China vs Tibet Monks

What's really amusing, and telling, to me. Is how when they ask the Chinese, man in the street, about these protests, they are almost uniformly bemused. They just don't get it. They have no clue how the rest of world really views them. The Chinese propaganda machine, which they have perfected over the centuries, is operating at full bore. Of course there are some Chinese intellectuals and intelligentsia who don't buy the party line, but they are in the minority, and yes it's and occupation that has turned into a colonization, of Tibet. Calling a spade a spade, it can't be called anything else. There were virtually no Chinese in Tibet prior to it's occupation by the Chinese army in the 50's. Now there are 100's of thousands, in the country: controlling the economy and in places of power throughout the country. They are trying to destroy the language, culture, and heritage of Tibet, and for the most part they will eventually succeed. They are the Chinese. They have lots of time

Someone commented that China and America share many of the same faults -- both are great countries, both see themselves rather differently than others see them, both are extremely touchy about anything they perceive as "interference" with their affairs, both are rather keen to export the blessings of their civilization to regions under their influence, and both simply fail to understand why others see them differently than they see themselves. No wonder the relationship is so complex!

I happend to know China very well, guess why? The chinese belief is that Taiwan and Tibet belong to them! and they see the people that burned the chinese shops in tibet as terrorists. They are angry at the outside word for critizising the chinese actions in Tibet. One China is the main picture and propaganda by the chinese gouverment. It is amazing what propaganda can do, but what is seldom mentioned is that the information you guys get in the western world is also a kind of propaganda, the truth lays somewhere in between! For example the chinese gouverment started a group to give benefits and preserve the minorities in China, did any of you know that? I do not think any of your heard it.

Russia doesn't get nearly as many protest even if they are doing worse in several countries they want to belong to them, and I don't hear voices about boycotting winter olympics there!

You're absolutely correct, GG -- reality is almost never as simple as the picture we get of it.

There are lots of other little details that don't quite fit the simple black-and-white narratives we like to construct. For example, the last time Tibet was independent (and Dalai Lama was the nominal head of state), it had serfdom and chattel slavery -- not something we'd normally associate with our idea of a peaceful mountain state consisting mostly of monks making mandalas out of sand and contemplating enlightenment.

Corwin said:

PJ, I think you've totally encapsulated the whole problem the US is having, especially with regards its navy!! It's all a 'penis extension' !!

Click to expand...

It's our penis extension, and we'll do what we want with it (you're just jealous because you don't have a penis extension like ours).

Tibetan monks don't need navies, penis extensions or nukes. Didn't anybody here watch Kung Fu? Five bucks says the monks kick their ass!

Prime Junta said:

For example, the last time Tibet was independent (and Dalai Lama was the nominal head of state), it had serfdom and chattel slavery -- not something we'd normally associate with our idea of a peaceful mountain state consisting mostly of monks making mandalas out of sand and contemplating enlightenment.

Click to expand...

That would depend entirely on the mandala. Take a close look at one, and you might be surprised at some of what you find (remember, Buddhism isn't Christianity).

GothicGothicness said:

Russia doesn't get nearly as many protest even if they are doing worse in several countries they want to belong to them, and I don't hear voices about boycotting winter olympics there!

Click to expand...

1980 olympics were boycotted by a some western countries (among them USA) and 1984 olympics were boycotted in return by the USSR controlled states.

I personally find it a disgrace that people use the olympics for a political statement. A political statement has to be brought by politicians, not by taking the athletes hostage.

I meant the upcoming winter olympics, I know about those pasts ones. I do think that the olympics should be held in a peaceful and open country, that is what the olympics stand for. Everything is in some way connected to politics it is unavoidable. Especially the olympics not only will it be a major boost to china's economy but they will use every chance they can for positive propaganda.

The Olympics at least in modern times, seem to have had a lot of political activity associated with them. That seems logical, actually, as it's an event witnessed by much of the world, an ideal platform for protest or as GG says, propaganda. Wikipedia has a synopsis of all the events that have disrupted the games since their inception here, including numerous boycotts, interruptions because of war, and terrorist and political mishaps such as the 1936 Olympics with Jesse Owens and of course the 1972 Munich games with the disastrous Israeli team kidnapping.

So in some ways, these protests are also part of the historical context of the games.

Squeek said:

It's our penis extension, and we'll do what we want with it (you're just jealous because you don't have a penis extension like ours).

Click to expand...

We don't need them :-}

Bartacus said:

I personally find it a disgrace that people use the olympics for a political statement. A political statement has to be brought by politicians, not by taking the athletes hostage.

Click to expand...

Yeah, damn those Chinese -- using the Olympics for politics...

LOL timely reminder that it was Hitler who started the tradition of Olympic Torch Relay.

Sadly this is somewhat appropriate. Hitler through the Olympics wished to show the superiority of the, so called, Aryan race. There is a deep undercurrent of racism in the Chinese people themselves. While it is not so blatant or overt, it is there. The Chinese, being practical, tremendous at trade, and intelligent, realized people being told that they were inferior, other races, was not something that people really like to hear. If you really know the Chinese you know this to be true.

These weak efforts at portraying the occupation and colonization of Tibet, as anything else, are rather sad. Just take a poll of Tibetans and see how many would like the Chinese to just leave. It would be like asking the Indian nations in North America how many wish the white man never came. You would not get too many dissenting votes.

This racism, sadly is more on the surface than you may realise. There was a current affairs report on TV last week which showed that an incredible number of Chinese immigrants to Australia refused to either learn or speak English. They said it was unimportant and not at all necessary to be familiar with the language of the country they were living and working in!! This attitude then fuels further racial issues with the Aussie response!! If I were living in a non-english speaking country, say anywhere in Europe, I would expect to have to learn the language at least a little.

ffbj said:

These weak efforts at portraying the occupation and colonization of Tibet, as anything else, are rather sad. Just take a poll of Tibetans and see how many would like the Chinese to just leave. It would be like asking the Indian nations in North America how many wish the white man never came. You would not get too many dissenting votes.

Click to expand...

You're equivocating. Occupation and colonization have specific definitions, which your putative poll does nothing to address. You could make the same poll of, say, the Komi in Russia, the Hungarians of Transylvania, or the Basques in Spain, and get the same result. Yet it would be incorrect to say that Russia is "occupying" the Urals, Romania is "occupying" Transylvania, or Spain is "occupying" the Basque country. Nor, for that matter, is it correct to say that the United States of America is "occupying" North America.

More to the point, there are unambiguous examples of occupation and colonization, and Tibet is not one of them. From the Chinese point of view, Tibet is a backward border province that tends to break off during times of weakness and get reabsorbed during times of ascendancy. They have a claim to the territory that's at least as legitimate as, say, the French claim to Alsace or the Danish claim to Greenland -- neither of which are seriously under dispute by anyone.

This is my problem with loaded terms like this. Calling the Tibetan question "occupation" and "colonization" closes the door on most things that could actually work -- the only morally acceptable solution to occupation is that the occupier leaves, right?

The history of China and Tibet is far more complex than the simple narrative of the idyllic Shangri-La mountain kingdom brutally taken over by the Communist hordes. Tibet under the Dalai Lamas was *not* a very nice place to live, unless you happened to be a rich landowner or a monk in a rich lamasery who really, really likes meditation. That means that any resolution to it will be more complex than simply having the brutal Communist hordes leave. (Who's gonna make 'em do that, anyway?)

Even Dalai Lama accepts this. He's not disputing Chinese sovereignty over Tibet; he's opposing the discrimination and nationality-based oppression the Chinese are perpetrating there. That, not your "occupation," is the problem -- and it's a soluble problem. China is being a bleedin' idiot for not talking to Dalai Lama (a bit like America was a bleedin' idiot for not talking to the Iranian president back when they had a sane one), but that's rather different from just being the "occupier" and "colonizer" and insisting that everyone pout and stamp their foot at them until they up sticks and leave.

Clip of the Dalai Lama supporting Prime J's statements. and showing he (Dalai Lama)has quite a pragmatic grasp of the materialistic side of life as well as the spiritual.

While I widely agree with PJ's conclusions I seriously doubt that you cannot call it an occupation. Chinese sovereignty over Tibet is highly controversial. It is fairly safe to assume that the contract of 1951 was only possible because China put pressure on the Tibetan government representatives who signed it... therefore it has no legal basis.

Civil, criminal and international law are governed by different sets of principles Ionstormsucks. While, in civil law, signature obtained under duress in not binding the same isn't true in international law. Government of Czechoslovakia was put under duress to relinquish Sudetenland to Germany by signatories of Munich Agreement. Yet German takeover of Sudetenland was perfectly legal under international law.

zahratustra said:

Civil, criminal and international law are governed by different sets of principles Ionstormsucks. While, in civil law, signature obtained under duress in not binding the same isn't true in international law. Government of Czechoslovakia was put under duress to relinquish Sudetenland to Germany by signatories of Munich Agreement. Yet German takeover of Sudetenland was perfectly legal under international law.

Click to expand...

With all due respects, but these two cases are simply not comparable. I really don't want to go into detail, but they hardly have anything in common.

It's safe to say any surrender treaty is done under duress, so clearly international law has at least a few differences to civil proceedings.