Reply to René Descartes The People's Republic of China engaged in a long suppression of the Tibetan people; in 1959 the Dalai Lama fled Tibet and has since lived in the Tibet community in India. Of course it should be self-governing; it isn't going to happen, I am afraid.
China is behaving the way the dominant regional or global powers always behave: they do what they believe they can get away with, all in their national best interests, of course. The Russians, the Soviets, the British, the Germans, the Austrians, the French, the Dutch, the Spanish and Portuguese, the Italians, the Turks, the Japanese, the Burmese, the Americans, etc. etc. etc. have all done the same thing, and most likely will all continue to do the same thing. I don't like it, but I am not sure how much effect people either in China, Tibet, or elsewhere in the world can do about it.
Many years ago I took a class with a professor of Han Chinese ancestry who tried to make a case for Chinese influence in Tibet. This was during the heyday of the Free Tibet movement which has unfortunately lost a lot of its steam in the US.
Anyhow, going off memory (been a very long time) these were some of his major arguments:
1. Tibet has been part of China's sphere of influence for hundreds of years--ever since Mongol Yuan Dynasty of the 13th and 14th centuries.
2. The Chinese government gave the Dalai Lama the option of remaining in the country as either the political or the spiritual leader, but they were adamant that he could NOT serve both functions at the same time. He refused of course, and then fled to India.
3. The Tibetan political and economic system was extremely exploitative before the most recent episode of Chinese involvement in the 1950's. For average Tibetans literacy rates were low (5-10%), access to medical care was almost non-existent, etc. All of these idealistic students flying the Tibetan flag around their college campuses had been hoodwinked by religious exiles into thinking the place was some sort of spiritual paradise, when in fact (according to the teacher) it was a backwards theocracy heavily tilted in favor of the religious elites at the expense of ordinary Tibetans.
4. Tibetan Buddhism is not aligned with the genuine teachings of the Buddha. I remember thinking this rationalization for Chinese domination was silly and absurdly petty, but the professor seemed sincere in his belief that certain alleged sexual views and practices found among Tibetan Buddhists were perverse distortions of the Buddha's teachings. Tibetan Buddhism represented a sensuous and debased offshoot of a noble spiritual tradition which, once again, placed the lamas in positions of power and domination over their countrymen and women.
So the obvious takeaway from his position was that, contrary to public perception, the Chinese government should have been seen as liberators interested solely in the well-being of ALL Tibetans and not primarily motivated by other, less elevated goals like, for instance, the possible geostrategic importance of Tibet in light of China's regional interests. This is clearly a one-sided view, but I think it's good to offer up an alternative perspective even if it's not one that we could lend our support to.
As for my opinion, well, I still don't know enough to have an informed opinion on the matter, but I am inclined to support the right of self-determination for the Tibetans. Probably a little late for that with all the Han migration, I suppose.
As for my opinion, well, I still don't know enough to have an informed opinion
But you should have enough to recognise propoganda when you hear it.
We’re lucky we’re not conducting this conversation inside the boundaries of the PRC. Otherwise, it would be monitored and if it created enough noise, then the Forum would suddenly go offline.
Reply to Wayfarer Oh yes, I hope I made it clear above that I was skeptical of the simplistic and one-sided narrative that he pushed on us. I present the viewpoint of the professor primarily as a way of understanding the obviously self-serving perspective underlying the Chinese domination of Tibet.
But again, even though I sensed the heavy partisanship of his position I like to think I have enough integrity to admit that I may not be sufficiently informed of the political, social, economic or religious aspects of his argument to speak with confidence as to what really is (or has been) the case in Tibet.
I'm eager to learn more, though, and perhaps you can make some general remarks concerning Tibetan Buddhism, with specific mention of the allegedly lurid aspects of it that the prof felt were incompatible with the teachings of the Buddha. Or maybe that's better left for another time?
Reply to Erik What you reported by the professor is simply the CCP party line. It is what is churned out on campuses and through Chinese state media, all over the world. (There has been a flap here in Australia recently, about the pernicious influence of Chinese state media on debate and discourse in Australian universities. A book on the matter by a left-leaning Australian academic was withheld from publication in Nov last because of the publishers’ ‘fears of repercussions’. It’s a scary suppression of public debate.)
So what you’re repeating above is simply propaganda. I don’t know much detail about Tibetan history, but I do know the claim that ‘Tibet has always been part of China’ is the leading lie in their extensive body of lies about the subject. I think you would be doing the community a service if you removed the post.
I think you would be doing the community a service if you removed the post.
Now you're sounding like an ideologue yourself. You just admitted you don't know much about Tibetan history. Why not learn more before taking a stand? Some of what's written in the post happens to be true. That's not to defend China. I'm not a fan of the place or its system.
I do have an MA in Buddhist Studies, but am honest enough to admit ‘I don’t know much about the history. But it’s blatant propoganda. Even the way it is presented - bullet points, notice. Pumped into an open mind, to be disgorged when the circumstances are appropriate.
And you know something else, Baden - it’s a pretty sure bet, that somewhere in an IT ops room in China, this thread has pinged a report, purely by virtue of the thread title. It’s an obvious keyword match. Minor report, may not get escalated, it’s probably trivial. But it will be noticed.
René DescartesFebruary 05, 2018 at 09:04#1499580 likes
We’re lucky we’re not conducting this conversation inside the boundaries of the PRC. Otherwise, it would be monitored and if it created enough noise, then the Forum would suddenly go offline.
We very well may get banned in China at some point anyway. Their loss. They've got nothing on me seeing as I've escaped the place. But let propaganda from whatever side be held up to the light not swept under the carpet.
Notice that you can agree with the Chinese party line, as presented by Erik, and still support Tibetan self-determination. Even if the Chinese brought some welcome modernization, the Tibetans may have liked the chance to do it themselves.
OK - fair enough, my bad saying the post ought to be removed. I apologise to the Forum and take it back. But do realise what we’re dealing with here. Clive Hamilton, whose book was withdrawn from publication, is a noted Left Wing journo and commentator here in Australia. Last week he testified before a Senate committee on covert Chinese influence in Australian public life. He said, If you’d have told me a year ago that I would be appearing here in front of a Government committee saying such things, I never would have believed you. You’re dealing with a Government that takes people away in the middle of the night, for things they have published. It’s Stalinist, but because of their excellent media management, nobody seems to be paying attention.
For the record, what I presented was NOT my view. I'm honestly not trying to hide my position behind some fictional teacher. The impromptu talk he gave on the topic was precipitated by some students walking around campus with a Tibetan flag, and it left an impression on me not so much because I found it compelling, but because it was the first time I'd been exposed to that alternative standpoint.
But I do apologize to you, Wayfarer, for the offense I've caused by bringing up possible arguments against Tibetan Independence given by an obviously biased source. I will gladly remove the post--however relevant it is to the topic at hand--if there's even a slight possibility that it may lead to negative consequences for others.
I think it's generally a good idea to get opposing viewpoints on contentious geopolitical topics like this one. I'd say the same for Israel-Palestine (in which case I strongly side with the Palestinians while still trying to understand the Israeli perspective(s)), the dispute over the Kashmir between India and Pakistan, etc.
Reply to Wayfarer Thank you, I appreciate that. It may be poor taste to discuss these sorts of things--things which adversely affect actual people--in such a detached manner. I'll let it stand though now that so much has been made of it, and hope that those more informed than myself will dismantle the professor's positions point by point.
Yes the Chinese often do use the excuse of being the "liberators", but having read seven years in Tibet, I can assure you that the Tibetans were not happy of losing their independence to the Chinese. They loved their simplistic lifestyle, even if they had barely any medicine or much at all and very archaic laws because that is how they have always lived and that is how they want to live. They may have better healthcare but I don't think they are as happy as they once were.
Good stuff. I'm definitely on the side of the Tibetans when the issue is framed as a contrast between voluntary simplicity vs imposed technological progress.
René DescartesFebruary 05, 2018 at 09:30#1499750 likes
Propaganda itself can be a good source of information.
But only if all participants recognise it as such. I mean, if you’re arguing about public health against anti-vaccination activists, then do they get equal time? Are their opinions to be put on an equal footing with those of medical specialists?
I was reading recently of some of the atrocities that happened in Tibet, post-invasion. Many thousands of monastic communities were disbanded, buildings destroyed, their scriptures and icons burned in public squares, thousands executed. Monks were forced to kill lamas - their spiritual teachers - or to have sexual intercourse with nuns in front of the troops. There are many such accounts. No, I don’t have all the references at hand, although they could be found without a lot of effort on the Internet. But make no mistake, the invasion and subjugation of the Tibetan peoples was a crime against humanity on an epic scale.
Reply to René Descartes Yeah, I hadn't got that far into the thread yet - my comment was more of a joke of Wayfarer accusing me of being authoritarian in the past anyways.
René DescartesFebruary 05, 2018 at 09:35#1499780 likes
Reply to René Descartes The same can be said for anti-vaccination or climate-change denial. It’s like saying that the murderer and the victim were ‘two participants in a transaction’.
Anyway I recall an anecdote, which is the last thing I’ll say on the subject. The Dalai Lama once recounted a story of talking to an old monk, who had been confined a Chinese labour camp for 25 years, and then finally was released. The Dalai Lama asked him what the worst thing about those long years of captivity were. The old monk thought for a minute, and then said, ‘for a while there, I almost began to hate them’.
René DescartesFebruary 05, 2018 at 09:43#1499830 likes
At the core of China's claim seems to be that it sees the current situation as a continuation of the relationship between Tibet and the Ching dynasty. That doesn't seem to be correct though as Tibet was not part of Ching "sovereignty" and the Dalia Lama was not a subject of the CHing dynasty. So we see a typical Western concept of "sovereignty" applied to a political and cultural situation that doesn't really fit.
Another approach is a rights-based approach. It is interesting to see that Lenin (and Woodrow Wilson) argued for self-determination. The USSR and early communist China recognised the right of secession. This was later removed from the Chinese constitution (1930s). The right has nevertheless been reiterated over time in several treaties signed and in some cases ratified by China; e.g. the UN Charter, the ICCPR and ICESCR. China at least pays lip service to the following idea of self-determination:
ICESCR:Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
Obviously, taking into account how, for instance, Africa was carved up by colonial powers this raised some issues as people worried about the defragmentation of existing states. Prevalent view for the exercise of self-determination has become that self-determination only applies to: entire populations living in independent states, or entire populations of territories yet to receive independence, or territories under foreign military occupation.
This is a restrictive definition excluding groups of people we'd usually refer to as... well "peoples". It excludes Kurds and various African tribes for instance. We're also confronted with the fact that most states recognise the de jure or de facto sovereignty of China over Tibet, which is a strong argument for the current situation.
United Nations General Assembly Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples:The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
This principle was applied to:
the Russian invasion of Afghanistan
the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia
the occupation of Arab territories by Israel
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the former Soviet Union
the Grenada by the United States
the Iraqi occupation of Iraq
On the basis of the above, how are we supposed to interpret the independence of Kosovo? We see that the prevalent view doesn't apply unless you'd accept the Albanian Kosovars were under alien subjugation, domination and exploitation. In other words, despite sharing the same country for a long time the Albanian Kosovars were culturally sufficiently different from the Serbs to be considered "alien" from each other resulting in subjugation, domination and exploitation under Milosevic's rule.
Finally, self-determination need not mean independence. Autonomy is key. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly argued for atuonomy instead of independence and this could be supported by the Tibetans (I don't know if they do).
Based on the Kosovo example, I'd argue Tibetans are a separate people from the Chinese with a sufficiently different culture than the Chinese to be considered separate. China will argue primarily that Tibet has been part of China since the 1600s. However, it appears that the political and social relationship between Tibet and the Ching dynasty and Tibet and China since 1950 are different things. This is by definition reflected by the treaty ( Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, or the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet) signed by Tibet and China which refers to the Tibetan people as separate from the Chinese but as "returning to the family" of motherland China. It is not clear either how you liberate people within your own country or why a treaty would be necessary to establish a situation that already existed according to the Chinese. That's only possible if Tibet was indeed autonomous from China.
Based on the above, I think a continuation of the relationship between the Ching dynasty and Tibet would be one where Tibet was autonomous. Chinese refusal to accept such autonomy is a "subjugation, domination and exploitation" of the Tibetan people and as such the right for self-determination can be invoked by Tibetans and should be pursued by the international community.
Reply to René Descartes Lowell Thomas used to do a 15 minute weeknight radio program on CBS Radio, back in the 1940s and 50s. I remember listening to him talk about Tibet in the '50s, many times. In the US the same period was dominated by McCarthy's virulent anti-homosexual and anti-communist campaigns (hard to tell which was more important to him from this distance).
Reply to René Descartes Of course. If I wasn't agéd I would have skipped over old Lowell in a heartbeat.
Things have changed a lot since 1949. There are now good air, rail and highway connections to Tibet from the east coast of China, the better to dominate the territory. They probably aren't going over the mountains with donkeys, either. Helicopters these days.
So yes, John Oliver would be much more accessible, though less there to access.
Do millennials know where Tibet is? Or what Tibet is? Maybe they think it is a gambling app.
If you are scared of speaking out against an evil autocratic government then don't. Giving up you right to free speech is precisely what they want so I will not, and I hope other people also won't, stop talking and discussing this issue
I agree that people who are lucky enough to have a right of free speech should not give it up, but posting opinions on an internet forum under a pseudonym is not exercising free speech. People can do that in totalitarian regimes too.
Free speech is being able to publicly, non-anonymously, stand behind your opinion and not be legally persecuted for it.
René DescartesFebruary 06, 2018 at 00:40#1502610 likes
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 06, 2018 at 01:36#1502880 likes
Reply to René Descartes Tibet is too geographically important for China to let it go. It circumvents Afghanistan and Myanmar, providing more or less direct access to India and Pakistan. The economic potential of the region is a big reason why China took over the region to begin with, as well, and I just can't see China letting Tibet go unless they ensure certain infrastructural guarantees, such as being able to keep trade and supply lines as they are.
I'd also say that Russia is similar to China in its desire for being able to "see" the world completely, without having to look through other countries' borders. China being flanked by deserts and mountainous tundra in the west makes it an east-leaning country, just as Russia is a west-leaning country, in terms of economic output, population, infrastructure, etc. This means that countries like China and Russia will exploit areas that are in their way and that can be taken over. Certainly the rest of the world ought to defend areas like Tibet, or in Russia's case parts of Ukraine like the Crimea, but unless there's enough support for the defense of these places, China and Russia will continue to push their boundaries.
One of you guys mentioned the dwindling interest in Tibetan independence, and I'd say that's the most obvious reason for why no body really gives two hoots about the Tibets, Crimeas, Abkhazias, Kurdistans, etc. of the world. It's disappointing to me, actually, as I think the world would probably be a more globally interconnected and supportive place were there more countries based on the unique cultural phenomena that exist across the continents instead of more conglomerated countries where benign cultures and practices get subsumed, or at worst, destroyed completely.
Based on the above, I think a continuation of the relationship between the Ching dynasty and Tibet would be one where Tibet was autonomous. Chinese refusal to accept such autonomy is a "subjugation, domination and exploitation" of the Tibetan people and as such the right for self-determination can be invoked by Tibetans and should be pursued by the international community.
(Y)
René DescartesFebruary 06, 2018 at 02:09#1503020 likes
When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, everyone took a stand against them.
Well, there was a specific effort from Western powers to vilify as much as they could Saddam's troops. Not that they needed much help, but I remember horrible stories of soldiers throwing grenades in hospital nurseries that were all debunked quickly afterwards.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 06, 2018 at 14:00#1505390 likes
Yes that is true. I'm just rather upset that no one did anything about China's invasion in the first place in 1950.
Because it would have certainly sparked outright war with China and the USSR. And the Korean War that happened a year after Tibet's fall was in many ways a reaction to Communist aggression, so you could safely argue that "we" did do something about China's territorial expansion, but in Korea, and through the UN, not by ourselves.
So the obvious takeaway from his position was that, contrary to public perception, the Chinese government should have been seen as liberators interested solely in the well-being of ALL Tibetans and not primarily motivated by other, less elevated goals like, for instance, the possible geostrategic importance of Tibet in light of China's regional interests.
Where have we heard this reasoning before?
Europeans colonizing Africa, maybe?
President George W. Bush deciding to invade Iraq, a country that had not attacked the U.S., maybe?
Etc.
René DescartesFebruary 07, 2018 at 06:48#1508330 likes
European colonization, American neo-Imperialism and the Chinese control of Tibet are all bad in my opinion. Hopefully soon enough, both America and China will finally let go of their Colonialist interest just as the European powers have. Although it took hundreds of years for Europeans to do so, and not without resistance. But to me, these examples are all equally bad. To oppress and conquer peoples who do not speak your language and do not have the same culture and who do not want you on their land is not right.
Why do you think it happens?
Is it the result of superstition? The U.S. believes that the stars in the sky are aligned a certain way and therefore we must occupy Iraq?
Or could it be that it is how economic and political actors rationally act in a global capitalist system?
For example, in [U]Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism[/U] (6th edition), Richard H. Robbins shows how the beef industry in the U.S. was the result of demand in Europe--Americans preferred pork--but for that market to work they first had to get rid of the Native Americans.
We like to make it sound like the behavior of individual and collective political and economic actors on the globe is about ideals, morals (or lack of morals), etc., but let's not forget that there is a global economic system according to which people are all consciously or sub-consciously acting and reacting.
It does little good to beat one's self-righteous chest and call other people and/or their actions evil, immoral, etc. If you want to make a difference, recognize the system that people are acting according to and reform or eradicate that system.
René DescartesFebruary 07, 2018 at 07:28#1508410 likes
Why do you think that these invasions, conquests, occupations, etc. that you detest happen in the first place?
Are people superstitious--do they say that it is in the alignment of the stars that they must invade? Are governments bored? Did Bush say to Cheney, "I'm bored. Who should we invade and occupy today?"?
Or is there, like I said, a global system in place and individual and collective economic and political actors are doing what that system requires of them?
You are not answering these basic, essential questions.
René DescartesFebruary 08, 2018 at 07:35#1511120 likes
As I already wrote in an earlier post; self-determination does not equate with independence necessarily. Scots and Welsh have autonomy and there's a system of rules that set out what issues the lower parliaments of Wales and Scotland are to vote on (so-called devolved matters). As long as the UK abides by the rules that were, for isntance laid down in the 2016 Scotland Act, Scots cannot claim their right to self-determination isn't respected especially in light of the recent referendum on the matter.
René DescartesFebruary 08, 2018 at 08:14#1511330 likes
Are you sure Self-Determination doesn't equate to independence?
I'm sure that's the accepted legal interpretation. I note that your definitions speak of "countries" and they by definition ought to have independence (sovereignty) from other countries. The issue arises when we're talking about "peoples" and their right of self-determination. Your definitions have nothing to really say about that.
Scots and Welsh are certainly not self-determined as they are ruled by the government and parliament in London. If they were self-determined they would have their own parliaments and capitals and currencies and alliances and laws etc...
This is too simple a picture of the relationship between the UK government and Scotland. The various "kingdoms" of the UK have their own parliaments and the central government cannot rule by Royal Prerogative on devolved matters. They need the agreement from the various lower parliaments on a lot of issues. See for instance: http://www.parliament.scot/visitandlearn/Education/18642.aspx
I don't wish to cast aspersions on you personally, this is a general comment, but I find the constant resort to "it's someone else's responsibility to act" somewhat misses the mark.
Sure, you alone not buying Chinese goods because you disagree with their foreign policy is not going make a difference, but since when was it one's moral duty to be on the winning side?
René DescartesFebruary 09, 2018 at 04:27#1514630 likes
I hardly buy anything made in China, it's simple, buy everything you can second hand and then check the small number of items remaining. I presume you've got ebay in New Zealand? All my clothes and electrical items are bought second-hand (or occasionally clearance stock), neither of which generate any revenue for the manufacturers. Furniture, pottery etc. can all be bought from local artisans (I presume you have those), and food can be sourced locally (again, I presume you have farmers). There's still quite a bit left over (hard-drives, personal items, non-reusable items), but not much, and it's not too hard to make sure they don't come from China with Japan and South Korea being such big players in electrical items and so many companies now offering fair-trade.
Do you actually read my threads before posting you're pointless jibes? My entire computer is second hand (bar the hard drive which was made in Japan), my fridge is second hand, I do not own a television, nor a dvd player. None of these things have given any money to the Chinese government in any way. I do not approve of their treatment of workers so I do not buy from them, there's plenty of stuff people don't want anymore for me to not have to.
If everyone bought stuff second hand we'd very soon run out and then we'd have to make some hard choices, but already there is the Fairphone, a smartphone made entirely from conflict-free resources, there are companies like aleutian computers who source materials from countries with good records on worker's rights where they can and at least give something back to those communities in the form of education or healthcare where they can't.
This ideas that we're all helpless and might as well not bother is just an excuse.
None of these things have given any money to the Chinese government in any way.
Keep your naiveté. The servers you use to write your post contribute to the Chinese economy as they are full of components.
If you want to be pure you'd have to stop contributing to this Forum.
I never claimed purity, the claim was that I hardly buy any items which contribute to the Chinese economy. You're making exactly the sort of whining, weak-willed excuses that cause these problems, "we can't eliminate these things entirely so we might as well not bother", "unless you're a Saint you're not allowed to suggest how other people can improve" it's bullshit, and you know it.
Comments (68)
China is behaving the way the dominant regional or global powers always behave: they do what they believe they can get away with, all in their national best interests, of course. The Russians, the Soviets, the British, the Germans, the Austrians, the French, the Dutch, the Spanish and Portuguese, the Italians, the Turks, the Japanese, the Burmese, the Americans, etc. etc. etc. have all done the same thing, and most likely will all continue to do the same thing. I don't like it, but I am not sure how much effect people either in China, Tibet, or elsewhere in the world can do about it.
Anyhow, going off memory (been a very long time) these were some of his major arguments:
1. Tibet has been part of China's sphere of influence for hundreds of years--ever since Mongol Yuan Dynasty of the 13th and 14th centuries.
2. The Chinese government gave the Dalai Lama the option of remaining in the country as either the political or the spiritual leader, but they were adamant that he could NOT serve both functions at the same time. He refused of course, and then fled to India.
3. The Tibetan political and economic system was extremely exploitative before the most recent episode of Chinese involvement in the 1950's. For average Tibetans literacy rates were low (5-10%), access to medical care was almost non-existent, etc. All of these idealistic students flying the Tibetan flag around their college campuses had been hoodwinked by religious exiles into thinking the place was some sort of spiritual paradise, when in fact (according to the teacher) it was a backwards theocracy heavily tilted in favor of the religious elites at the expense of ordinary Tibetans.
4. Tibetan Buddhism is not aligned with the genuine teachings of the Buddha. I remember thinking this rationalization for Chinese domination was silly and absurdly petty, but the professor seemed sincere in his belief that certain alleged sexual views and practices found among Tibetan Buddhists were perverse distortions of the Buddha's teachings. Tibetan Buddhism represented a sensuous and debased offshoot of a noble spiritual tradition which, once again, placed the lamas in positions of power and domination over their countrymen and women.
So the obvious takeaway from his position was that, contrary to public perception, the Chinese government should have been seen as liberators interested solely in the well-being of ALL Tibetans and not primarily motivated by other, less elevated goals like, for instance, the possible geostrategic importance of Tibet in light of China's regional interests. This is clearly a one-sided view, but I think it's good to offer up an alternative perspective even if it's not one that we could lend our support to.
As for my opinion, well, I still don't know enough to have an informed opinion on the matter, but I am inclined to support the right of self-determination for the Tibetans. Probably a little late for that with all the Han migration, I suppose.
But you should have enough to recognise propoganda when you hear it.
We’re lucky we’re not conducting this conversation inside the boundaries of the PRC. Otherwise, it would be monitored and if it created enough noise, then the Forum would suddenly go offline.
But again, even though I sensed the heavy partisanship of his position I like to think I have enough integrity to admit that I may not be sufficiently informed of the political, social, economic or religious aspects of his argument to speak with confidence as to what really is (or has been) the case in Tibet.
I'm eager to learn more, though, and perhaps you can make some general remarks concerning Tibetan Buddhism, with specific mention of the allegedly lurid aspects of it that the prof felt were incompatible with the teachings of the Buddha. Or maybe that's better left for another time?
So what you’re repeating above is simply propaganda. I don’t know much detail about Tibetan history, but I do know the claim that ‘Tibet has always been part of China’ is the leading lie in their extensive body of lies about the subject. I think you would be doing the community a service if you removed the post.
Now you're sounding like an ideologue yourself. You just admitted you don't know much about Tibetan history. Why not learn more before taking a stand? Some of what's written in the post happens to be true. That's not to defend China. I'm not a fan of the place or its system.
I do have an MA in Buddhist Studies, but am honest enough to admit ‘I don’t know much about the history. But it’s blatant propoganda. Even the way it is presented - bullet points, notice. Pumped into an open mind, to be disgorged when the circumstances are appropriate.
And you know something else, Baden - it’s a pretty sure bet, that somewhere in an IT ops room in China, this thread has pinged a report, purely by virtue of the thread title. It’s an obvious keyword match. Minor report, may not get escalated, it’s probably trivial. But it will be noticed.
Quoting Wayfarer
Instead, why don't we show them how it's done properly?
We very well may get banned in China at some point anyway. Their loss. They've got nothing on me seeing as I've escaped the place. But let propaganda from whatever side be held up to the light not swept under the carpet.
But I do apologize to you, Wayfarer, for the offense I've caused by bringing up possible arguments against Tibetan Independence given by an obviously biased source. I will gladly remove the post--however relevant it is to the topic at hand--if there's even a slight possibility that it may lead to negative consequences for others.
I think it's generally a good idea to get opposing viewpoints on contentious geopolitical topics like this one. I'd say the same for Israel-Palestine (in which case I strongly side with the Palestinians while still trying to understand the Israeli perspective(s)), the dispute over the Kashmir between India and Pakistan, etc.
>:O >:O >:O - authoritarian much?
Good stuff. I'm definitely on the side of the Tibetans when the issue is framed as a contrast between voluntary simplicity vs imposed technological progress.
But only if all participants recognise it as such. I mean, if you’re arguing about public health against anti-vaccination activists, then do they get equal time? Are their opinions to be put on an equal footing with those of medical specialists?
I was reading recently of some of the atrocities that happened in Tibet, post-invasion. Many thousands of monastic communities were disbanded, buildings destroyed, their scriptures and icons burned in public squares, thousands executed. Monks were forced to kill lamas - their spiritual teachers - or to have sexual intercourse with nuns in front of the troops. There are many such accounts. No, I don’t have all the references at hand, although they could be found without a lot of effort on the Internet. But make no mistake, the invasion and subjugation of the Tibetan peoples was a crime against humanity on an epic scale.
Another approach is a rights-based approach. It is interesting to see that Lenin (and Woodrow Wilson) argued for self-determination. The USSR and early communist China recognised the right of secession. This was later removed from the Chinese constitution (1930s). The right has nevertheless been reiterated over time in several treaties signed and in some cases ratified by China; e.g. the UN Charter, the ICCPR and ICESCR. China at least pays lip service to the following idea of self-determination:
Obviously, taking into account how, for instance, Africa was carved up by colonial powers this raised some issues as people worried about the defragmentation of existing states. Prevalent view for the exercise of self-determination has become that self-determination only applies to: entire populations living in independent states, or entire populations of territories yet to receive independence, or territories under foreign military occupation.
This is a restrictive definition excluding groups of people we'd usually refer to as... well "peoples". It excludes Kurds and various African tribes for instance. We're also confronted with the fact that most states recognise the de jure or de facto sovereignty of China over Tibet, which is a strong argument for the current situation.
This principle was applied to:
On the basis of the above, how are we supposed to interpret the independence of Kosovo? We see that the prevalent view doesn't apply unless you'd accept the Albanian Kosovars were under alien subjugation, domination and exploitation. In other words, despite sharing the same country for a long time the Albanian Kosovars were culturally sufficiently different from the Serbs to be considered "alien" from each other resulting in subjugation, domination and exploitation under Milosevic's rule.
Finally, self-determination need not mean independence. Autonomy is key. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly argued for atuonomy instead of independence and this could be supported by the Tibetans (I don't know if they do).
Based on the Kosovo example, I'd argue Tibetans are a separate people from the Chinese with a sufficiently different culture than the Chinese to be considered separate. China will argue primarily that Tibet has been part of China since the 1600s. However, it appears that the political and social relationship between Tibet and the Ching dynasty and Tibet and China since 1950 are different things. This is by definition reflected by the treaty ( Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, or the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet) signed by Tibet and China which refers to the Tibetan people as separate from the Chinese but as "returning to the family" of motherland China. It is not clear either how you liberate people within your own country or why a treaty would be necessary to establish a situation that already existed according to the Chinese. That's only possible if Tibet was indeed autonomous from China.
Based on the above, I think a continuation of the relationship between the Ching dynasty and Tibet would be one where Tibet was autonomous. Chinese refusal to accept such autonomy is a "subjugation, domination and exploitation" of the Tibetan people and as such the right for self-determination can be invoked by Tibetans and should be pursued by the international community.
Here is a film report he did on a trip to Lhasa in 1949. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjVN4M4l7sc.
Things have changed a lot since 1949. There are now good air, rail and highway connections to Tibet from the east coast of China, the better to dominate the territory. They probably aren't going over the mountains with donkeys, either. Helicopters these days.
So yes, John Oliver would be much more accessible, though less there to access.
Do millennials know where Tibet is? Or what Tibet is? Maybe they think it is a gambling app.
I agree that people who are lucky enough to have a right of free speech should not give it up, but posting opinions on an internet forum under a pseudonym is not exercising free speech. People can do that in totalitarian regimes too.
Free speech is being able to publicly, non-anonymously, stand behind your opinion and not be legally persecuted for it.
I'd also say that Russia is similar to China in its desire for being able to "see" the world completely, without having to look through other countries' borders. China being flanked by deserts and mountainous tundra in the west makes it an east-leaning country, just as Russia is a west-leaning country, in terms of economic output, population, infrastructure, etc. This means that countries like China and Russia will exploit areas that are in their way and that can be taken over. Certainly the rest of the world ought to defend areas like Tibet, or in Russia's case parts of Ukraine like the Crimea, but unless there's enough support for the defense of these places, China and Russia will continue to push their boundaries.
One of you guys mentioned the dwindling interest in Tibetan independence, and I'd say that's the most obvious reason for why no body really gives two hoots about the Tibets, Crimeas, Abkhazias, Kurdistans, etc. of the world. It's disappointing to me, actually, as I think the world would probably be a more globally interconnected and supportive place were there more countries based on the unique cultural phenomena that exist across the continents instead of more conglomerated countries where benign cultures and practices get subsumed, or at worst, destroyed completely.
(Y)
Well, there was a specific effort from Western powers to vilify as much as they could Saddam's troops. Not that they needed much help, but I remember horrible stories of soldiers throwing grenades in hospital nurseries that were all debunked quickly afterwards.
Because it would have certainly sparked outright war with China and the USSR. And the Korean War that happened a year after Tibet's fall was in many ways a reaction to Communist aggression, so you could safely argue that "we" did do something about China's territorial expansion, but in Korea, and through the UN, not by ourselves.
Quoting René Descartes
Why was that?
Quoting René Descartes
Not directly, though. Reagan's administration arming the Taliban wasn't direct military intervention in the region and against the USSR.
Quoting René Descartes
How does this follow from what you've been saying?
Kurdistan, Palestine, East Timor, Cyprus, South Ossietia, Hawaii, anymore for anymore????
What value is sectarianism? How about Catalonia, Wales, Scotland - what next? Cornwall, Texas, Shelwig-Holstein? Where does it stop?
When people stop asking for sovereignty?
Where have we heard this reasoning before?
Europeans colonizing Africa, maybe?
President George W. Bush deciding to invade Iraq, a country that had not attacked the U.S., maybe?
Etc.
Why do you think it happens?
Is it the result of superstition? The U.S. believes that the stars in the sky are aligned a certain way and therefore we must occupy Iraq?
Or could it be that it is how economic and political actors rationally act in a global capitalist system?
For example, in [U]Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism[/U] (6th edition), Richard H. Robbins shows how the beef industry in the U.S. was the result of demand in Europe--Americans preferred pork--but for that market to work they first had to get rid of the Native Americans.
We like to make it sound like the behavior of individual and collective political and economic actors on the globe is about ideals, morals (or lack of morals), etc., but let's not forget that there is a global economic system according to which people are all consciously or sub-consciously acting and reacting.
It does little good to beat one's self-righteous chest and call other people and/or their actions evil, immoral, etc. If you want to make a difference, recognize the system that people are acting according to and reform or eradicate that system.
I don't know.
Why do you think that these invasions, conquests, occupations, etc. that you detest happen in the first place?
Are people superstitious--do they say that it is in the alignment of the stars that they must invade? Are governments bored? Did Bush say to Cheney, "I'm bored. Who should we invade and occupy today?"?
Or is there, like I said, a global system in place and individual and collective economic and political actors are doing what that system requires of them?
You are not answering these basic, essential questions.
As I already wrote in an earlier post; self-determination does not equate with independence necessarily. Scots and Welsh have autonomy and there's a system of rules that set out what issues the lower parliaments of Wales and Scotland are to vote on (so-called devolved matters). As long as the UK abides by the rules that were, for isntance laid down in the 2016 Scotland Act, Scots cannot claim their right to self-determination isn't respected especially in light of the recent referendum on the matter.
I'm sure that's the accepted legal interpretation. I note that your definitions speak of "countries" and they by definition ought to have independence (sovereignty) from other countries. The issue arises when we're talking about "peoples" and their right of self-determination. Your definitions have nothing to really say about that.
Quoting René Descartes
This is too simple a picture of the relationship between the UK government and Scotland. The various "kingdoms" of the UK have their own parliaments and the central government cannot rule by Royal Prerogative on devolved matters. They need the agreement from the various lower parliaments on a lot of issues. See for instance: http://www.parliament.scot/visitandlearn/Education/18642.aspx
Don't buy Chinese goods.
I don't wish to cast aspersions on you personally, this is a general comment, but I find the constant resort to "it's someone else's responsibility to act" somewhat misses the mark.
Sure, you alone not buying Chinese goods because you disagree with their foreign policy is not going make a difference, but since when was it one's moral duty to be on the winning side?
I hardly buy anything made in China, it's simple, buy everything you can second hand and then check the small number of items remaining. I presume you've got ebay in New Zealand? All my clothes and electrical items are bought second-hand (or occasionally clearance stock), neither of which generate any revenue for the manufacturers. Furniture, pottery etc. can all be bought from local artisans (I presume you have those), and food can be sourced locally (again, I presume you have farmers). There's still quite a bit left over (hard-drives, personal items, non-reusable items), but not much, and it's not too hard to make sure they don't come from China with Japan and South Korea being such big players in electrical items and so many companies now offering fair-trade.
A common enough misconception.
This is false.
Open up your computer, your fridge, your TV, your DVD.... ad infinitem
Do you actually read my threads before posting you're pointless jibes? My entire computer is second hand (bar the hard drive which was made in Japan), my fridge is second hand, I do not own a television, nor a dvd player. None of these things have given any money to the Chinese government in any way. I do not approve of their treatment of workers so I do not buy from them, there's plenty of stuff people don't want anymore for me to not have to.
If everyone bought stuff second hand we'd very soon run out and then we'd have to make some hard choices, but already there is the Fairphone, a smartphone made entirely from conflict-free resources, there are companies like aleutian computers who source materials from countries with good records on worker's rights where they can and at least give something back to those communities in the form of education or healthcare where they can't.
This ideas that we're all helpless and might as well not bother is just an excuse.
Keep your naiveté. The servers you use to write your post contribute to the Chinese economy as they are full of components.
If you want to be pure you'd have to stop contributing to this Forum.
I never claimed purity, the claim was that I hardly buy any items which contribute to the Chinese economy. You're making exactly the sort of whining, weak-willed excuses that cause these problems, "we can't eliminate these things entirely so we might as well not bother", "unless you're a Saint you're not allowed to suggest how other people can improve" it's bullshit, and you know it.
You are not going to improve the life of a single person by not buying something.