Occupation of Tibet

[Xuix]

Its really a matter of opinion, do you think that China has the right to occupy tibet based on land claims? or do you think Tibet deserves the right to be an independent nation?

[God of Imperia]

Off course they should be an indepent nation, they are being occupied by arms, not by right ...

[Osman Ghazi]

It is indeed a very interesting situation. Tibet (or Xizang province, depending on your point of view) was a part of the Qing/Manchu Empire until the Republican Revolution of 1911. After the Proclamation of the People's Republic, about the time they invaded North Korea and beat back the UN, they 'reasserted their soveriegnty' over the area, taking about 100,000 sq km from India in the process. I don't mind people agititaing for the freedom of Tibet but I am disgusted by the fact that they forget that Uighurstan/Xinjiang province, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria are also in the same position. If you are agitiating for freedom and the right to national self-determination for Tibet, then you must fight for these rights for all these peoples.

[New Tolerance]

Here's another question:

Should people of European descend get their asses get back to Europe, out of North American and return the US, Canada and a whole bunch of other lands back to the natives?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 1 2004, 08:56 PM
Here's another question:

Should people of European descend get their asses get back to Europe, out of North American and return the US, Canada and a whole bunch of other lands back to the natives?
Are you refering to the US backing of the Tibetan authorities... or is this just a random comment?

[Loknar]

Tibet wasnt exactly a part of china, china wes allowed by treaty to handle it's foreign affairs. whether it is right or wrong doesnt really matter to me, it's what they are doing during the occupation that bothers me. They seem intent on destroying or manipulating Tibetan culture to their own advantage. right now tibetans are out-numbered, and around 600k died during the invasion. too bad tibet demilitarized, they always kicked everyones ass.

[Severian]

This is a recurring topic - so if you'll excuse me I'll reuse a response:

There's a couple different aspects to this. One is that there is national oppression in Tibet - domination by Han Chinese over Tibetans, insufficient access to the best jobs and education for Tibetans. The other aspect is that in 1959 an extremely backward and oppressive feudal, theocratic system was overthrown in Tibet, by the Chinese army with the support of some Tibetans. I seriously doubt that most Tibetans in Tibet - as opposed to their former rulers and owners, now in exile - would want to go back to the old system, and be serfs again.

Most of the "free tibet" stuff - like the site linked previously - ignores the second half of this. Some even accuse China of genocide in Tibet - a bizarre accusation that ignores the fact that the number of Tibetans has actually greatly increased since 1959, due to the introduction of modern medical care and social advances associated with the Chinese Revolution.

The "free Tibet" campaign glorifies overthrown serf-owning theocrats like the Dalai Lama. Tibetans certainly weren't free when he ruled them. More seriously, it incites U.S. imperialism to take a more hostile stance towards China, and will become one of the tools of U.S. imperialism if it ever decides to seriously drive towards war against China.

And, BTW, the U.S. didn't favor Tibetan independence when Chiang Kai-Shek was in charge of China. (He also claimed that Tibet was rightfully part of China.) Rather, this was a way for Uncle Sam to go after the Chinese Revolution, including arming and training Tibetan "contras." (Most of whom were monks, so much for Tibetan Buddhist pacifism.)

Article on Tibet by yours truly. (http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/3.1_freetibet.html)

the old thread. (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=5382&hl=tibet)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 04:08 PM
and around 600k died during the invasion.







A wholly ridiculous number. Though even more ridiculous claims are sometimes made by Tibetan exiles and their admirers.

And old response to the inclusion of such claims in Washington's "Tibet Policy Act":

The Act asserts that 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese government. I did some looking around to try to determine if this number is accurate. Apparently the original source is the Tibetan government-in-exile, and they offer nothing to support their claims. I looked on various human-rights and anti-genocide websites - they do not mention this number. Neither does the Tibet Information Network, as far as I can tell. Or Tibetan exile and historian Tsering Shakya, in his book The Dragon in the Land of Snows. Maybe they're all a little embarassed at this exaggerated accusation.

The Tbetan government-in-exile sometimes mentions a Chinese secret document allegedly captured by Tibetan guerillas. This document says that 87,000 Tibetans were killed between March 1959 and October 1960.

The CIA was heavily involved in supporting the Tibetan guerillas, and the document passed through their hands. So one has to consider the possibility that they forged or modified it. But let's suppose it to be genuine.

The 1959-1960 uprising was the period of the heaviest fighting in Tibet. There was fighting earlier in Tibetan-inhabited areas east of the Dalai Lama's realm, but little fighting later aside from guerilla raids across the border from Nepal. Not only deaths in combat, but any killings of unarmed supporters of the rebels, would have been highest during this period.

There was some famine in eastern Tibetan areas in the late 1950's due to the sudden collectivization of agriculture and the so-called "Great Leap Forward." It should be kept in mind that famine was far from unknown before the Revolution.

And the Dalai Lama's realm - today's Tibet Autonomous Region - was insulated from these policies at the time. When agriculture was eventually collectivized in the Tibet Autonomous Region, it appears to have caused shortages but not famine - possibly because agriculture was proceeding normally in the rest of China by that time.

So it's kinda hard to get from those 87,000 to 1.2 million.

According to Encarta Encyclopedia: "Experts believe that before Chinese Communists began controlling Tibet in the 1950s, the region’s population was declining due to illness, poor pre- and postnatal care, and a sizeable proportion of men becoming celibate monks. It is estimated, however, that the population has nearly doubled since that time, as a result of better health care, increased availability of food, and relative political stability."

China's population-control policies are applied more loosely for Tibetans and other non-Han Chinese nationalities. Encarta Encyclopedia again: "However, women who belong to one of China's national minorities may not face the same level of pressure. In general, government policies allow non-Han peoples more cultural independence and permit them to have larger families." This is one reason that the non-Han Chinese nationalities are a growing part of China's population, today approaching 10%. Not exactly genocide.

There's two problems with false accusations of genocide:

1. They make it harder for truthful accusations of genocide to be believed (the "boy who cried wolf" effect).

2. The North American and West European governments have been trying to establish a precedent that military intervention into other countries' internal affairs can be justified in the name of stopping genocide.
In practice, I suspect, this would only apply to governments that were in conflict with their economic and strategic interests.


too bad tibet demilitarized, they always kicked everyones ass.

You mean...before the 12th century or so? After the development of feudalism in China, the nobles and abbots always opposed any strong centralized government or army. Their military weakness flowed from the nature of their system. Among the many reformers crushed by the Tibetan aristocracy in the first half of the 20th century, were those who advocated modernizing the army. See History of Modern Tibet 1913-1951 by Melvyn Goldstein.

(The "reincarnating" monarchy also favored feudalist decentralization...as the new Dalai Lama was not born until a few years after the old one died, it guaranteed years of weak central government under a regent. The nobles and abbots could do whatever they pleased with their fiefdoms.)

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by Enigma+Apr 1 2004, 09:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Apr 1 2004, 09:57 PM)
New [email protected] 1 2004, 08:56 PM
Here&#39;s another question:

Should people of European descend get their asses get back to Europe, out of North American and return the US, Canada and a whole bunch of other lands back to the natives?
Are you refering to the US backing of the Tibetan authorities... or is this just a random comment? [/b]
My point is:

of course it is easy to say: yes, yes let them seperate because of history etc etc...

when nothing of the sort is happening in your own country. Suppose some territory in your country decides to seperate and succeeds, and your country ends up losing 30% of it&#39;s territory, how would you feel?

[Loknar]

A wholly ridiculous number. Though even more ridiculous claims are sometimes made by Tibetan exiles and their admirers.



The number I include includes the famines and the atrocities. the numbers I’ve read have stared .6million to 1.2 million, even I think the .6 million is pushing it, however I am willing to bet that at the very least the death toll was 100,000. you have to remember, Mao is also known for purging, not just disastrous projects.




The CIA was heavily involved in supporting the Tibetan guerillas, and the document passed through their hands. So one has to consider the possibility that they forged or modified it. But let&#39;s suppose it to be genuine.




Oh yeah the cia was great in Tibet. Those guerillas would have been successful had we supported them much earlier in the occupation. The fact that there were resistance shows that the Chinese weren’t the most popular guys in the world.




according to Encarta Encyclopedia: "Experts believe that before Chinese Communists began controlling Tibet in the 1950s, the region’s population was declining due to illness, poor pre- and postnatal care, and a sizeable proportion of men becoming celibate monks. It is estimated, however, that the population has nearly doubled since that time, as a result of better health care, increased availability of food, and relative political stability."


Yes Tibet’s population has decreased dramatically from what it was 1,000 years ago. But %25 of the population starting at the end of the 14th century were becoming monks. This could explain, not all , but much of t he decline. when they entered their feudal period 1,000 years ago there were 10 million people, in 1959 there were around 4 to 5 million.



You mean...before the 12th century or so? After the development of feudalism in China, the nobles and abbots always opposed any strong centralized government or army. Their military weakness flowed from the nature of their system. Among the many reformers crushed by the Tibetan aristocracy in the first half of the 20th century, were those who advocated modernizing the army. See History of Modern Tibet 1913-1951 by Melvyn Goldstein.


Yes before they de-militarized. They kicked Chinas ass, Nepal, they occupied the silk road, and I even heard they fought with the caliph of Baghdad, but I don’t know if this is true. Their society was very violent in their pre-Buddhist era, military discipline was harsh, old age was not tolerated ect/

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Bah, they would end up being either Buddist fundamentalists or capitalists if they weren&#39;t occupied by China. Besides, they are fully dependant on China for just about everying, from military protection, to their economy. Without China, Tibet would be nothing more then a backward, feudalistic society. I do not support Tibetian independance unless they truely want to revive Maoism, and in that case, I would rather see pressure from the Tibetian regional govt. to try and pressure the Chinese national govt. to undo its capitalistic reforms rather then try and declare independance. On the larger scale though, it is a struggle between two capitalists, so in that case... :) <---- Me not giving a rat&#39;s ass.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 02:23 AM
Bah, they would end up being either Buddist fundamentalists or capitalists if they weren&#39;t occupied by China. Besides, they are fully dependant on China for just about everying, from military protection, to their economy. Without China, Tibet would be nothing more then a backward, feudalistic society. I do not support Tibetian independance unless they truely want to revive Maoism, and in that case, I would rather see pressure from the Tibetian regional govt. to try and pressure the Chinese national govt. to undo its capitalistic reforms rather then try and declare independance. On the larger scale though, it is a struggle between two capitalists, so in that case... :) <---- Me not giving a rat&#39;s ass.
I would have to agree.


The only reason I can think of to support these cuckoo Buddhists is the simple fact that if Tibet is finally "free"
then at least hippies will have to remove those silly stickers from their Pacer X&#39;s. We can also assume that "buddhism" will finally stop being "the cool thing to be" for every white rich cat in Hollywood, therefore making me vomit less frequently.


For all of you that want to be "buddhists", I suggest you immediately shave your head, toss on a robe, and move into a temple in the middle of nowhere where you can beg for you food, never have sex, and meditate all day on how you wish you could just SEE a pair of tits once in a while for the rest of your lives. I will then see you at the pub in three weeks time.


Unless of course you can convince someone you are a reincarnated Lama, then you get to eat lobster at the Waldorf Astoria in Manhatten where you and several Hollywood jack-asses get to nail Russian Hookers.

You will even get to toss out the first pitch at a Yankee game.

[Loknar]

This is why communism is despised by the ignorant, they like to force change rather than allow change.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 12:16 AM
This is why communism is despised by the ignorant, they like to force change rather than allow change.
Ah yes, the ever compassionate Loknar. :lol: :lol: :lol:
I&#39;m not trying to force change or anything, I simply DO NOT CARE&#33;

[Xuix]

Comrade RAF i respected you until now..... I am a follower of Buddhism, and you personally insulting, bah its not worth it, not every follower of buddhism becomes a monk, and the purpose of meditation is not to wish to see tits, its to seek a stage in the mind were everything is at a complete calmness, to seek enlightenment, hell Buddhism is more of a philosphy than a religion, yet you state something so ignorant....

[Loknar]

xuix, dont bother with raf, he&#39;s way out there.

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by New Tolerance+Apr 1 2004, 02:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (New Tolerance @ Apr 1 2004, 02:59 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 09:57 PM

New [email protected] 1 2004, 08:56 PM
Here&#39;s another question:

Should people of European descend get their asses get back to Europe, out of North American and return the US, Canada and a whole bunch of other lands back to the natives?
Are you refering to the US backing of the Tibetan authorities... or is this just a random comment?
My point is:

of course it is easy to say: yes, yes let them seperate because of history etc etc...

when nothing of the sort is happening in your own country. Suppose some territory in your country decides to seperate and succeeds, and your country ends up losing 30% of it&#39;s territory, how would you feel? [/b]
um actually this is happening in North America .... at least in Canada....not to the extent that non-Aboriginal peoples are being told to go home, however, land is becoming First Nations land .... for example in Canada the creation of Nunavut .... an INUIT territory ... and the Nisga&#39;a Nation who are pretty much the rulers of a portion of Northern BC. And now there are other Nations in BC that are relatively close to creating such treaties: Tsawwassen, Sliammon, Tsleil Watuth, Leidhli Tenneh and MaNaulth.

While these treaties don&#39;t give absolute control over hte land to the Nation, they are in some ways a state within Canada.... so don&#39;t say its not happening in North America (although I don&#39;t beleive anything along this lines is happening in the states).

And I believe Tibet should be free, as should many other oppressed peoples. The horror of Tibet is the killings and the horrific treatment of Tibetans.

[RedCeltic]

The U.S. government&#39;s official stance, even after the Chinese Communists swept to power in 1949, has always been to recognize both Taiwan and Tibet as part of China.

Now I&#39;m not a big fan of China&#39;s government, however realize that before China took Tibet it had been a feudal state. The people of Tibet were serfs with no land rights, no access to education, no roads, and spent their days in backbreaking labor while everything entirely in Tibet was owned lock stock and barrel by 5% of the population.. upper ranking Lammas.

Disrespect to the Lammas, or resisting their orders/demands was harshly punnished. While a serf who injured his/her master was subject to have their hands and feet chopped off, a master was only responsible for medical treatment for injuring a serf.

Now, I&#39;m not saying that the United States and other western nations that argue against the occupation of Tibet were in support of this feudalist state, but it wouldn&#39;t be much of a big deal to them if it wasn&#39;t a communist revolution that brought about the change.

Truth is, they wouldn&#39;t care if Tibet was occupide, or continued to go on as it had been for thousands of years. As long as it wasn&#39;t communist.

[RedCeltic]

they are fully dependant on China for just about everying, from military protection, to their economy. Without China, Tibet would be nothing more then a backward, feudalistic society.

As it was before the revolution....

I disagree with alot of things you say MindightMarauder but I&#39;m in agreement here.


The only reason I can think of to support these cuckoo Buddhists is the simple fact that if Tibet is finally "free"
then at least hippies will have to remove those silly stickers from their Pacer X&#39;s.

My roommate had put one of these stickers on our front door once. I told him that unless he supports feudalism that he should remove that sticker posthaste&#33; "free Tibet" people are typically liberals who don&#39;t know much about the actual history.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Nickademus+Apr 2 2004, 12:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickademus @ Apr 2 2004, 12:53 AM)
Originally posted by New [email protected] 1 2004, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 09:57 PM

New [email protected] 1 2004, 08:56 PM
Here&#39;s another question:

Should people of European descend get their asses get back to Europe, out of North American and return the US, Canada and a whole bunch of other lands back to the natives?
Are you refering to the US backing of the Tibetan authorities... or is this just a random comment?
My point is:

of course it is easy to say: yes, yes let them seperate because of history etc etc...

when nothing of the sort is happening in your own country. Suppose some territory in your country decides to seperate and succeeds, and your country ends up losing 30% of it&#39;s territory, how would you feel?
um actually this is happening in North America .... at least in Canada....not to the extent that non-Aboriginal peoples are being told to go home, however, land is becoming First Nations land .... for example in Canada the creation of Nunavut .... an INUIT territory ... and the Nisga&#39;a Nation who are pretty much the rulers of a portion of Northern BC. And now there are other Nations in BC that are relatively close to creating such treaties: Tsawwassen, Sliammon, Tsleil Watuth, Leidhli Tenneh and MaNaulth.

While these treaties don&#39;t give absolute control over hte land to the Nation, they are in some ways a state within Canada.... so don&#39;t say its not happening in North America (although I don&#39;t beleive anything along this lines is happening in the states).

And I believe Tibet should be free, as should many other oppressed peoples. The horror of Tibet is the killings and the horrific treatment of Tibetans.[/b]
The comparison between Tibetans and American Indians is, for some reason, common on both sides of debates about Tibet. IMO it is a bad comparison in all respects.

Tibet was feudal. North American Indian societies could mostly be described as primitive communist. Before the European settlers landed, there was not one acre of land from sea to shining sea that was private property.

This basically explains the irreconcilable nature of the conflict between the American Indians and rising American capitalism. These free people would not submit to slavery or any other form of exploitation, so they had to be wiped out.

Tibet&#39;s nomads were herders, not hunters and gatherers. There were considerable class divisions among them, and they owed taxes and feudal duties to monasteries, lords, and government in exchange for the use of pasture land. Not much like the Oglala or Cheyenne.

Nothing the Chinese government has done in Tibet is anywhere near as bad as the extermination of Native Americans by the U.S. and by European colonialism. As I showed earlier, the charges of genocide against China are false. In contrast, Native Americans were exterminated under the slogan, "the only good Indian is a dead Indian."

The land in Tibet has been in the possession of the Tibetan peasants since
1959; it cannot be bought up or foreclosed on. Settlers from elsewhere in the PRC mostly live in the cities. In contrast, American Indians&#39; communally owned lands became the property of white settlers, railroad and mining companies, or the US government. Efforts to get back a small part of these lands are being resisted today. American Indians remain the poorest group in the US today.

The more enlightened and liberal policy towards Native Americans was &#39;assimilationism&#39; - which advocated cultural rather than physical genocide, separating the Indians from their language, culture, religion, and especially convincing them to divide their lands into privately owned plots (which had the effect of letting land speculators buy them up.) The assimilationists&#39; methods included kidnapping Indian children into boarding schools where Indian languages were strictly forbidden.

In contrast, China supports Tibetan-language schools and literature. The charge of &#39;cultural genocide&#39; against China is also false - as this article on the Human Rights Watch website explains. (http://www.hrw.org/pubweb/sperlingcont.html)


Suppose some territory in your country decides to seperate and succeeds, and your country ends up losing 30% of it&#39;s territory, how would you feel?

As a communist and an internationalist, I don&#39;t necessarily have a problem with that - why would I? I support the right of oppressed peoples to self-determination from the country where I live, the U.S. (Not "my country", as I don&#39;t own it.) I support independence for Puerto Rico, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other U.S. colonies. If any oppressed people within the U.S. proper wants to leave, I&#39;m certainly not going to support my exploiters&#39; forcibly keeping them in. My goal is to unite working people of different nationalities against the bosses. It&#39;s pretty hard to get that if you&#39;re uniting with the bosses against an oppressed nationality demanding independence.

A lot of that would apply if I lived in the PRC, too. I just don&#39;t like the "free Tibet" business in the West as it&#39;s basically an excuse to beat up on China, and a lot of it&#39;s false, too.

[Osman Ghazi]

Also, it isn&#39;t like they made them a province of China proper, they have the Tibet autonomous region, which is abou the same status as Nunavut in Canada i.e. it is ruled by Tibetans, for Tibetans, to the limited extent that any region of China has any power next to the central gov, of course.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 04:33 AM
Comrade RAF i respected you until now..... I am a follower of Buddhism, and you personally insulting, bah its not worth it, not every follower of buddhism becomes a monk, and the purpose of meditation is not to wish to see tits, its to seek a stage in the mind were everything is at a complete calmness, to seek enlightenment, hell Buddhism is more of a philosphy than a religion, yet you state something so ignorant....
Call it whatver you want mate, don&#39;t forget, Brad Pitt and the Dalai Lama are due in the Bronx for the season opener soon.

[New Tolerance]

As a communist and an internationalist, I don&#39;t necessarily have a problem with that - why would I? I support the right of oppressed peoples to self-determination from the country where I live, the U.S. (Not "my country", as I don&#39;t own it.) I support independence for Puerto Rico, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other U.S. colonies. If any oppressed people within the U.S. proper wants to leave, I&#39;m certainly not going to support my exploiters&#39; forcibly keeping them in. My goal is to unite working people of different nationalities against the bosses. It&#39;s pretty hard to get that if you&#39;re uniting with the bosses against an oppressed nationality demanding independence.

A lot of that would apply if I lived in the PRC, too. I just don&#39;t like the "free Tibet" business in the West as it&#39;s basically an excuse to beat up on China, and a lot of it&#39;s false, too.

I would feel the same way, if all the Tibetans thought about things this way. But I don&#39;t think they do, and there is a fear that if they do seperate they might end up Nepal.


um actually this is happening in North America .... at least in Canada....not to the extent that non-Aboriginal peoples are being told to go home, however, land is becoming First Nations land .... for example in Canada the creation of Nunavut .... an INUIT territory ... and the Nisga&#39;a Nation who are pretty much the rulers of a portion of Northern BC. And now there are other Nations in BC that are relatively close to creating such treaties: Tsawwassen, Sliammon, Tsleil Watuth, Leidhli Tenneh and MaNaulth.

While these treaties don&#39;t give absolute control over hte land to the Nation, they are in some ways a state within Canada.... so don&#39;t say its not happening in North America (although I don&#39;t beleive anything along this lines is happening in the states).

And I believe Tibet should be free, as should many other oppressed peoples. The horror of Tibet is the killings and the horrific treatment of Tibetans.

To most Chinese the Nunavut kind of arrangement would be most acceptable. In fact, that&#39;s how lots of Chinese looks at the situation. They don&#39;t see themselves as "master race" or anything, they don&#39;t see Tibet as a province, they look at it as if were a part of a union. (Even though this is not how things are working out right now)

The main worry right now should be the human rights records there, but I hear from alot of seperatists saying that the Chinese don&#39;t belong there because they are of a different ethnic origin (and the bad human rights record seems to be the secondary reason).

Hey, this is pretty racist.

This also might mean that even if the Chinese did get out and a new regime with equally bad human rights records is installed, the seperatists might actually support it. In which case, they are fighting for nothing more than a line on a map.

If it&#39;s really the human rights record they care about they should say: "Authoritarian Communists get out of our land" instead of: "Chinese get out of our land".

[Severian]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 2 2004, 03:05 PM
If it&#39;s really the human rights record they care about they should say: "Authoritarian Communists get out of our land" instead of: "Chinese get out of our land".
They do...but not because of human rights, because of the social system.

The Tibetan elite, historically, was not so strongly opposed to being conquered...by anyone other than the PRC.