posted
Antonio - oh, basically Bobby is mistakenly identified (with due caveat as to whether one can be correctly identified as such, of course) as the reincarnation of a Buddhist 'lama' by a sect of monks, with amusing consequences.
Posts: 23907 | From: the Naughty North to the Sexy South, we're all singing 'I HAVE THE MOUTH!' | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to know a bit more about this government in exile. Who are they? What did they do before 1951? What were their plans for doing away with serfdom, and how widespread was it? Your man the dalai lama says
quote: Under Tibet's Kings and the Dalai Lamas, we had a political system that was firmly rooted in our spiritual values. As a result, peace and happiness prevailed in Tibet
Which i find a little bit hard to believe.
Posts: 2903 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BAN, I think that's just a pol-speak for "things were better before the godless communists showed up". Which is probably true: pretty much anything would have been better than 25 years of Maoism.
Posts: 1762 | From: the further reaches of sleep deprivation | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no doubt that Tibet is a "sexy" cause, it's the foreign policy equivalent of baby seals being clubbed. While the cause is not without merit, there is indeed a broader context of superpower rivalry, with the US backing Tibetan nationalists.
I think the criticism of China on human rights is a bit misplaced (though not quite unwarranted) in light of the massive onging evolution of the country. It has come a long way from the days of the cultural revolution, and there is no doubt that the unprecedented pace and scope of its economic growth will eventually translate in large gains in human rights. Its government should be commended for providing its citizens with two decades of spectacular economic growth, China is well on its way to achieving its full economic potential, that of being the wealthiest country in the world.
By and large, China has managed its growth fairly well, unlike say, Russia. Other countries in the region like Taiwan have moved from autocracies to more democratic regimes.
Posts: 1376 | From: afar | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: there is no doubt that the unprecedented pace and scope of its economic growth will eventually translate in large gains in human rights.
What, not even a little bit of doubt?
quote:Other countries in the region like Taiwan have moved from autocracies to more democratic regimes.
Yes, and if the CCP were to have its way, Taiwan would be moving right back from a democratic regime to an autocracy.
Posts: 1891 | From: Saddam Hussein's secret stockpile of white ladies wrists | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A mate of mine has got into this Buddhism thing. He met the big llama fella a while back and loves it.
Aside from the deadly serious and seemingly permanent tragedy being played out in Tibet and the fact that I should know better, I have to say that I laughed heartily at the sight of the monks lobbing bricks at the police and smashing up shop windows.
Posts: 4506 | From: Hades | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding is that China wants to keep Tibet and Taiwan, etc, is because China is, a multiethnic empire - although this is rarely realized in the West - and if they let one of their ethnic groups split off, it could lead to others wanting to split off. If the Chinese ruling elite stand for anything these days, it's control, so they can't be having any talk of independence or autonomy.
I don't know if it would be in the U.S. commercial interests for China to break up or not. I can see how it would be mixed.
But the US government wants to hedge its bets. Plus, most Americans like the idea of supporting the plucky underdog, even though the Governments we elect usually don't. So it's good PR for American politicians to say encouraging things about Tibet and maybe through a little money their way.
Indeed, Tibet is a "sexy" cause. Tibet can earn support from both the right and the left. The left likes it because they're non-violent, and Tibetan Buddhism is faily popular in places like San Francisco and Boulder. And they have cool mountains and everyone likes that. Republicans may support Tibet because its a case of Godless "communists" brutally repressing religion - a Godless religion, ironically, but still, it's a sympathetic cause.
Taiwan has support among certain segments on the right in the U.S. and among parts of the Taiwanese community, but I've never gotten the impression that the left wants our government to do more to support Taiwan. Maybe because they're already independent so it doesn't seem very urgent. Or maybe because Taiwan is relatively wealthy and capitalist, so that doesn't appeal to the left.
Posts: 15414 | From: left to right on your radio dial... | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"My understanding is that China wants to keep Tibet and Taiwan, etc, is because China is, a multiethnic empire - although this is rarely realized in the West - and if they let one of their ethnic groups split off, it could lead to others wanting to split off."
The situation seems strikingly similar to early post-Soviet Russia, except that the Chinese state is in a much stronger position than the Russians were. In both China and Russia the national identity of ethnic majorities in the core provinces is strongly bound up in a historical sense of Greater China/Russia, which may in turn be influenced by racist attitudes towards minorities. With the Russians it's all about Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great, whereas with China it's all about the six kingdoms and the Qin dynasty.
A lot of Putin's appeal to the man on the street has been his apparent determination to maintain what remains of that empire or even restore it, whether it's levelling Chechnya, annexing the secessionist bits of Georgia, or central Asian client states.
Posts: 12612 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tibet was never part of either the six kingdoms nor the Qin dynasty.
The Han Chinese make up something like 90% of China's population, whereas the russians are less than 80% of Russia. The Chinese have also been re-locating people like mad to make sure minorities aren't in the majority anywhere (all those stores the monks were trashing in Lhasa? Every single one of them was owed by Han Chinese - that was a race riot as much as anything). Russia's big deportations, thankfully, are over, but the cost is a lot of small ethnically homogenous enclaves which each potentially threaten secession.
Posts: 1762 | From: the further reaches of sleep deprivation | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Tibet at that time was very, very backward. The ruling class did not seem to care, and there was much inequality. Marxism talked about an equal and just distribution of wealth. I was very much in favor of this. Then there was the concept of self-creation. Marxism talked about self-reliance, without depending on a creator or a God. That was very attractive. I had tried to do some things for my people, but I did not have enough time. I still think that if a genuine communist movement had come to Tibet, there would have been much benefit to the people.
Instead, the Chinese communists brought Tibet a so-called "liberation." These people were not implementing true Marxist policy. If they had been, national boundaries would not be important to them. They would have worried about helping humanity. Instead, the Chinese communists carried out aggression and suppression in Tibet. Whenever there was opposition, it was simply crushed. They started destroying monasteries and killing and arresting lamas.
Or even:
quote:Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilisation of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes - that is the majority - as well as with those who are underprivileged and in need; and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For these reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems to be fair... The failure of the regime in the Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I think of myself as half-Marxist and half-Buddhist.
?
Posts: 9771 | From: London. Yes, actual London, with a real London postcode and everything. | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tibetan Buddhism is faily popular in places like San Francisco and Boulder
I believe the North American city with highest per-capita Buddhist population is Halifax.
Posts: 7138 | From: here you can't get there | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's surprising. I figured it would be Vancouver or perhaps Berkeley.
Is that because Halifax has a lot of "Which Eastern Religion is best for my abs?" types or a lot of Asians?
I assume TonTon's quotes are from the Dali Lama. Or perhaps Mike D.
Posts: 15414 | From: left to right on your radio dial... | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:China is well on its way to achieving its full economic potential, that of being the wealthiest country in the world.
do you mean that the chinese state will be hugely wealthy and powerful, or that chinese people will have the world's highest standard of living? given the environmental stresses there the latter is hard to imagine.
Posts: 13290 | From: murphyia | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
