a reasonable solution.

Hans

 

[Wolfman]

The comparison between Tibet and the aboriginal people of Australia and the native Americans seems appealing, but is flawed. Firstly, the people living on the land now were not even born now when the land was taken from the natives, so removing them from the land to give back to the original inhabitants would be a crime just as bad as the original act.

So, by your argument, all that the Chinese gov't has to do is hold on for another few decades, until all the "original occupants" are dead...and then it'll be fine, right? Seems to me that you've just confirmed my argument.

Secondly, when the aborigines or the native American's want to discuss reparations, compensation or politics, we listen and often give them what they want. Native American reservations have the right to form their own governments, enforce and create laws and set taxes, for instance. Something close to what the Dalai Lama wants, actually.

I'd generally agree with you -- with the proviso that this is a very recent development, and it wasn't that long ago that our governments were guilty of perpetrating abuses just as bad, or even worse, as those being committed by the Chinese gov't.

This is quite different to the Chinese policy, which is to shoot any who objects to Chinese rule (Hegemony or Death, anyone?). They do not even talk to the Dalai Lama, instead choosing to call him a terrorist. They even try to shut down the opposition websites, preventing them getting their message out.

I'd generally agree with your comments here...but would point out that this is hardly a "Tibet thing"; it applies pretty much to all Chinese. I'd also point out that Tibetans aren't even unique in having a different culture/language/religion...China actually has some 56 distinct minority groups.

Back in 2001, the Liu Jingmin, vice president of the Beijing Olympic bid committee said that the Olympics would help the development of human rights in China. Amnesty International reports that there is 'little sign of improvement'. I see these protests as a reminder to China that if they want to enjoy the prestige of holding the Olympics, they should start acting like respectable members of the international community and stop acting like thugs and bullies. Talking to the Dalai Lama would be a good start.

I'd agree that much improvement is still needed, and yes, talking with the Dalai Lama would be a good start. However, the idea that there has been "little sign of improvement" is, in and of itself, a politically-biased statement. What it really means is that "there has not been as much change as we want". Which is an entirely different thing. There have been -- and continue to be -- big changes in China.

In fact, to put things in a more historical perspective, the political changes that have taken place in China in the last 10 years are more striking and more rapid than those which took place in the U.S. when fighting for racial equality, women's rights, etc. It took them decades to accomplish their goals (and that in a democratic nation dedicated to freedom and equality); whereas freedoms for Chinese have increased quite drastically and significantly over the past 10 years.

As I've said, I'm all for pushing China to continue to improve. But the ludicrous and entirely unrealistic expectations that China should accomplish in 10 years what it took countries like the U.S. more than a century to accomplish bug the hell out of me. People lack entirely any sense of perspective or history. Forget the fact that the freedoms that Americans enjoy today are the result of more than 100 years of struggle, including massive internal conflict, and much pain and suffering -- no, China should change and become just like us instantly, we won't abide with slow, gradual change.

 

[MRC_Hans]

As I've said, I'm all for pushing China to continue to improve. But the ludicrous and entirely unrealistic expectations that China should accomplish in 10 years what it took countries like the U.S. more than a century to accomplish bug the hell out of me. People lack entirely any sense of perspective or history. Forget the fact that the freedoms that Americans enjoy today are the result of more than 100 years of struggle, including massive internal conflict, and much pain and suffering -- no, China should change and become just like us instantly, we won't abide with slow, gradual change.

AMEN. Add to this that NOBODY has yet tried to install democracy in a country as large and diverse as China.

And for speedy improvement: We are talking about what was a developing country fifty years ago, much on the level of India, in fact. Then it was bogged down in a laregely disastrous communist regime for about 30 years. Now it is a bustling industrial economy with an unmatched economical growth rate. For all its vices, that Chinese goverment is doing something right.

Hans

 

[Uzzy]

So, by your argument, all that the Chinese gov't has to do is hold on for another few decades, until all the "original occupants" are dead...and then it'll be fine, right? Seems to me that you've just confirmed my argument.

No. It would not make it fine. This is why I described the actions taken against the aborigines and native American's as crimes. It is just that in a few decades, the original occupants will be dead, as will the people who occupied the land immediately after them. This will leave just the descendants of both sets of people. At which point, if you were to evict the people now occupying the land, you would be committing just as bad a crime as was originally done. You would be punishing people for a crime committed before they were born, which is wrong.

This does not in any way make the blatant Chinese imperialism in any way right or fine. Not now, nor in a hundred years time.

I'd generally agree with you -- with the proviso that this is a very recent development, and it wasn't that long ago that our governments were guilty of perpetrating abuses just as bad, or even worse, as those being committed by the Chinese gov't.

Oh true.

I'd generally agree with your comments here...but would point out that this is hardly a "Tibet thing"; it applies pretty much to all Chinese. I'd also point out that Tibetans aren't even unique in having a different culture/language/religion...China actually has some 56 distinct minority groups.

Again, true. They oppress a lot of ethnic groups equally, like the Uyghur. I support the East Turkestan Liberation Movement too, you know, and think the crimes China has committed against the Uyghur are appalling.

I'd agree that much improvement is still needed, and yes, talking with the Dalai Lama would be a good start. However, the idea that there has been "little sign of improvement" is, in and of itself, a politically-biased statement. What it really means is that "there has not been as much change as we want". Which is an entirely different thing. There have been -- and continue to be -- big changes in China.

Economically, perhaps. But what has actually changed? They still execute the highest amount of people in the world. They still lock people up for thought crimes. They still lock up journalists for investigating things, as the Amnesty International report shows. (Though, I would be surprised if you could see it there in China.)

In fact, to put things in a more historical perspective, the political changes that have taken place in China in the last 10 years are more striking and more rapid than those which took place in the U.S. when fighting for racial equality, women's rights, etc. It took them decades to accomplish their goals (and that in a democratic nation dedicated to freedom and equality); whereas freedoms for Chinese have increased quite drastically and significantly over the past 10 years.

Correct. However, we Europeans (I'm British myself) have enjoyed things like Habeas Corpus since 1215. We had the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen back in 1789. The American Constitution was in adopted back in 1787. Hell, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was back in 1948. We've had the principles of humans rights in place for quite some time now. We may not have always been able to live up to them, but things like Habeas Corpus, Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion have been enshrined for quite some time.

Contrary to your next point, I'm actually not expecting China to transform overnight. I'm not expecting the great Firewall of China to go offline this year, or for journalists to stop being arrested or for the 4,000 people yearly to not be executed. What I am expecting is for China to continue reform, and for the world to use these Olympics as an opportunity to remind China of what it needs to do to be a respectable member of the international community. There is plenty it could do right now to improve it's standing. Talking to the Dalai Lama, for instance, would be a good start. Making sure they keep up to their promise of unrestricted media access during the Olympics would be a good start. I'm not expecting miracles.

 

[Wolfman]

No. It would not make it fine. This is why I described the actions taken against the aborigines and native American's as crimes. It is just that in a few decades, the original occupants will be dead, as will the people who occupied the land immediately after them. This will leave just the descendants of both sets of people. At which point, if you were to evict the people now occupying the land, you would be committing just as bad a crime as was originally done. You would be punishing people for a crime committed before they were born, which is wrong.

This does not in any way make the blatant Chinese imperialism in any way right or fine. Not now, nor in a hundred years time.

Sorry, I don't get your argument here. What we did to Native Americans was "wrong", but it is too late to change it, we must just accept it.

But for the Tibetans, it doesn't matter how long it takes, even 100 years later, we should not accept it? After all...in another 50 years time, would you not also be "punishing people for a crime committed before they were born"?

It really sounds to me like you are just making the same argument about time -- the only difference between what happened in N. America, and in Tibet, is that it happened a long time ago in America. Which means, if I accept this argument, that all China has to do is bide their time, and then they will be able to make exactly the same claim. So again...please, besides the issue of the amount of time that has passed, what is the difference?

Again, true. They oppress a lot of ethnic groups equally, like the Uyghur. I support the East Turkestan Liberation Movement too, you know, and think the crimes China has committed against the Uyghur are appalling.

There, you and I will have to disagree.

While I agree that the things that China has done to the Uighers is wrong, the "Liberation Movement" is, by any definition, a terrorist organization. I have a friend whose mother was killed by a bomb they planted on a public bus. They've just had people in their group arrested for plotting to kidnap athletes, journalists, and tourists during the Olympics. And even the U.S. gov't agrees with China that they have links to other Muslim terrorist organizations.

Not only that, your arguments are terribly inconsistent. I assume that you'd oppose Native Americans taking up arms and committing terrorist acts in order to be able to gain "independence" from the U.S.; yet while there is some dispute as to Tibet's status as "part of China", there is no debate at all regarding the area the Uighers live in. It has been a part of China since before North America was even discovered! In addition, the Uighers are not the only people who live there -- there are several other minority groups, as well as many Han Chinese.

So please explain what logic you use to come to such conclusions. You talk about how displacement of non-Native Americans would be too problematic, if we were to let them have their own "country"...and you talk about the fact that it has been such a long time. Yet not only would "independence" for the Uighers displace huge numbers of other people, but the length of time that we are talking about historically is also much longer than that of the situation in the U.S. AND you seem to be supporting a group that does not simply seek independence, but that uses violence and terrorism in order to try to accomplish its goals.

I appreciate your sentiments; but I can find little or no consistency to your arguments whatsoever. It seems to be based far more on sentiment and emotion than any rational examination of the respective situations.

 

[sphenisc]

The Lama and his predecessors ruled one of the last remaining feudal societies in the world. An 'idyll' that was rejected in Europe some time ago with the population divided into lords (Lama & co) and serfs.

By "some time ago" I take it you mean yesterday?


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ars-sark-turns-back-on-feudal-law-807006.html

 

[fuelair]

No.

Somehow i feel ignored and unenlightened but on the other hand, maybe Buddha knows that i love the Koan "If you meet Buddha, kill him".

Only if you meet him on the road. I believe if you meet him at a picnic you are supposed to offer him mustard. If you meet him in a public restroom and are a republicker politician, you are supposed to kneel and kiss something or other. And if he spams you on this site, you suspend him - or get someone with lots of time on their hands to do so!.

 

[H3LL]

By "some time ago" I take it you mean yesterday?


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ars-sark-turns-back-on-feudal-law-807006.html

That is such a brilliant "gotcha".

 

[H3LL]

This does not in any way make the blatant Chinese imperialism in any way right or fine. Not now, nor in a hundred years time.

Ah! I see where you are coming from now.

This is exactly the point I raised earlier. Stopping the history clock 60-100 years ago.

Sorry to inform you of this but the history of China goes a little further back and includes 'proper' imperialism from Tibet with a real emperor and, at one time (Ralpacan), one of the biggest empires in the world.

Neither China nor Tibet can be accused of being more or less guilty of 'blatant' 'imperialism'. You're just wrong.

You can be forgiven though. Many people forget that Germany also had a history before the 20th century (oddly enough, back to around the time of Ralpacan). An easy mistake to make.

While the west thinks in centuries or decades (see WM above) and China thinks in millenia meeting of minds is going to be some time coming.

.

ETA: Tibet has also fought frequent conflicts with your Uyghurs. But I guess killing large numbers of them, enslaving the population and stealing their land doesn't count as oppression... because they're nice Tibetans and you don't have an irrational bee in your bonnet about Tibetans.

.

 

[Uzzy]

Sorry, I don't get your argument here. What we did to Native Americans was "wrong", but it is too late to change it, we must just accept it.

But for the Tibetans, it doesn't matter how long it takes, even 100 years later, we should not accept it? After all...in another 50 years time, would you not also be "punishing people for a crime committed before they were born"?

It really sounds to me like you are just making the same argument about time -- the only difference between what happened in N. America, and in Tibet, is that it happened a long time ago in America. Which means, if I accept this argument, that all China has to do is bide their time, and then they will be able to make exactly the same claim. So again...please, besides the issue of the amount of time that has passed, what is the difference?

None. Both are wrongs that have been committed against a peoples. The difference is that the wrongs the Chinese are committing against the Tibetans is happening right now to living Tibetans. Things can be done right now to right the wrongs being committed against living Tibetans.

It's simple. You need to have some point where current wrongs being committed become historical wrongs, or else you could have the absurd situation of Briton's suing Italians and the Scandinavian countries for the wrongs the Roman Empire and the Viking's committed.

There, you and I will have to disagree.

Quite understandable. I too oppose Terrorism of any kind. Peaceful liberation movements are perfectly fine by me though. I should have said East Turkestan independence, rather then Liberation Organisation, but I was in a rush. Incidentally, Amnesty International have a good report on the issue, suggesting that torture is often used to obtain information on the terrorist incidents, and that the Chinese response goes far beyond any reasonable response to terrorism. Not to mention the many prisoners of conscience being held.

Either way, Terrorist acts are of course deplorable.

Interestingly, the proportion of Han Chinese who were living in the East Turkestan region in 1949 (before the PRC conquered the area) was 6%. It's now 40%, due mostly to the large economic incentives the PRC gives for immigrants to East Turkestan. It's the same situation in Tibet. This is why I call it Imperialism, which is "the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations". Firstly the PRC conquered the nations by military force, and are now implementing policies of social and cultural destruction of the native peoples.

You can be forgiven though. Many people forget that Germany also had a history before the 20th century (oddly enough, back to around the time of Ralpacan). An easy mistake to make.

Now, would pre 20th century include Bismarck, the Austrian-Prussian war etc, or are we going even further back to the Holy Roman Empire and Charlemagne? Though, I suppose Louis the Pious would be the best example, given that he ruled 814-840, compared to Ralpacan's 815-838.

I suppose it is an easy mistake to make, for those who don't study History. (Currently studying the Bismarckian era myself)

ETA: Tibet has also fought frequent conflicts with your Uyghurs. But I guess killing large numbers of them, enslaving the population and stealing their land doesn't count as oppression... because they're nice Tibetans and you don't have an irrational bee in your bonnet about Tibetans.

Are the Tibetan's enslaving the population now? Stealing land now? If they were, I'd oppose them.

 

[H3LL]

Are the Tibetan's enslaving the population now? Stealing land now? If they were, I'd oppose them.

You seem to only be concerned with "now" one minute then jump into a spot in history, chosen at random by you, another.

As I've tried to indicate, jumping around and grabbing arbitary little snapshots of history to support whatever it is you are saying is neither helpful nor particularly honest.

This, to me is the main problem. Many Chinese are very aware of the great sweep of history behind their culture and many of the events within it. Ignoring this fact is an impossible recipe for meaningful dialogue.

The statements:

"I want autonomy for my followers in a small part of China"

and

"I want autonomy for my followers in large parts of China including India, Nepal, Xinjiang, Baltistan, Sichuan, as well as almost all of modern Chinese Turkestan and Gansu."

are both correct and both are Tibet.

What are the Chinese hearing?

What is the west hearing?

What is India hearing?

I don't know. Do you?

.

 

[latent aaaack]

As I've said, I'm all for pushing China to continue to improve. But the ludicrous and entirely unrealistic expectations that China should accomplish in 10 years what it took countries like the U.S. more than a century to accomplish bug the hell out of me. People lack entirely any sense of perspective or history. Forget the fact that the freedoms that Americans enjoy today are the result of more than 100 years of struggle, including massive internal conflict, and much pain and suffering -- no, China should change and become just like us instantly, we won't abide with slow, gradual change.

So US abolitionist activists instead of protesting to "end slavery now!" should have been protesting to "end slavery eventually sometime in the unforeseeable future according to the natural progression of our civilization, the timing or certainty of which we can't be certain of!"?

You might be putting words in many peoples' mouth by proposing that a large amount of 'Free Tibet' supporters actually believe that it is realistic that China will quickly end their brutal and opressive policies in response to international pressure. It's more likely that they're acting out of principle and that these people also think the US should have stopped any oppressive practices it engaged in the sooner the better; not that the US time scale in becoming humane was the 'right' time scale.

Moreover, I find it hard to believe that China exists in some primitive 1800s-US era innocently isolated time bubble where it shouldn't be expected to know right from wrong and shouldn't be held to the standards of the modern developed world.

China does know exactly what the rest of the world expects of it with regard to human rights and its claim to be a modern, developed, outward looking, globalized country that is acceptable and respectable to the rest of the world is part of the message it wants to send out by hosting the Olympics isn't it? I'm saying this is just part of what being exposed and open to the world entails, that the good and the bad is showcased and reacted to very publically.