China And The Dalai Lama/Tibetian Crisis

[Escalus (Syn)]

www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/17/tibet.unrest/index.html

I have been following the news on China and the Dalai Lama for a while now, and this recent attack bothers me quite a lot. This has been going on for decades, but it seems that its starting to get more violent. The Dalai Lama says Tibet is being subjected to cultural genoside, and with the Olympics coming up...... things are just going to get worse.

China's trying to improve its human rights record, and frankly, it looks as if Tibet is going to use the Communist government's vulnerabilty to expose what the government will do if it pushes just a bit harder.

Then you have the visit DL made a few months ago here in the U.S. which turned China's eyes on us: And our Debt.

[o8jedi]

This could not have come at a worse time for the People's Republic of China. They've had a lot of flak already for having a dodgy HR record and they've been trying to dispell that for the Olympics. Not much success, though. Especially since cinematic consultant Steven Spielberg withdrew from that position due to China's record and how they are tied to the situation in Darfur.

On a different note, to all the people who think that the Olympics and politics should be separate, tough luck. Politics have been a part of the matter for nearly a century:

-Nazi Germany hosts in 1936 in a (not-so) subtle effort to tout Aryan supremacy
-First Olympic boycotts in 1956 due to Soviet Union's supression of uprising in Hungary
-1968, Mexico City, American medalists Tommie Smith and John Carlos give the black power salute during the national anthem.
-1972, Munich, Palestinian terrorists take 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team hostage to bargain for the freedom of Palestinian prisoners. All 11 were lost in a botched attempt to liberate them.
-United States boycotts 1980 games due to Soviet Union's involvement in Afghanistan
-Soviet Union counterboycotts 1984 games

But I digress.

Granted, a lot of people (mostly hippies) want Tibet to be free and HH Tenzin Gyatso to return to his throne, but most people don't realize the backstory with the Dalai Lama's reign. Not just the current one. One could make the case that China has improved conditions in Tibet, although not drastically. Before the annexation, Tibet was ruled by the priestly class and, although they are Buddhists, Tibetan Buddhism carries certain beliefs that most other Buddhists don't share. Despite the fact that the ruling monks were, generally, distancing themselves from the material world, the subjects within Tibet gave large portions of their livelihoods and property to the monks. In two words, indetured servitude. It's just a fancy way of saying "slavery." And this has been going on for nearly 14 lifetimes, if not more. If Tibet were to gain sovereignty, the question must be asked: Will the ruling monks return to their old ways?

I merely bring up these points to illustrate that one must weigh the sides before taking one. Ask yourself, which is the lesser of two evils? A Communist state that will quell any uprising that threatens it by any means or a medieval-style Theocracy in which the subjects are treated like the dirt they are covered in?

[attonbitus]

i'm two minds about it. On one hand I oppose the corrupt chinese government and many of their practices. On the other, I'm Buddhist and as such I don't think what the Dalai Lama is trying to do by trying to ousting the chinese government has that much merit.

Obviously, there's human rights issues with the current government and the communist have a record of exploiting Tibet. Even though they say it's always been part of China, the burning of the temples and religious artifacts was completely unwarranted. Beyond that, the government shows little sign of long term improvement or thoughts beyond short term gain.

On the flip side ultimately how important is Tibet in a religious sense? Just like o8jedi said, even though the Tibetans are Buddhist, not all buddhist share the same beliefs. I'm zen buddhist and so the while the Dalai Lama is an import person I don't hold him in huge reverence. Additionally, Tibet is just land in the large scope of things, it hold little to no religious importance to me. In ancient times, the Shaolin monks sometimes acted as a check against the corrupt government. That time is long gone and the world has changed. Monks are not longer enforcers of justice.

The Tibetans can peacefully protest much like Gandi did in opposition to British rule but ultimately I don't see the Chinese government changing their ways any time soon.

[The Blue Chibi]

o8jedi said:

I merely bring up these points to illustrate that one must weigh the sides before taking one. Ask yourself, which is the lesser of two evils? A Communist state that will quell any uprising that threatens it by any means or a medieval-style Theocracy in which the subjects are treated like the dirt they are covered in?

Hmm, I think you're being a bit harsh in your divisions, here ~ try not to make broad generalizations.

There are going to be imperfections in any system, but by no means were the Tibetan people oppressed as you're painting it. They prefer autonomy to a regime under which they are not even allowed to display their flag or pictures of their leader without prison sentences.

China is a communist, atheist state, and they harshly repress many religions, including Christianity, with the same lethal force. Tibet is of particular interest because of its strategic staging ground high above India, and because its leader survived assassination attempts to escape and be a vocal presence for world peace among all nations and people, not just his own.

[o8jedi]

I do not think that I generalized. I merely phrased those in a way that detractors of either side would likely use them in their attacks statements against the other side.

And I don't want to give the impression that I'm knocking the Dalai Lama. I respect him deeply as a philosopher. But I still maintain that the people of Tibet were repressed during the reign of the Lamas. I suggest that you go to your library and look up The Making of Modern Tibet by A. Tom Grunfeld and turn to pages 12-17. While you're at it, look at:

Bessac, Frank, "This Was the Perilous Trek to Tragedy", Life, 13 Nov 1950, pp130-136
Ford, Robert W., "Wind Between The Worlds", New York, 1957, p37
MacDonald, David, "The Land of the Lamas", London, 1929, pp196-197

Furthermore, I do not claim that the Chinese occupation is the best alternative for reasons previously stated. All that I'm suggesting is that maybe, just maybe, they are better off now than they were before the occupation. Of course, ideally, some form of democracy would be instilled in the region with a peacable transition from Chinese domination, but it's not going to happen unless someone intentionally wants WWIII.

[writer]

o8jedi said:

All that I'm suggesting is that maybe, just maybe, they are better off now than they were before the occupation.

Thing about observation of a culture is that you're looking at one persective. Your own. Therefore observers then to make conclusions base on little information.

I'm not a expert on this, but I think obsevation doesn't give you all the anwsers

[The Blue Chibi]

Time magazine just published a beautiful cover story taken from Pico Iyer's new book on the Dalai Lama:

Link

Rather thought-provoking.

[attonbitus]

Ok i've gone out and did some more reading to get some perspective.

o8jedi is right in asking his question (i'll karma him for it because it is a good question) about how thing are now verses how they were. Like all situations it comes down to who you ask. For the former Tibetian noblemen obviously it's worse now than before, but ask the Han (chinese) based Tibetian they might answer now is better because they were given land during the redistribution of the former nobleman's wealth.

Speaking of which I read the article BChibi posted and the current Dalai Lama has drawn up a democratic constitution for him people where he even threw out old Tibetian tradition because they make no sense in the modern world. He gone far as saying that he maybe the last Dalai Lama as the head of state but that would not destroy the Tibetian culture.

The most impacting quote that i read in that peice was,

"Why is he thinking of the future and not the present, the past?" asks an outspoken Tibetan in Dharamsala who once fought with the cia-trained guerrillas violently resisting the Chinese. "I want freedom in this world, not from this world."

It plays in completely into what the Dalai Lama has said about not being able to control the Tibetian people. The situation he's in is unique, from a nationalist perspective his people would expect him to raise up with words wanting them to over throw the Chinese government. Much like how many refugees view the situation. From his religous stand point, he knows that violence would not lead to a meaning answer and the violence would probably spiral out of control.

I've modified my view of him the more I know. It's obvious now that he wants a spiritually free Tibet rather a Free of Chinese Tibet.

[facestealer]

I honestly doubt that Tibet would go back to being a theocrocy (at least in the way it was eighty-some odd years ago), and if Tibet at least got autonominity (which I think it deserves), I don't think the Chinese government would allow it.
Honestly, China's invasion of Tibet was justified, but what they did to the people living there afterwards can't be forgotten.