[guorbatschow]

REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

im not sure if everybody noticed the recent events in tibet.

basically: on the anniversary of some rebellion 49 years ago, there was a riot. tibetans burned police station, plundered business run by han-ethnics (the main chinese ethnic), burned flags etc in several cities. the military marched up and locked down lhasa. there were death toll among the rioting monks as well as chinese civilists. the numbers go from 10 to 100. now a lot of people want boycott of olympic games.

now this is what i think: independence of tibet is controversial, yes. personally, i dont think tibet should be independent, but gain more autonomy. from what i see for myself, its only the lamas and monk caste wanting independence, as they lost their leading role in society when china invaded. the common tibetan population profited from economic boosts from china. its not like the tibetan population ever had democratic rights.

put aside the independence issue, i think its pretty harsh for the western media to immediately put human right violation and this outbreak of violence together. what could have been done if not an immediate lockdown? when rioters burn a police station and plunder businesses and start shooting, isnt military force appropriate? when ETA did that a decade ago in spain and there were violent conflicts, spain wasnt condemned for crushing down on them, right?

i think the western position toward this whole conflict needs to be clarified. people just see "china - tibet - death" and the culprit seems clear. but when people see "spain - ETA - death"...? or "northern ireland - death"...? but its basically the same thing. i think violence doesnt solve matters like this. the one who start violence automatically stop being right. in this case, the rioting monks.

discuss?

[bhamlaxy]

put aside the independence issue, i think its pretty harsh for the western media to immediately put human right violation and this outbreak of violence together. what could have been done if not an immediate lockdown? when rioters burn a police station and plunder businesses and start shooting, isnt military force appropriate? when ETA did that a decade ago in spain and there were violent conflicts, spain wasnt condemned for crushing down on them, right?

i think the western position toward this whole conflict needs to be clarified. people just see "china - tibet - death" and the culprit seems clear. but when people see "spain - ETA - death"...? or "northern ireland - death"...? but its basically the same thing. i think violence doesnt solve matters like this. the one who start violence automatically stop being right. in this case, the rioting monks.

I disagree with this to some point. I think what is happening is instead of people seeing "china - tibet - death", you are seeing tibet china and death, and assuming thats what the "liberal western media" is portraying.

A simple scan of the "western media" shows that they have a pretty fair view of this. The Washington Post, NYTimes, and CNN all show a pretty fair portrayal.

Additionally, whether or not it is a human rights violation is questionable. I too don't see a problem with Tibet remaining a part of China- they have been for hundreds of years. This only became a serious issue when China began what many call a cultural genocide- "re-educating" monks, providing heavy benefits encouraging the Chinese to migrate there, and other assimilationist policies.

Imagine it along the same lines as an uprising at a Nazi concentration camp. Sure, they are "returning order" and appear "justified", but if they weren't trying to destroy an entire culture, they wouldn't have the problem in the first place.

But in the end, I think the calls to boycott the olympics are a step too far. China has been dealing with this problem for a while, and this is hardly one of the most violent confrontations. If China were to nuke tibet or something, then maybe boycott them.

i think violence doesnt solve matters like this. the one who start violence automatically stop being right. in this case, the rioting monks.

I think it gets to the point where violence is the only option. When subjugated, forced to move out, the palestinians, up against superior US-supported Israel, were forced to use basic means of violence to get their point across. Similar in Tibet- they can never militarily compete against China, and diplomatic attempts have largely failed. In a conflict that they feel defines who they are as Tibetans, the only thing they can do is to riot and hope to gain some international attention. The rioting also serves to discourage immigration of Chinese people, which is supported and encouraged by the PRC. People won't want to move to such an "unstable place" like Tibet.

If violence isn't the answer here, then what is? The tibetans asking China over and over "can we have autonomy back plsssssssssss" and China saying "NOOOOOOOOOOOO!"?

[guorbatschow]

tibetans arent 100% monks/lamas, are they? those monks emanate from a lineage of theocratic elite, of course a communistic government will try to convert them. aside of those monks, i dont think the common tibetan sees any benefit in gaining independence o.o

violence 50 years ago would be justified. violence today would just be a move of a separatistic minority, since tibetans arent to be considered majority anymore.

israel/palestine is similar. i condemn violence there as well.

[bhamlaxy]

tibetans arent 100% monks/lamas, are they? those monks emanate from a lineage of theocratic elite, of course a communistic government will try to convert them. aside of those monks, i dont think the common tibetan sees any benefit in gaining independence o.o

violence 50 years ago would be justified. violence today would just be a move of a separatistic minority, since tibetans arent to be considered majority anymore.

israel/palestine is similar. i condemn violence there as well.

The common Tibetan citizen does care about independence, but only insofar as independence being an alternative to the "cultural genocide" of the status quo. They would probably not care at all if they were given some degree of self determination as a province of China.

Additionally there is a deep seated historical hatred- a moderate estimate of the death toll of Tibetans since the 1950's is nearly 1.2 million. And many historical buddhist temples were destroyed in the 50's.

They are also mostly Tibetan Buddhists, so watching their religious leaders forced into "re-education camps", it angers them.

And I'm not sure about your accuracy of the statements about how monks are from a "lineage of theocratic elite". Some 500 of the "living Buddha's" are from a hypothetical lineage of reincarnation, so no true blood relation. Can you back up your statements with something? I checked into it and found this website, which discusses how people become monks, but mentions nothing of lineage. It appears to explain that nearly anyone can be a monk, and advancement to leadership positions is based on skill, not strict guidelines of lineage.

[Huaying]

"Fair Portrayal"?? My Ass!



The only (relatively) objective report was from Economists.com, unlike CNN, they actually HAVE a correspondent in Tibet when the riot happened. And even that Economists correspondent remarked on how biased the reports of Western Medias are regarding the Tibet Riot (Note the word "riot", yes, that's what the monks really are doing. not some simple "protest" or "demonstration" which CNN and BBC initially claimed).

Here are some materials for further readings, if those of you who are interested:

http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconv...nn-the-me.html


http://youtube.com/watch?v=e2vYB7fPHHw

[Moshineko]

Yes, I also heard the report of the Economist's lucky correspondant.

I think the important things to remember are: the true rise of the "independence" movement started shortly after the Cultural Revolution, when, as Bham has pointed out, native Tibetans were made second-class citizens, and thousands of Han Chinese were moved in and given superior treatment by the government.
This was a move to crush any potential opposition to the Party, and is rather analogous to the situation of the Kurds in pre-invasion Iraq. Their traditions and culture have been deemed illegal, and they aren't even allowed to protest.

Also, if you check the reports, the Chinese Army, already in the area, did not move to stop the riots until hours after they'd started, by which time they were dying down. This wasn't a move to quell violence, it was a PR move, simple as that. It was meant to portray the brutish actions of the Tibetan people as the norm, rather than as an abberation, and lay the groundwork for a more brutal clamp-down on the area.

China hasn't had a good record of letting diversity flourish since the Revolution, crushing all the old ways of living, and taking down all the old political and spiritual leaders. This isn't to say the Tibetan peoples are innocent, far from it, but neither is the Chinese government justified in its slow "ethnic cleansing" program.

The riots recently were started by the people, if I remember, not the monks, in fact I recall the correspondant from the Economist saying that he sheltered with a monk who also hid a young Han boy. The monks have been attempting to hold peaceful protests. This was a race riot, and should be an indication of how desperate the situation is getting.

And, until fairly recently, Tibet was making its own money, had a stable government, a halfway decent infrastructure for the area (try Pakistan as a contrast), was basically an independent state, much as Taiwan is now. It hasn't been "part of China" except in China's mind, and in the minds of people ignorant of the area. It is, much like Iraq today, an occupied country, and China's status as the "other superpower" is about all that keeps anyone from doing anything about it.

[guorbatschow]

And, until fairly recently, Tibet was making its own money, had a stable government, a halfway decent infrastructure for the area (try Pakistan as a contrast), was basically an independent state, much as Taiwan is now. It hasn't been "part of China" except in China's mind, and in the minds of people ignorant of the area. It is, much like Iraq today, an occupied country, and China's status as the "other superpower" is about all that keeps anyone from doing anything about it.

where did you get this part?

taiwan is an island and naturally a trading port. tibet is mostly isolated and had slavery until mid 20th century, most "infrastructure" was build to carry out religion.
china does have historic claim to tibet, more than the US to their homeland. same thing applies to taiwan, which has a long history of being invaded by western colonisation forces and reconquered by china. just because a separatistic movement is supported by the US doesnt mean its the right thing to do.

from another angle, it shouldnt be even matter to the US. tibet was annexated 50 years ago. more than criticizing human rights violations is out of the question since asking for free tibet would be intrusion in inner affairs and therefore questioning china's souvereignity.

the matter is far more complex than the depiction of invasion of innocent tibetans by the evil chinese army by the western media. of course the US cant just demand free tibet since they have no right to do so. but media warfare seems to be going on instead from both sides.

[Huaying]

Originally Posted by Moshineko

Yes, I also heard the report of the Economist's lucky correspondant.

I think the important things to remember are: the true rise of the "independence" movement started shortly after the Cultural Revolution, when, as Bham has pointed out, native Tibetans were made second-class citizens, and thousands of Han Chinese were moved in and given superior treatment by the government.
This was a move to crush any potential opposition to the Party, and is rather analogous to the situation of the Kurds in pre-invasion Iraq. Their traditions and culture have been deemed illegal, and they aren't even allowed to protest.

Also, if you check the reports, the Chinese Army, already in the area, did not move to stop the riots until hours after they'd started, by which time they were dying down. This wasn't a move to quell violence, it was a Page Ranking move, simple as that. It was meant to portray the brutish actions of the Tibetan people as the norm, rather than as an abberation, and lay the groundwork for a more brutal clamp-down on the area.

China hasn't had a good record of letting diversity flourish since the Revolution, crushing all the old ways of living, and taking down all the old political and spiritual leaders. This isn't to say the Tibetan peoples are innocent, far from it, but neither is the Chinese government justified in its slow "ethnic cleansing" program.

The riots recently were started by the people, if I remember, not the monks, in fact I recall the correspondant from the Economist saying that he sheltered with a monk who also hid a young Han boy. The monks have been attempting to hold peaceful protests. This was a race riot, and should be an indication of how desperate the situation is getting.

And, until fairly recently, Tibet was making its own money, had a stable government, a halfway decent infrastructure for the area (try Pakistan as a contrast), was basically an independent state, much as Taiwan is now. It hasn't been "part of China" except in China's mind, and in the minds of people ignorant of the area. It is, much like Iraq today, an occupied country, and China's status as the "other superpower" is about all that keeps anyone from doing anything about it.

The monks started the riot, not the people. If you do your research, you'll find that there are two different "factions" among the Tibetan monks, the "Gelug" and the "Nyingma". The riot was started by a minority within the "Nyingma" faction monks, the group which the Dalai Lama belonged to before he fled Tibet. That's why the current Chinese government made the connection between the separatism riot with the Dalai Lama clique.

Plus, you have to take the scale of things into consideration. Lhasa has an ethnic Tibetan population of 2.16 million including monks, yet only a couple hundred people participated in the riot.

So, you'll be the real idiot here if you actually think this incident represents the majority of Tibetans, because it certainly does not.

If you think Tibet's old lifestyle is better, then you should really re-watch the videoes in my previous post (it contains complete references in one of the videos as well). Unless you endorse theocracy and slavery, I doubt you'd want the old Tibet back.


Also, I suggest you to choose your wording carefully, especially in a debate section. Even Dalai Lama doesn't dare to use "ethnic cleansing" in his so called free tibet speeches. The actual term he used was "culture genocide" --- a political term which doesn't make much sense if you really think about it. Of course, there are always idiots who would simply jump at the word "genocide" without taking a look at the rest of the sentence.

And I sincerely hope that you are not one of them.

[bhamlaxy]

If you think Tibet's old lifestyle is better, then you should really re-watch the videoes in my previous post (it contains complete references in one of the videos as well). Unless you endorse theocracy and slavery, I doubt you'd want the old Tibet back.

It was their culture, and we should respect that. Slavery was a very very small minority. I'd argue that the cultural genocide going on. It is estimated around 1.2 million people were killed in the "great leap forward". That alone proves Tibet was worse under Chinese rule. Millions of Chinese have flooded the region and are given superior socio-economic status.

Also, I suggest you to choose your wording carefully, especially in a debate section. Even Dalai Lama doesn't dare to use "ethnic cleansing" in his so called free tibet speeches. The actual term he used was "culture genocide" --- a political term which doesn't make much sense if you really think about it. Of course, there are always idiots who would simply jump at the word "genocide" without taking a look at the rest of the sentence.

He doesn't dare use "ethnic cleansing" because he isn't a dumbass; it isn't ethnic cleansing, and he knows it. How does cultural genocide not make sense? Care to explain? I think wikipedia gives a standard definition: "Cultural genocide is a term used to describe the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political, military, religious, ideological, ethnic, or racial reasons." Sure, some idiots place too much emphasis on the word genocide, but that does NOT mean cultural genocide is right.

[guorbatschow]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

It was their culture, and we should respect that.

how about: its their inner affair, and we should respect their souvereignity?

why does it always have to matter when "we" want to respect that? why does it not matter when "we" are directly involved? i mean hey, culture is to be respected, but when certain countries came up with communism, that obviously is not a part of "culture" and has to be condemned? why is that cuba is still suffering from sanctions? yea communistic dictatorship is bad. but thats their current culture, we should respect that, no?

[bhamlaxy]

how about: its their inner affair, and we should respect their souvereignity?

I agree. I respect their sovereignty, but believe Tibet should be independent. I don't think the US should invade or anything, but discussion on an international scale is necessary, or else a country could just invade countries and immediately claim "It's now a part of our country, respect our sovereignty". Simply having an opinion about another country doesn't mean I'm interfering with their sovereignty. Although I don't support intervention since the time frame of a cultural genocide is not nearly as extreme as that of a classic genocide, I'd most definitely support intervention to stop the mass killing of people in nearly all cases.

why does it always have to matter when "we" want to respect that? why does it not matter when "we" are directly involved? i mean hey, culture is to be respected, but when certain countries came up with communism, that obviously is not a part of "culture" and has to be condemned? why is that cuba is still suffering from sanctions? yea communistic dictatorship is bad. but thats their current culture, we should respect that, no?

Sure, I respect communism, but I don't believe the culturally genocidal practices are at all an essential part of communist or Chinese culture. Your argument is functionally equivalent to saying "hey, the holocaust is just Nazi-culture, show some respect!" I believe there are certain actions a society can take that are morally reprehensible to accept.

[guorbatschow]

are we talking about how tibetan culture is fading out because tibet is getting more and more han-chinese settlers? i dont recall any mass murders based on ethnicity.

[Moshineko]

I'm sorry we're getting stuck on semantics. Ethnic cleansing isn't that much different from cultural genocide in my book. If you look, I note the Chinese are doing it slowly, rather like the Iraquis did to the Kurds, and the Russians did to several areas. They move in the Han, deliberately changing the balance of ethnicities in the way they wish. They are trying, again, deliberately, to kill off the Tibetan way of life, only in a more "politically correct" way.

I've seen that the demonstrations were started by the nyingma, but nothing much about the start of the riots. According to the one non-Chinese reporter there, the rioting he first observed was done by the people, and the monks weren't present. The riots had little to do with seperatism and politics, and more to do with being pushed out of their own country.

The protests and some violence, I understand, have spread throughout the region, showing this not to be an isolated group of radicals, but a fed-up populace, fighting for some type of control over their home.

To your comments about the riots, the riots were confined to Lhasa, and we don't have a large enough source of reliable data to say how many were involved, only the report of Mr. James Miles from the Economist, who, by his own account, spent most of the riots hiding out with a monk. Again, the Chinese troops waited until after the riots to come into the area to stop the riots, after Lhasa had burnt, and the riots had slowed almost to a stop.

The Chinese government is again playing a political game. They seek total control over Tibet, yet can't take the sort of hard-line actions they had in the past. As China seeks to become accepted by the world, it must justify the sort of military action it would have unthinkingly have used in the past. Thus, by allowing the riots to begin, and climax, they are building a case that Tibet is a "lawless" region, perhaps even terrorist, and then they can step in without harming their reputation in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Many cultures do things I find disagreeable. I don't care for the theocratic bent of many Arabic countries, I don't like the female genital mutilation that occurs in African countries, I dislike the U.S.'s stand against genetic research, but this gives me no reason to say "well, since I don't agree with that country's way of life, it's okay if another country takes them over". That way lies autocracy and dictatorship. China, with its major disparity between its costal rich and western farmers, has little to say about inequities in Tibetan culture.

Guor, a quick check of Chinese/Tibetan history will show an attack by the People's Liberation Army in 1950. I must assume that prior to that, Tibet had a working government.

Originally Posted by Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia

The succession of the 10th Panchen Lama, with rival candidates supported by Tibet and China, was one of the excuses for the Chinese invasion (Oct., 1950) of Tibet. By a Tibetan-Chinese agreement (May, 1951), Tibet became a “national autonomous region” of China under the traditional rule of the Dalai Lama, but under the actual control of a Chinese Communist Commission. The Communist government introduced far-reaching land reforms and sharply curtailed the power of the monastic orders. After 1956 scattered uprisings occurred throughout the country, but a full-scale revolt broke out in Mar., 1959, prompted in part by fears for the personal safety of the Dalai Lama. The Chinese suppressed the rebellion, but the Dalai Lama was able to escape to India, where he eventually established headquarters in exile.

Any talk about the living conditions in a true Tibet has to take into account that during the 1950s, life wasn't that much different for the average Tibetan than it was for the average person in a mountainous region of Pakistan, Burma, or, indeed, probably many parts of China. Apologies, it's damn hard to find examples of rural pictures from the era, but we can be assured that, judging by what we see today from Burma:

and Pakistan:

that life would probably have not been much better or worse for the average Tibetan today than it is.

Huaying, your sources are a Penn and Teller video and a blog written by a seemingly random person. I'm sorry if I can't take these seriously. You will find my response to the semantics of this debate above.
Again, I can endorse slavery and theocracy no more than invasion and displacing a population. We have no measure of what Tibet would be today, only guesswork. And even if it was slave-owning and theocratic, it would be that by its own merit, not as an occupied country.

Try these, endorsed in one by Perdue University, and the others by CASE.
http://cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/history.html
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/book...ers/EKVALL.htm
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/book...y20thtibet.htm
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/more...newsgroups.htm

In any case, it's well-nigh impossible to find any non-biased information about Tibet that says anything effective. Most of these, even, are, admittedly, skewed towards Tibetan independence. The works I could find with no bias were basically lists of dates and broad actions: "1950, People's Army defeats Tibetan Army".

The Dali Lama's choice of wording matters as little to me as China's choice of wording. Both are trying to appeal to the world at large, not get to any truth in the situation. The simple and pure truth is that we don't have an accurate view of the situation in Tibet, and probably won't for some time. Based on the one Western reporter's word, we have a picture of race riots and a lax police force. No why, no how, and very little of what. Based on China's word, we have terrible riots by a radical seperatist group, and the Chinese exercising "restraint" by letting Lhasa burn. So we have no call to be tossing around ad hominem attacks for what is, basically, speculation as to what happened.

[guorbatschow]

what i got from wikipedia (version from 31.december 2007. the current version says the same thing though)

Between the 17th century and 1959, the Dalai Lama and his regents were the predominant political power administering religious and administrative authority[1] over large parts of Tibet from the traditional capital Lhasa, regarded as Tibet's holiest city.[citation needed] During the Qing Dynasty, the Qianlong emperor invaded Tibet and firmly established the Dalai Lama as ruler, with a Qing resident and garrison to preserve Manchu Suzerainty.

a quick check offers this information on emperor Qianlong

Emperor Qianlong (乾隆 Qiánlōng) (Wade-Giles Ch'ien-Lung) (born Hongli, September 25, 1711 – February 7, 1799) was the fifth emperor of the Manchu Qing Dynasty, and the fourth Qing emperor to rule over China[1]. The fourth son of the Yongzheng Emperor, he reigned officially from October 18, 1735 to February 9, 1796

the US had their declaration of independence in 1776.

btw. the comparison with pakistan fails. geographically, historically, economically and politically.

i remember however that nobody whined when a pro-US musharaf seized power from a then democratic government with a coup d'etat.

[Moshineko]

Yeah, you'll find we did the same thing with Tibet, Columbia (?), and a whole bunch of other places. U.S. sucks at foreign relations. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the quotes. Arguing that the U.S. made more progress? Well, the U.S. did basically what China did, push out the natives, and the U.S. has vastly more resources than Tibet, so if that's the comparison, it doesn't really work too well. If that's what you were getting at at all, I'm not quite sure.

The 1959 date is correct, but I'm not sure if, after the defeat of the Tibetan army in 1951, we can really argue that Tibet was still autonomous.

I'm not sure why the comparison with Pakistan fails, it's a lifestyle comparison, not a historical one. Mountainous regions in central Asia are notoriously difficult to get to, and usually sport a lower standard of living than other areas. Hence, when the earthquakes in Pakistan hit, the government was unable to do very much for the people there.
But, it is true, we can't really compare Tibet with much of anything. It was more an assertion that life in a Tibet without Chinese occupation may or may not be better than it is now, but probably wouldn't be that much different. Poor resources and isolation mean that Tibet is going to be a fairly crap place to live for a long while.