View Full Version : Dalai Lama a Canadian?
Yep. :2thumbsup: :canada:
It's the little things like this that give me hope.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/07/26/canada.dalai.china.reut/index.html
Apparently, the Chinese government are none too happy about it.
To which I can only reply...
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/PFHHHHHHHT.bmp
*Free Tibet!
The world will be a better place when this stupid old man is dead.
The world will be a better place when this stupid old man is dead.
No kidding. I too can't wait for his reincarnation!!
Read up on how they decide where the next one will emerge. He'll be in Tibet. All the rest of them have. And do you think the PRC will just let the monks choose a new Lama without interfearing. HA! :laugh4: No the next Dalai Lama will be a PRC puppet you wait.
Read up on how they decide where the next one will emerge. He'll be in Tibet. All the rest of them have. And do you think the PRC will just let the monks choose a new Lama without interfearing. HA! :laugh4: No the next Dalai Lama will be a PRC puppet you wait.
+
The world will be a better place when this stupid old man is dead.
=!
Byzantine Prince
07-27-2006, 00:25
I don't give a **** about that mother0-fuhrer.
Crazed Rabbit
07-27-2006, 00:35
Haha! A kick in the pants for China. Good for Canada.
Crazed Rabbit
way to go canada!:2thumbsup:
Blodrast
07-27-2006, 00:40
Why exactly the antagonism ? Just curious.
The world will be a better place now.
The Spartan (Returns)
07-27-2006, 01:00
good for canada. now if only the pope was Phillipino.:evil:
Why exactly the antagonism ? Just curious.
No kidding. Pretty sad.
Oh well, more Nirvana for the rest of us. :angel:
Justiciar
07-27-2006, 01:54
No kidding. I too can't wait for his reincarnation!!
A Communist party-official, no doubt. :2thumbsup:
The world will be a better place now.
No, the world will be a better place when that worthless theocrat is dead.
Why exactly the antagonism ? Just curious.
Simple. China, good for Tibet. Dalai Lama, bad for Tibet.
No, the world will be a better place when that worthless theocrat is dead.
And how is he a worthless theocrat worthy of being dead? Last time I checked he is still a human being.
Simple. China, good for Tibet. Dalai Lama, bad for Tibet.
How is China good for Tibet?
China has a habit of destroying those who protest their government's actions within China. A certain student demonstration happens to validate that point rather nicely.
Edit: Care to explain this particlure link then.
http://hrw.org/wr2k2/asia4.html
Tibet
China revised its overall Tibetan policy in June 2001, the fourth such change since it took command of the region in 1950. Goals for 2001-2006 included accelerated economic development and tightened control over alleged "secessionist" activities. During a July visit, Vice-President Hu Jintao stated that it was "essential to fight unequivocally against separatist activities by the Dalai clique and anti-China forces in the world."
Efforts to engage the Chinese leadership in a dialogue with representatives of the Dalai Lama were unsuccessful in 2001. Following the Dalai Lama's criticism of Chinese policy during a speech to the European Parliament general assembly on October 24, Chinese officials reiterated their position that talks could take place only if the Dalai Lama renounced his "separatist stand" and openly acknowledged that Tibet was an inalienable part of China, Taiwan merely a province, and "the government of the People's Republic of China the sole legitimate government representing the whole of China."
At the beginning of the Tibetan New Year in February, government workers, cadres, and school children were banned from attending prayer festivals at monasteries or from contributing to temples and monasteries. During Monlam Chemo, formerly a festival of great religious significance, monks at Lhasa's major monasteries were not permitted to leave their respective complexes, and government authorities banned certain rites.
The Strike Hard campaign in Tibet had a decidedly political focus. At a May meeting in Lhasa, capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), courts were ordered to carry out the campaign forcefully against "those whose crimes endanger state security," and "those who guide people illegally across borders," in other words, against those who help Tibetans reach Nepal or Dharamsala, India, the Dalai Lama's home in exile. During the first month of the campaign, 254 people were caught trying to leave or reenter the TAR, many allegedly carrying "reactionary propaganda materials." In June, police in the Lhasa region detained hundreds of Tibetans who burned incense, said prayers, or threw tsampa (roasted barley) into the air in defiance of an order banning celebration of the Dalai Lama's birthday. Some twenty Tibetans were arrested or sentenced in 2001 for "splittist" activities. In October, at least three foreign tourists and three Tibetans were detained in Lhasa in October for displaying the banned Tibetan flag and shouting pro-independence slogans.
Authorities cut back the number of nuns and monks from 8,000 to 1,400 at the Buddhist Study Center Larung Gar near Serthar in Sichuan province, destroying their housing as they left. A similar order was put into effect at Yachen, another encampment in Sichuan. Authorities continued to deny access to the Panchen Lama, the second most important figure in Tibetan Buddhism. The boy, now twelve years old, disappeared from public view in 1995 after Beijing chose another child as the reincarnation. Chadrel Rinpoche, the senior lama who led the search, was still in prison. He was last seen in mid-May 1995 shortly before he was sentenced to a six-year prison term.
And this is from only one source about how good China is for Tibet.....
R'as al Ghul
07-27-2006, 09:48
Simple. China, good for Tibet. Dalai Lama, bad for Tibet.
I haven't heard this position from a non-chinese. Care to elaborate?
Strike For The South
07-27-2006, 09:50
Anything thats bad for the Chineese is good for the Americaneese
Pannonian
07-27-2006, 10:04
I haven't heard this position from a non-chinese. Care to elaborate?
The Dalai Lama favours a return to a feudal state. The Chinese oppress the culture of the native Tibetans, while raising their overall standard of living, while the old culture places the clerics at the top, everyone else at the bottom supporting them. Whatever their faults, the Chinese model is closer to western liberal democracy than the anachronism that was old Tibet.
R'as al Ghul
07-27-2006, 10:17
Whatever their faults, the Chinese model is closer to western liberal democracy than the anachronism that was old Tibet.
Excuse me? The Chinese frequently oppress human rights, how can their model be close to western standards? Besides, if the Tibetians want a feudal society, who are we or the Chinese to tell them they can't have it?
I don't know if you've heard of the railway being build from China to Tibet.
What I've heard about it, it sounds like another attempt to strenghten the control over Tibet, while the Tibetians themselves only fear the huge amounts of Tourists and the Chinese influence as a whole.
To me it's clear that a culture and a lifestyle are being destroyed against the will of the majority of Tibetians.
Pannonian
07-27-2006, 10:24
Excuse me? The Chinese frequently oppress human rights, how can their model be close to western standards? Besides, if the Tibetians want a feudal society, who are we or the Chinese to tell them they can't have it?
I don't know if you've heard of the railway being build from China to Tibet.
What I've heard about it, it sounds like another attempt to strenghten the control over Tibet, while the Tibetians themselves only fear the huge amounts of Tourists and the Chinese influence as a whole.
To me it's clear that a culture and a lifestyle are being destroyed against the will of the majority of Tibetians.
Give them another 10 years, and then ask them if they want the old Dalai Lama or their old lifestyle back. Similarly in Iraq, where Saddam was heavily criticised for forcing the Marsh Arabs out of their habitats and traditional lifestyles. When the Americans conquered Iraq, one of the earliest things they did was to redivert the Euphrates (I think) back to its old course, and invite the Marsh Arabs back. Very few accepted the offer, the rest found the westernised lifestyle they were forced into more comfortable than the old one.
R'as al Ghul
07-27-2006, 10:35
Give them another 10 years, and then ask them if they want the old Dalai Lama or their old lifestyle back.
That may be true, I agree there.
But it shouldn't be forced on them, it should be their own decision.
Currently and in the past the Chinese Government acts without consense from the population. From what I know, the DL seems a reasonable man and a better leader for his people than the invasion force of PRC, that seems unable to treat the Tibetians and their culture with respect. (That may be a problem with invasion forces in general :wink:)
:bow:
Whatever their faults, the Chinese model is closer to western liberal democracy than the anachronism that was old Tibet.
Ahh, so all the murder, torture, rape, imprisonment, and cultural destruction was based on a drive for a liberal democracy. Interesting.
If China invades Taiwain, will they be bombing the Taiwanese for the sake of higher living standards in Taiwan, or will the killing be based on civil rights as well?
Avicenna
07-27-2006, 12:00
Ahh, double standards strikes.
All the European 'enlightenment' of 'savages' from the 'New World' and the 'Orient', is obviously not destruction of culture, and the slavery that occured must have been for their own good. After all, you guys exposed them to 'civilisation'!
On the other hand, when China is actually helping their [Tibet's] economy, it is baaaaaaaaaad. It's always gonna be baaaaaad. Why can they destroy culture as well? That's a sole European tradition! Oh, I see, because they're doing it the wrong way. They're not milking the resources dry, since Tibet's only resource is Yaks. Tibetan culture must be preserved, since it falls nicely in line with animal rights, as they kill lots and lots of yaks for their bones, pelt, et cetera. Tourists? OH NO, NOW THE CHINESE ECONOMY WILL GROW BETTER AND DECREASETHE GAP WITH THE WEST!! EEK!! :eeeek:
R'as al Ghul
07-27-2006, 12:10
Ahh, so all the murder, torture, rape, imprisonment, and cultural destruction was based on a drive for a liberal democracy. Interesting.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? :wink:
Ahh, double standards strikes.
All the European 'enlightenment' of 'savages' from the 'New World' and the 'Orient', is obviously not destruction of culture, and the slavery that occured must have been for their own good. After all, you guys exposed them to 'civilisation'!
~:confused: What?
Ah, now I get it. Since we Europeans made mistakes in the past, we must allow all other countries to do the same. No, we even have to support them.
Right. :no:
Tell me, why do we care at all what's happening outside our home countries?
Intervention in Sudan? Why, just let them play a bit while they grow up. :2thumbsup:
Ahh, double standards strikes.
All the European 'enlightenment' of 'savages' from the 'New World' and the 'Orient', is obviously not destruction of culture, and the slavery that occured must have been for their own good. After all, you guys exposed them to 'civilisation'!
I wasn't there. Had I been, I would not have supported the killings that heralded a "new and better day".
On the other hand, when China is actually helping their [Tibet's] economy, it is baaaaaaaaaad. It's always gonna be baaaaaad. Why can they destroy culture as well? That's a sole European tradition! Oh, I see, because they're doing it the wrong way. They're not milking the resources dry, since Tibet's only resource is Yaks. Tibetan culture must be preserved, since it falls nicely in line with animal rights, as they kill lots and lots of yaks for their bones, pelt, et cetera. Tourists? OH NO, NOW THE CHINESE ECONOMY WILL GROW BETTER AND DECREASETHE GAP WITH THE WEST!! EEK!! :eeeek:
On the other hand, I am here and speaking out against crimes like is the right thing to do.
Free the yaks! :tibet:
Pannonian
07-27-2006, 12:32
Ahh, so all the murder, torture, rape, imprisonment, and cultural destruction was based on a drive for a liberal democracy. Interesting.
You are (it seems intentionally) confusing process with end. The process of conquest removes resistance. Once resistance is gone, the conquerors work towards their goal. In China's case, this means violence, whatever, to terrorise the native population into not resisting, then once resistance is non-existent, to turn Tibet into a western province of China, importing Chinese colonists to speed the process if necessary. It has happened before in Chinese history, with the south similarly colonised after the emperors decided it was a strategically necessary move.
If China invades Taiwain, will they be bombing the Taiwanese for the sake of higher living standards in Taiwan, or will the killing be based on civil rights as well?
China doesn't want to bomb Taiwan. China wants to bomb Taiwan as much as it wants to bomb Hong Kong. It is too much of an economic asset to damage. Beijing would bend over backwards to persuade Taipei to rejoin the mainland peacefully. What the Communists are afraid of is that Taiwan will declare formal independence instead of its current limbo status as the alternative government of China, and this would encourage other restless provinces like Xinjiang and Tibet to break away. That's why the CCP support their old enemies the Guomindang (KMT, Nationalists), who maintain the fiction that the mainland remain under their jurisdiction and thus support an unbroken link. If one thinks of the Chinese Communist party as pure unadulterated nationalists, Chinese politics become easier to understand.
The above may be easier to understand if one bears in mind that there is no country officially called "Taiwan". After the fall of the Qing, the Republic of China (ROC) was founded by Sun Yat-Sen's Guomindang. Ignoring the complications of warlords and the Japanese, the succession to Sun Yat-Sen was disputed, with the name, party and some powerbrokers backing Chiang Kai-Shek, and SYS's wife and some other powerbrokers backing Mao Zedong's Communists (read about the wives of SYS and CKS for yet more intriguing dynastical details). After the victory of the Communists in 1950, CKS took his ROC government to the province of Taiwan, and defiantly continued to administer the mainland albeit in fiction. Mao Zedong founded a new People's Republic of China (PRC) in place of the ROC.
Avicenna
07-27-2006, 12:41
So, I don't get it. Surely according to this kind of logic, the Falklands should be returned to the Argentinians? After all, the British did to the Falklands what the Chinese are doing to Tibet: populating it and upgrading it's infrastructure.
Beirut: they Yak dies a lot more in traditional Tibetan culture.
Anyway, what does the Tibetan vote say? These are people who have grown up in Tibet, where there is minimal contact with the outside world. There is only one road through the mountains south to Nepal, but obviously that's being changed. There were no things like the internet, phones, or newspapers. All they learned would have been via their monks and elders. Obviously, all that they're going to say is that they don't want China. Anyway, Tibet's been part of China, as a protectorate, since the time of the Yuan, the Mongolian rule. That's longer than America's existed, or longer than Scotland's been part of the U.K. Of course, Scottish attempts at independence are intolerable, but Tibetan ones are admired and encouraged. What?
If China invades Taiwain, will they be bombing the Taiwanese for the sake of higher living standards in Taiwan, or will the killing be based on civil rights as well?
Like Pannonian said: why bomb something that generates so much money? Taiwan relies on China, and this isn't some kind of unknowing statement trying to win the argument. Taiwan has just got too much trade coming to and from China, and a lot of interests in China. Bombing a generator of finance and risking war is absurd.
Ahh, double standards strikes.
Yes there is a double standard and hypocrisy being applied by both sides of the arguement. If you doubt me - take a look at both arguements.
For instance Beriut is consistent with his arguement - he is against Israel's actions in the Middle-east. He is against United States actions in Iraq, and he is against China's actions in Beriut. A consistent standard seems to be applied by Beriut in protesting the use of violence against another society.
Now we can take a look at other peoples arguements - mine does indeed have some hypocrisy when it concerns Tibet, but one should be careful of generalizations such as this - as far as I have seen of Beriut's arguements (even when I disagree with his postion) concerning states and actions against other peoples - he seems to be one of the most consistent with his postion.
Like Pannonian said: why bomb something that generates so much money? Taiwan relies on China, and this isn't some kind of unknowing statement trying to win the argument. Taiwan has just got too much trade coming to and from China, and a lot of interests in China. Bombing a generator of finance and risking war is absurd.
Then you are not paying attention to China's postion on Tiawain.
In an 11,000-word white paper, Beijing has warned that it will use military force against Taiwan if the island leaders don’t agree to join talks on reunification. Reports say that China’s tough words are a clear attempt to influence Taiwan’s upcoming March 18 presidential elections. Though Taiwan is shrugging off these threats, it remains unclear how these recent threats will effect Taiwanese voters, U.S. policy, and possibilities of war.
http://www.asiasource.org/news/at_mp_02.cfm?newsid=13423
The United States tried policies like this in South and Central America - it was wrong then and its wrong today.
ANd then there is this
Beijing last night threatened Taiwan with destruction if President Chen Shui-bian doesn't accept China is "one nation."
In an official statement, the mainland government warned Taiwan leaders to make choices about the future carefully or the "Chinese people will crush their schemes firmly and thoroughly at any cost."
"At present, the relations across the Taiwan Strait are severely tested," the statement said. "To put a resolute check on the 'Taiwan independence' activities aimed at dismembering China ... is the most pressing task before the compatriots on both sides of the strait."
The statement was issued by the Taiwan Affairs Office under the Communist Party and the State Council. It came four days before Chen is inaugurated as president.
"Chen Shui-bian has left Taiwan society deeply torn with his vicious mischaracterization of the popular will of the Taiwan people, his unbridled instigation of hostility and animosity towards the mainland, and his frenzied provocation to the status quo that both the mainland and Taiwan belong to the one and same China," the harshly worded document said.
China offered Taiwan a carrot as well as a stick.
If Chen accepts the one-China policy, Beijing held out the hope of negotiations leading to an end to hostilities, establishment of a mechanism to resolve cross-strait disputes, direct commercial and transport links, closer economic co-operation and greater market access.
The statement added: "The Taiwan leaders have before them two roads: one is to pull back immediately from their dangerous lurch towards independence ... The other is to keep following their separatist agenda to cut Taiwan from the rest of China, and in the end, meet their own destruction by playing with fire."
Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council and the Presidential Office had no immediate response to the statement.
The U.S. has sent its aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS Kitty Hawk to cruise the East Asian region ahead of Thursday's inauguration ceremony.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38520
Now back to the double standard comment. If the United States demonstrated words such as this - many would be up in arms about the United States provoking another war, the Chinese are using direct verbal langauge threatening warfare if Tiawain does not toe the line that it wants them to.
Avicenna
07-27-2006, 14:06
Nothing more than a bluff to see if they'll give in that easily, and to see how the world reacts.
Nothing more than a bluff to see if they'll give in that easily, and to see how the world reacts.
The accusation of a double standard being applied by others by yourself can be determined false.
Thank you very much for proving your hypocrisy in your own generalization.
Avicenna
07-27-2006, 14:21
Hypocrisy how?
China wants to see if they can get what they want (more land and tax money) without much difficulty. If not, then life goes on. If you believe that China will in fact attack Taiwan if they declare independence, then be my guest.
R'as al Ghul
07-27-2006, 14:25
Hypocrisy how?
China wants to see if they can get what they want (more land and tax money) without much difficulty. If not, then life goes on. If you believe that China will in fact attack Taiwan if they declare independence, then be my guest.
Sounds like you say China is merely bluffing.
I don't think Taiwan and the international community would agree.
After all, if China is only bluffing then what is Taiwan waiting for?
Hypocrisy how?
Go back and review your statement about the application of a double standard....
China wants to see if they can get what they want (more land and tax money) without much difficulty. If not, then life goes on. If you believe that China will in fact attack Taiwan if they declare independence, then be my guest.
Jumping to false assumptions about another's statement is another way of disproving your own postion.
I did not state what I believed to be true concerning China and Tiawain but what has been stated by China in regards to Tiawain.
I also stated that the United States tried similiar verbal tactics in Central and South America and that those tactics were wrong then - just as they are wrong now. Now the United States actually funded and parcipated in violent operations to get our way. This also demonstrates that the words do not necessarily mean violence will not occur, as your attempting to state here, What the United States actions in Central and South America does demonstrate that sometimes the words are an indication that violence will occur. Just like the lead up to the Invasion of Iraq.
The hypocrisy is in your accusation of a double standard being applied by others in regards to Tibet.
UglyandHasty
07-27-2006, 14:43
Its pretty sad to read that the world will be a better place without the Dalai Lama... :no:
Excuse me? The Chinese frequently oppress human rights, how can their model be close to western standards? Besides, if the Tibetians want a feudal society, who are we or the Chinese to tell them they can't have it?
The PRC is much like say Italy or Spain was under their fascist parties. And if the Tibetans want a feudal society they need someone to slap them until they realize that is a bad idea. The PRC is more than willing to do that.
I don't know if you've heard of the railway being build from China to Tibet.
What I've heard about it, it sounds like another attempt to strenghten the control over Tibet, while the Tibetians themselves only fear the huge amounts of Tourists and the Chinese influence as a whole.
To me it's clear that a culture and a lifestyle are being destroyed against the will of the majority of Tibetians.
Which is usually how modernization happens.
That may be true, I agree there.
But it shouldn't be forced on them, it should be their own decision.
Currently and in the past the Chinese Government acts without consense from the population. From what I know, the DL seems a reasonable man and a better leader for his people than the invasion force of PRC, that seems unable to treat the Tibetians and their culture with respect. (That may be a problem with invasion forces in general )
Sometimes you have too, and sometimes that works. I'll never believe that the DL incharge would have made things different. He would have been the priest-king at the top of a feudal-monastic heirarchy. And unable (and unwilling) to make many changes. He wouldn't have been the person he is now. The only reason he's been able to travel so much and acutally see how other ways might be better is because the PRC ran him out of Tibet. The Lamist regime would have been just as oppressive as the PRC one. And more repugnant as it would use religion to justify it's oppression.
Duke Malcolm
07-27-2006, 18:03
Do people have to take the Oath of Allegiance (or a similar Canadian ditty) upon receiving Canadian citizenship as they do in Britain? And if so, shall HH have to take it?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_lama
The current Dalai Lama has repeatedly stated that he will never be reborn inside territory controlled by the People's Republic of China, and has occasionally suggested that he might choose to be the last Dalai Lama by not being reborn at all. However, he has also stated that the purpose of his repeated incarnations is to continue unfinished work and, as such, if the situation in Tibet remains unchanged, it is very likely that he will be reborn to finish his work. Additionally, in the draft constitution of future Tibet, the institution of the Dalai Lama can be revoked at any time by a democratic majority vote of two-thirds of the Assembly. It is also worth mentioning that the 14th Dalai Lama has stated "Personally, I feel the institution of the Dalai Lama has served its purpose.".
Devastatin Dave
07-27-2006, 19:36
So far it looks like Beirut has been the most consistant one here. Whats so bad about Tibet that China needs to "teach" them how to live?
I wish all religious leaders were preachers of piece like this man. Wishing for his death or saying the world would be better without him is silly unless you're just baiting or trolling.
And if the Tibetans want a feudal society they need someone to slap them until they realize that is a bad idea. The PRC is more than willing to do that.
Slap them? Hell, they're willing to kill everyone in the country to teach them a lesson.
Honestly and for true, I cannot reason how you view a blisteringly repressive and violent communist dictatorship as being fit to educate anyone, anywhere, about anything.
Redleg and DD, thank you. :bow:
Slap them? Hell, they're willing to kill everyone in the country to teach them a lesson.
Honestly and for true, I cannot reason how you view a blisteringly repressive and violent communist dictatorship as being fit to educate anyone, anywhere, about anything.
Redleg and DD, thank you. :bow:
Given the choice between a blisteringly repressive and violent communist dictatorship, and a medieval theocracy. I'll take the blisteringly repressive and violent communist dictatorship everytime.
They would never need to kill everyone. 50000-100000 would cow any population.
So far it looks like Beirut has been the most consistant one here. Whats so bad about Tibet that China needs to "teach" them how to live?
Maybe Mao and co. felt guilty abourt their fore bearers setting up the Lamist regime in the first place. Leaving the area a primitive nasty place to live. Maybe they believe that an approximation of the Ming and Qing borders are what China should look like. And that all within those borders should live in similar standards.
I wish all religious leaders were preachers of piece like this man. Wishing for his death or saying the world would be better without him is silly unless you're just baiting or trolling.
I wish there were no preachers period.
Crazed Rabbit
07-27-2006, 23:19
So, lars, you support violent military conquests and permanate subjugation of people if the occupiers say they're 'improving' the country?
Sounds like 'might makes right'. By your logic, you'd support the US conquering the Middle East - getting rid of Sharia law and all!
I wish there were no preachers period.
Right. Just "blisteringly repressive and violent communist dictatorships[s]", so we can safely take your opinions with enough salt to kill a herd of elephants.
I'm suprised there is any support for China's actions. Seems like neo-colonialism.
Crazed Rabbit
Given the choice between a blisteringly repressive and violent communist dictatorship, and a medieval theocracy. I'll take the blisteringly repressive and violent communist dictatorship everytime.
Ahh, "given the choice". Therein lies the rub.
Are you willing to offer the Tibetans the same freedom of choice you claim for yourself?
Big_John
07-27-2006, 23:29
Seems like neo-colonialism.yeah, well.. see the poor, wretched tibetans are a yellow man's burden (thanks kipling!). :uneasy:
Pannonian
07-28-2006, 00:16
So, lars, you support violent military conquests and permanate subjugation of people if the occupiers say they're 'improving' the country?
Sounds like 'might makes right'. By your logic, you'd support the US conquering the Middle East - getting rid of Sharia law and all!
Right. Just "blisteringly repressive and violent communist dictatorships[s]", so we can safely take your opinions with enough salt to kill a herd of elephants.
I'm suprised there is any support for China's actions. Seems like neo-colonialism.
Crazed Rabbit
It's old-fashioned colonialism in a region where other Great Powers take no notice, and would be ignored if they did. Tibet has been within the Chinese sphere of influence since around the Han dynasty. Compare it instead with the United States' colonising of the West, or indeed the Tex-Mex area.
So, lars, you support violent military conquests and permanate subjugation of people if the occupiers say they're 'improving' the country?
Sounds like 'might makes right'. By your logic, you'd support the US conquering the Middle East - getting rid of Sharia law and all!
If they actually do improve things (that's key BTW), yes. If the Yanks had gone into Iraq solely to build a better more open and democratic nation then yes I would've supported it. But the lies that they tried to feed to the world to justify it made me not support it.
Right. Just "blisteringly repressive and violent communist dictatorships[s]", so we can safely take your opinions with enough salt to kill a herd of elephants.
I'm suprised there is any support for China's actions. Seems like neo-colonialism.
Crazed Rabbit
It is. Although Imperialism would be more apt (the colonizing part has only just begun). Colonialism wasn't all bad. Put you and I where we are. Started Africa's developement. No need to inform me of all it's bad points either.
Ahh, "given the choice". Therein lies the rub.
Are you willing to offer the Tibetans the same freedom of choice you claim for yourself?
The Tibetans did choose the PRC. Inaction is a choice. Granted the Chinese beat the Tibetans until they made the choice they wanted them to make. They still made a choice to grudgingly accept Chinese rule.
When the Chinese came to Tibet they Tibetans had 2 choices. 1.Die on they're feet. 2.Live on their knees. Guess which one most have and do choose?
Big_John
07-28-2006, 00:36
It is. Although Imperialism would be more apt (the colonizing part has only just begun). Colonialism wasn't all bad. Put you and I where we are. Started Africa's developement. No need to inform me of all it's bad points either.
The Tibetans did choose the PRC. Inaction is a choice. Granted the Chinese beat the Tibetans until they made the choice they wanted them to make. They still made a choice to grudgingly accept Chinese rule.
When the Chinese came to Tibet they Tibetans had 2 choices. 1.Die on they're feet. 2.Live on their knees. Guess which one most have and do choose?:stunned:
note to self: never visit halifax..
If they actually do improve things (that's key BTW), yes. If the Yanks had gone into Iraq solely to build a better more open and democratic nation then yes I would've supported it. But the lies that they tried to feed to the world to justify it made me not support it.
So are you quilty of hypocrisy because you want to believe the lies that the Chinese are saying about Tibet?
It is. Although Imperialism would be more apt (the colonizing part has only just begun). Colonialism wasn't all bad. Put you and I where we are. Started Africa's developement. No need to inform me of all it's bad points either.
This is not the 19th Century.....
So in your opinion is prefectably acceptable for China to lock up individuals for expressing free speech in protest of the government? Interesting coming from an individual who has the ability to express his dissatification with his government without worrying about being locked up.....
The Tibetans did choose the PRC. Inaction is a choice. Granted the Chinese beat the Tibetans until they made the choice they wanted them to make. They still made a choice to grudgingly accept Chinese rule.
You need to do a little more research, there was in fact a rebellion or two.
When the Chinese came to Tibet they Tibetans had 2 choices. 1.Die on they're feet. 2.Live on their knees. Guess which one most have and do choose?
Actually they made a third choice. For ease of a single source - Wikipedia has the basic information.
The Chinese Communist regime led by Mao Zedong which came to power in October 1949 lost little time in enforcing its claim to Tibet. In 1950 the People's Liberation Army entered western Kham (Khams) and Ü-Tsang (Dbu-gtsang) with little resistance from the ill equipped Tibetan army.
In May 1951 a treaty signed by representatives of the Dalai Lama and local government, provided for Chinese sovereignty [39], however, it is argued by members of the pro-Tibet lobby that this document was signed under duress due to the presence of the aforementioned Chinese troops. The Chinese government at this time did not try to reform Tibet's social or religious system, inside of the newly created Tibetan Autonomous Region, but Eastern Kham and Amdo were treated like any other Chinese province, and land reform began immediately, sparking discontent.
Now this seems to indicate that the Chinese government initially allowed the social structure of Tibetan Autonomous Region to remain intact. The clue is actually in how China worded the Region.
Then there is this little tidbit of information from Wikipedia
Tibetan exiles generally say that the number that have died in the Great Leap Forward, violence, or other unnatural causes since 1950 is approximately 1.2 million, which the Chinese Communist Party denies. According to Patrick French (author of Tibet, Tibet: A Personal History of a Lost Land ), a noted supporter of the Tibetan cause who was able to view the data and calculations, the estimate is not reliable because the Tibetans were not able to process the data well enough to produce a credible total. There were, however, many casualties, perhaps as many as 400,000. This figure is extrapolated from a calculation Warren W. Smith made from census reports of Tibet which show 200,000 "missing" from Tibet. Even The Black Book of Communism expresses doubt at the 1.2 million figure, but does note that according to Chinese census there was a population of 2.8 million in 1953, but only 2.5 million in 1964 in Tibet proper.
Frankly the Chinese influence on Tibet is not exactly what your attempting to make it out to be.
Nor is it the colonization and growth of the United States into the Western states. It is more like Russia suppressing the individual states into line with the Revolution, to form the USSR....
The Tibetans did choose the PRC. Inaction is a choice. Granted the Chinese beat the Tibetans until they made the choice they wanted them to make. They still made a choice to grudgingly accept Chinese rule.
If stretches in logic can be meaured in feet, that one just cleared the Green Monster at Fenway.
Devastatin Dave
07-28-2006, 04:04
Back to the subject on hand, I'm glad Canada has the ball sack to stand up and have different opinions with powerful countries, China, the US, etc (she's one of the most powerful in her own right, economically speaking) and didn't bow to Chinese preasure on this issue. Its their citizenship, let them bestow it on whom they want to.
Reverend Joe
07-28-2006, 04:18
Give them another 10 years, and then ask them if they want the old Dalai Lama or their old lifestyle back.
https://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1197/pdz01wi9.jpg
"No, we don't want to choose what government we want to rule us- we are very happy with the way the People's Republic* of China has treated us! Our lives are better** now, and we understand how westernization and modernization has helped us***!
*Brutal totalitarian oligarchical superstate that calls itself communism while in fact diong all it can to make more money for those in power while suppressing the masses by any means available
**than that of the average bull weevil
***The Government
*ahem* Whitewashing... :thinking:
So are you quilty of hypocrisy because you want to believe the lies that the Chinese are saying about Tibet?
What lies specifically?
This is not the 19th Century.....
In that part of the world in terms of overall development it is. With a few exceptions (Japan and South Korea).
So in your opinion is prefectably acceptable for China to lock up individuals for expressing free speech in protest of the government? Interesting coming from an individual who has the ability to express his dissatification with his government without worrying about being locked up.....
Pardon me for not finding fault with a blisteringly repressive and violent communist dictatorship acting like a blisteringly repressive and violent communist dictatorship. Political evolution in China will come. Just not tomorrow.
You need to do a little more research, there was in fact a rebellion or two.
I left my wording vauge to leave room for a rebellion (or 2) that I didn't remember.
Actually they made a third choice. For ease of a single source - Wikipedia has the basic information.
Now this seems to indicate that the Chinese government initially allowed the social structure of Tibetan Autonomous Region to remain intact. The clue is actually in how China worded the Region.
Then there is this little tidbit of information from Wikipedia
The revolts that led the PRC to revoke the autonomus region mean that they rejected that choice.
Frankly the Chinese influence on Tibet is not exactly what your attempting to make it out to be.
Nor is it the colonization and growth of the United States into the Western states. It is more like Russia suppressing the individual states into line with the Revolution, to form the USSR....
I'm not denying anything about what the PRC has done to Tibet. Good or bad.
What lies specifically?
Pretty much the ones that you have ben stating..... except about the fuedal society of the Tibetan elite.
In that part of the world in terms of overall development it is. With a few exceptions (Japan and South Korea).
Incorrect - try again, there are more then a few exceptions, and since its not the 19th century the statement is futher refuted easily...
Pardon me for not finding fault with a blisteringly repressive and violent communist dictatorship acting like a blisteringly repressive and violent communist dictatorship. Political evolution in China will come. Just not tomorrow.
Demonstrates the wrongness of your position very well. Your statements would indicate to me that since you disagree with religion - you will willing allow a state to subdue and deny a people the right to freedom of speech - while you enjoy the priveledges of that right every day.
I left my wording vauge to leave room for a rebellion (or 2) that I didn't remember.
Those rebellions make your initial premise of Granted the Chinese beat the Tibetans until they made the choice they wanted them to make. They still made a choice to grudgingly accept Chinese rule.
Futhermore this statement is nothing other then an attempt to quibble.
The revolts that led the PRC to revoke the autonomus region mean that they rejected that choice.
Again incorrect - the mere establishment of the TAR demonstrates that your initial premise of When the Chinese came to Tibet they Tibetans had 2 choices. 1.Die on they're feet. 2.Live on their knees. Guess which one most have and do choose? is false.
The violent rebellions that happen later futher demonstrates the incorrect base of your initial premise.
I'm not denying anything about what the PRC has done to Tibet. Good or bad.
THen is your postion regarding Tibet is based upon a dislike for religion, lack of knowledge and your own hypocrisy as it relates to Freedom of Speech and the practice of religion?
Now I am no expert on Tibet - but your initial statements ran afoul of what little I do actually know about the situation and circumstances. If it was this easy for me to find information that directly counters your statements - what does that mean about your position and knowledge on Tibet?
R'as al Ghul
07-28-2006, 10:08
Which is usually how modernization happens.
Forcing modernism on a feudal society seems pretty archaic to me.
Sometimes you have too, and sometimes that works. I'll never believe that the DL incharge would have made things different. He would have been the priest-king at the top of a feudal-monastic heirarchy. And unable (and unwilling) to make many changes. He wouldn't have been the person he is now. The only reason he's been able to travel so much and acutally see how other ways might be better is because the PRC ran him out of Tibet. The Lamist regime would have been just as oppressive as the PRC one. And more repugnant as it would use religion to justify it's oppression.
That's irrelevant speculation. Anyway, I don't see reason but only provocation in your posts.
You may take DevDave as an example for reason. :wink:
Devastatin Dave
07-28-2006, 14:59
You may take DevDave as an example for reason. :wink:
:laugh4: ...Oh wait a minute...:furious3:
:2thumbsup:
Geoffrey S
07-28-2006, 16:00
Tibetans weren't given the choice. Not only that, but PRC involvement in Tibet is not designed to aid the Tibetans: improved infrastructure and the like are aimed squarely at the Chinese 'colonists' that they want to have flooding to the region. Perhaps quality of life has improved. But in the meantime, Tibetan culture is being eradicated, all to make way for Chinese immigrants.
The aim is that there is no distinct Tibet, merely another Chinese province. I for one am glad that the Dalai Lama can still be a symbol for a free Tibet.
DevDave, just noticed your excellent sig. :2thumbsup:
I personally do not wish to see DL back in tibet but i think the best way to solve this problem is to ask how normal tibetans feel about the chinese rule and if they really wanted a change.
Crazed Rabbit
07-29-2006, 01:02
If they actually do improve things (that's key BTW), yes. If the Yanks had gone into Iraq solely to build a better more open and democratic nation then yes I would've supported it. But the lies that they tried to feed to the world to justify it made me not support it.
And China is now a paragon of honesty? Your endless justifications are hilarious.
Crazed Rabbit
Tachikaze
07-29-2006, 18:13
When DevDave and I agree about something (as in this case--perhaps the first time), the opposition should take a very long look at their position.
I'd better read Dave's post again and make sure I didn't misunderstand.
Devastatin Dave
07-31-2006, 19:49
When DevDave and I agree about something (as in this case--perhaps the first time), the opposition should take a very long look at their position.
I'd better read Dave's post again and make sure I didn't misunderstand.
I'm speechless. We have agreed on things numerous times its just that we've disagreed on much more that its hard to remember those strange alinements of the stars. Shame one you!!!:furious3: :2thumbsup:
R'as al Ghul
07-31-2006, 19:55
:2thumbsup:
I thought you might like that.
:medievalcheers:
kataphraktoi
08-01-2006, 17:23
Early history of the Dalai Lamai suggests a theocracy of no accountability with some charming stories of how Lamai's family coped with their newfound status. If the Dalai Lamai appears quite benevolent, then perhaps its because power has not fully corrupted him by exiling from executive theocratic power. It doesn't matter if one is Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu...power corrupts even the most spiritually oriented person....
I bet no one ever recalls the stories of how the darling Lamaists of Lhasa killed Christian Missionaries...but then again, it doesn't matter, its only Christians. :laugh4:
I'm surprised at the gullibility of people worldwide in thinking that Tibet under the Lamai will be one big benevolent nirvana and utopia!
My goodness, the Lamai holds many conservative views as Muslims and Christians do, but of course, no one would dare raise this issue up...because the Lamai is a veritable media darling is he not? :laugh4:
Well..lets all get use to it. Xizang...I mean Tibet will never see independence ever...but at least u get some music from those "free tibet" concerts, its also a nice propaganda win for the Lamaists....
Down with THEOCRACY!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.