Does china need the Old Tibet

[Michaelangelica]

I was reading this article on China:-

Problems lurk beneath China's shiny new surface - Asia - Pacific - International Herald Tribune

The people who inhabit the world's oldest unitary state have a common nationality, but they have yet to construct commonly held bonds of citizenship, which allow for the sharing of other people's problems and of each other's dreams.

 

The road thus far for China has been built on an official religion: the cult of GDP growth. China has built roads and buildings in dizzying quantities.

And at the individual level, Chinese people are acquiring things just as fast as they can, but there seems to be little other rhyme or reason to life here for the time being.

 

The predominant reason for this is the government, which reserves for itself the right to proclaim causes and strikes down anyone who insists on articulating a different agenda too loudly.

Similarly, it tightly controls the right of association, meaning that any group of any size must be organized under the government's aegis.

 

The result is an atrophied sense of the individual and of civic participation, from which the country and its people are just now awakening, and not a moment too soon.

 

The world has already seen what the cult of the GDP can wreak.

In Japan, where annual growth numbers were the focus of popular celebrations during the go-go years of the 1960s, the country was jolted out of its trance by environmental devastation.

when I was reminded of the hope of the Dali Lama that he will be restored in Tibet under a "One China; Two Systems" approach.

I always thought it a forlorn hope, with China's increasing genocide in Tibet.

But the above article seems to say China is in need of a soul.

Perhaps some of the philosophies of the Dali lama could help?

[Buffy]

A few points....

• What China really needs is to be freed of the bonds of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", otherwise known as the military-industrial complex that dominates the Communist Party/Government.
  
• Its arguable that China has its own soul. Although a strong attempt was made to destroy it during the Cultural Revolution--and continues to a lesser extent today with the cavalier attitude of the government toward destruction of China's heritage like the Three Gorges Dam project--most Chinese are still proud of their country's historical significance.
  
• China needs Tibet because it provides complete geographic protection of their southwest flank via the Himlalayan Range: no Army needed there *except* to oppress the restive native Tibetans and take their cut of the smuggling that goes on across the border....
  
• Dalai Lama supports "one country, two systems" because he knows that its the only acceptable alternative to the Chinese Government. He also knows that it is a Chimera, and is unlikely to be agreed to (the Communists would still "lose face" by granting it), and even if it were, there is no huge downside of continued brutal repression as there would be if China really did "communize" Hong Kong.
  

China has no "right" to Tibet, but with even the leader of the most powerful superpower in history so fearful that he's willing to publicly lick their boots, they won't let go until the Communist Running Dogs lose power (right after Godot shows up....)

 

Capitalist Jogging Cat,

Buffy

[Racoon]

China has no "right" to Tibet, but with even the leader of the most powerful superpower in history so fearful that he's willing to publicly lick their boots, they won't let go until the Communist Running Dogs lose power (right after Godot shows up....)

 

Capitalist Jogging Cat,

Buffy

 

 

Exactly. The Tibetans resent the take over, and the pillaging of Tibetan Buddhist Scripture.

 

Look back half a century to find some atrocious crimes committed...

 

A beautiful land up in the mountains,

[Michaelangelica]

A few points....

Buffy

Thank you for your thoughts Buffy. All very true.

It is a complex issue that will undoubtedly, in the future, affect us all.

 

The Tibet thing just fills me with immense sadness; and sometimes anger.

Then again, a lot fewer people would know about Buddhism if the Monks keept to their ivory towers in Tibet.

The Dali Lama seems immensely wise. Yet this belief that he (or his reincarnation?) will go back to a free (ish/er?) Tibet does not seem grounded in reality

 

I was interested that the author of the article seemed to be saying that the only goal of the Chinese society was making money and that that and the system led to a loss of a 'sense of community';

and even perhaps identity/nationalism? (One of the reasons the coming Olympic Games are so important?)

michael

[InfiniteNow]

The Tibet thing just fills me with immense sadness; and sometimes anger.

You should thank the Chinese, for they have given you the opportunity to understand your emotions, to let go of anger, and to practice your own patience and empathy. :(

 

 

Cheers. :shrug:

[Rebiu]

What is the difference between the Taliban and the government under the Dahli Lama?

 

Theocracies are always unjust, repressive and backwards.

[Buffy]

What is the difference between the Taliban and the government under the Dahli Lama?

The Dalai Lama publicly advocates China's One Country, Two Systems philosophy, which allows limited democratic government as is the case in Hong Kong, not a return to the Theocracy of the past. His more radical supporters advocate full independence with a democratic political system. The Dalai Lama's role would be as a figure-head/spiritual leader. Insofar as The Queen is the Leader of the Church of England, it would be less of a "Theocracy" than the UK. So,

Theocracies are always unjust, repressive and backwards.

Is the UK an unjust, repressive and backwards country?

 

Rule Brittania, :confused:

Buffy

[Rebiu]

The Dalai Lama publicly advocates China's One Country, Two Systems philosophy, which allows limited democratic government as is the case in Hong Kong, not a return to the Theocracy of the past. His more radical supporters advocate full independence with a democratic political system. The Dalai Lama's role would be as a figure-head/spiritual leader.

People of Tibet starved in a medieval hell as the theocracy ruthlessly killed and suppressed the adherents of the older Bat religion. The Dalai Lama himself was selected by divine providence. What good has this theocracy done for the people of Tibet in the face of all is harm?

 

Insofar as The Queen is the Leader of the Church of England, it would be less of a "Theocracy" than the UK. So,

Is the UK an unjust, repressive and backwards country?

Inaccurate analogy as the Monarchy was the ruling power independant of the church. The church was a tool of the monarchy that was created by the monarchy to be a tool. Hardly a theocracy. The Dalai Lama was never anything other than a theocrat.

[Buffy]

People of Tibet starved in a medieval hell as the theocracy ruthlessly killed and suppressed the adherents of the older Bat religion. The Dalai Lama himself was selected by divine providence. What good has this theocracy done for the people of Tibet in the face of all is harm?

Can you cite a source that says that any group including the Dalai Lama himself wants to restore a theocratic state? If you cannot, what are you talking about then?

 

The "older Bat religion" is a Mongol belief--really, imported by the invading Mongol hordes in the 12th-13th centuries--and active "suppression" of it seems to have died out about 400 years ago, even then, long after the establishment of the Dalai Lama line of succession.

Inaccurate analogy as the Monarchy was the ruling power independant of the church. The church was a tool of the monarchy that was created by the monarchy to be a tool. Hardly a theocracy. The Dalai Lama was never anything other than a theocrat.

Again you seem to be talking about pre-20th century history, rather than current and future events. My point is again that the state structure proposed by the Dalai Lama and supporters thereof is no more theocratic that the UK's Constitutional Monarchy, in fact it is *far less*, because it does not propose *any* constitutional role for the Dalai Lama.

 

There is much questionable material floating around on both sides--your's seems to be lifted from the official position of the PRC--but there's no question that there was some level of repression and even slavery in Tibet, but to portray the intent of the current movement as trying to restore this "oppressive" Theocracy is, to be polite, a misrepresentation. The role of the Dalai Lama himself is as an advocate, and a very, very powerful one at that, but that does not mean he's out to regain some sort of absolute dictatorship.

 

Do you believe that Tibet is better off with the Chinese Government trying to get hundreds of thousands of ethnic Chinese to move to Tibet to establish their claim that it is truly Chinese and for all intents and purposes destroy Tibetan culture?

 

Ta-shi de-leg,

Buffy

[Michaelangelica]

What is the difference between the Taliban and the government under the Dahli Lama?

Quite a lot

Theocracies are always unjust, repressive and backwards.

Like, some "democracies" eg.,the USA and Australia?

Both seem to have forgotten the Rule of Law and the Geneva Convention and basic Civil Liberties and Human Rights

[Rebiu]

Can you cite a source that says that any group including the Dalai Lama himself wants to restore a theocratic state? If you cannot, what are you talking about then?

I did not say he wanted to do this. I said the evils of the Buddist establishment in Tibet needed to be replaced. The excesses and shortcommings of the Chinese are less than those of the Buddists theocracy they replaced.

 

The "older Bat religion" is a Mongol belief--really, imported by the invading Mongol hordes in the 12th-13th centuries--and active "suppression" of it seems to have died out about 400 years ago, even then, long after the establishment of the Dalai Lama line of succession.

Again you seem to be talking about pre-20th century history, rather than current and future events. My point is again that the state structure proposed by the Dalai Lama and supporters thereof is no more theocratic that the UK's Constitutional Monarchy, in fact it is *far less*, because it does not propose *any* constitutional role for the Dalai Lama.

The British Monarchy created their church as a tool the Dalai Lama was the head of the Buddhist Theocracy that ruled Tibet until China took over and got rid of him. His people were starving and his country was on of the most backward in the world. You can pretend like the UK is the same thing and therefore it is a good idea but the Church in England never controlled the government.

 

There is much questionable material floating around on both sides--your's seems to be lifted from the official position of the PRC

Never heard of it. Maybe you could provide a link.

--but there's no question that there was some level of repression and even slavery in Tibet, but to portray the intent of the current movement as trying to restore this "oppressive" Theocracy is, to be polite, a misrepresentation.

I like the Dalai Lama and do not think he wants anything other that to help his people. My point is the institution of the Dalai Lama had brought great harm to the people of Tibet. It had its chance and failed. The Dalai Lama himself has suggested that he should perhaps be the last one. The Chinese, for all their flaws have done much better by the Tibetan people.

The role of the Dalai Lama himself is as an advocate, and a very, very powerful one at that, but that does not mean he's out to regain some sort of absolute dictatorship.

Dictator is what he was before. It is time for Tibet to move on.

Do you believe that Tibet is better off with the Chinese Government trying to get hundreds of thousands of ethnic Chinese to move to Tibet to establish their claim that it is truly Chinese and for all intents and purposes destroy Tibetan culture?

I believe that the sum of Chinese effects, both positive and negative, provide far more benefit to the people of Tibet then the sum of the Institution of the Dalai Lama or even the current Dalai Lama have done.

[Rebiu]

Quite a lot

Please elaborate

 

Like, some "democracies" eg.,the USA and Australia?

Both seem to have forgotten the Rule of Law and the Geneva Convention and basic Civil Liberties and Human Rights

I do not see the relevance of democracies shortcomings to the absolute failure of all theocracies.

[Buffy]

I said the evils of the Buddist establishment in Tibet needed to be replaced. The excesses and shortcommings of the Chinese are less than those of the Buddists theocracy they replaced.

Insofar as all Tibetans are now being mistreated equally, I guess you're right. The rest is all historical debate and somewhat irrelevant to the *future* which seems to be the real goal of this thread: so the only question is whether the suppression of any Tibetan culture without any freedom of religion as the Chinese government is better for the Tibetan people than a free--or partly free--democratic, self-determining, autonomous entity.

 

If you want to start a thread about "theocracies are inferior to democracies or communist dictatorships" then you're welcome to do so, but I'm pretty sure that that was not Michaelangelica's intent here.

 

There is much questionable material floating around on both sides--your's seems to be lifted from the official position of the PRC

Never heard of it. Maybe you could provide a link.

Sure! Here ya go, and their position here.

 

Freedom from Democracy,

Buffy

[hallenrm]

I have, as usual, a philosophical viewpoint. What Tibetans are facing today is somewhat similar to what Indians experienced when the Moghuls or Britishers invaded India. True, the culture of India has not remained what it was; many aspects of Moghul culture and the English culture were assimilated into Indian culture, just as it happened in America, the great melting pot.

 

Nothing can escape the onslaught of time, that invariably favors a change, for everything we know of. :)

[Michaelangelica]

I believe that the sum of Chinese effects, both positive and negative, provide far more benefit to the people of Tibet then the sum of the Institution of the Dalai Lama or even the current Dalai Lama have done.

You can't believe this?

 

Is this religious bigiotry?

 

So now sterilisation of Tibetan women and the destruction of an ancient, deeply spiritual culture is OK?

 

At present Australian doctors are in Tibet trying to remedy the many health problems there including goitre.

 

Does no one remember Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler?

[Michaelangelica]

Please elaborateI do not see the relevance of democracies shortcomings to the absolute failure of all theocracies.

It is all relative

 

It depends, very much , on your point of view

[Rebiu]

so the only question is whether the suppression of any Tibetan culture without any freedom of religion as the Chinese government is better for the Tibetan people than a free--or partly free--democratic, self-determining, autonomous entity.

Distorting the position of the op Buffy. I am no fan of China but they are feeding the people, building infrastructure, and providing opportunity. You can talk all flowery about democracy and freedom like Bush does about Iraq but the fact is democracy and freedom come after food, shelter, security, stability and education. These are the things CHina brings to Tibet that were not there before.

 

If you want to start a thread about "theocracies are inferior to democracies or communist dictatorships" then you're welcome to do so, but I'm pretty sure that that was not Michaelangelica's intent here.

Pay attention! I said I did not see the relevance of Michaelangelica doing this. You have done it as well. Why the hell are you behaving as if it is I who initiated these comparisons?