Tibet Occupation

[eQuaLiTy]

In my opinion, I believe that China is exploiting Tibet and draining it of it's natural resources and the people are being harshley treated.

[seen_che]

Yes that is true...tibetens dont like what China did and they have right to do that.
You shold wach Kundun(could alsou be gundun)

[Rage Against the Right]

At my school I organized a faction of the Students for a Free Tibet Association. China's initil entry and occupation of Tibet was a horrible atrocity. The Chinese government forced the Tibetan government to sign annexation papers under force, threathening to kill thousands of innocents if the papers we rejected. They have labelled the Dalai Lama as an international terrorist (How absurd is that? Tink about it.), completley destroyed Tibet's natural resources, and almost erased the rich history of the native peoples. It pisses me off more than anything else has in the last 10 years that the entire world lets this all slide by basically unnoticed because of China's power over world trade and it's internation work force. Even the U.N. discussed the topic only a few times and hardly even reprimanded China for it's internation crimes. Fuck China, those bastards.

[bolshevik butcher]

rage against the right, i agree it's disgusting the minute China becomes important to the western econemy they just forget about tibet and numerous other human rights abuses.

[seen_che]

damit yeah ...!......We shold join :P make a diffrence

[Cal]

Suggested reading on Tibet

Dragon in the Land of the Snows- Tsering Shakya
ISBN- 0-7126-6533-1

Pre China Tibet was a feudal regime built upon a religion, (although the current Dalai Lama has made it clear that feudal is not the way to go). The Dalai Lama is also very much tied in with the West now in order to raise valuable popularity for the Tibetan cause.

Great Book though and feeds more information than is available through the largely pro-Tibet media.

[demonedge]

China was wrong in many respects, make that ALL respects, for invading and annexing Tibet. Unfortunatley the buddhist monks living there have been persecuted, which is too bad because buddhism is a beautiful religion. Maybe with China's capitalization they'll release Tibet from it's . Until then social and politcal pressure is the only thing we can do short of invading China.

[Hiero]

Tibet is better off under Chinese bourgieos exploitation then under Fuedal lord exploitation. Having an industrail country with hospitals is better then living in a feudal country and having your back broken working in feilds that are owned by the Buddhist monks.


Unfortunatley the buddhist monks living there have been persecuted, which is too bad because buddhism is a beautiful religion.

Whats so beautifal about slavery, aristricracy and theocracy.

http://www.nickyee.com/ponder/tibet.html

[eQuaLiTy]

Beliefs should not be classified as religion.

Fuck china.

[Rage Against the Right]

The feudal system of old Tibet was in need of some revamping. Buddhism is beautiful in form if not always in practice. China's suppression of Tibet culture may have brought them a few luxuries like hospitals, but for most of the occupations time only true "Chinese" were even allowed in the hospitals! How does a few hospitals compensate the murders of hundreds of thousands of innocent farmer and monks? Explotation is in the eye of the beholder. Nobody was getting richer or poorer, so what was the problem? People were content. You know what else? Fuck China.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 11 2005, 12:42 PM
rage against the right, i agree it's disgusting the minute China becomes important to the western econemy they just forget about tibet and numerous other human rights abuses.
The "West" hasn't forgotten. See the recent Tibet Freedom Act, for example. Tibet and other "human rights" propaganda are useful tools in trade disputes with China.

The period when the U.S. really did forget about these anti-China tools was in the late 70s and early 80s, when China was a de facto ally against the USSR and Vietnam.

Basically, you're criticizing U.S. policy from the right here: they're being insufficiently hostile to "Red China".

[chaz171]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 08:36 AM
Tibet is better off under Chinese bourgieos exploitation then under Fuedal lord exploitation.

I remember once being told that a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

The same as in our election system, the same that is in asia.

how can we laurelise an improvement when it still has repressive qualities. It would be like saying that we would be better of when the democrats are in office because it is coloser to my beliefs....

it's still not good enough..

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 11 2005, 06:42 PM
rage against the right, i agree it's disgusting the minute China becomes important to the western econemy they just forget about tibet and numerous other human rights abuses.
What are they supposed to do? Invade?
Be realistic.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Rage Against the [email protected] 13 2005, 10:56 AM
The feudal system of old Tibet was in need of some revamping.
Hmmm....feudalism just needed to be reformed, not overthrown?


China's suppression of Tibet culture may have brought them a few luxuries like hospitals,

So medical care is a luxury? I'm guessing you come from a Western country, possibly from a priveleged family, and never badly needed medical care and not been able to get it.

It's a lot easier to romanticize feudal squalor if you've never actually experienced it.

Modern medicine is, in fact, often a necessity for staying alive; Tibetan children died at a staggering rate prior to the extension of the Chinese Revolution into Tibet.

Before the "Chinese invasion", no modern medical care existed for the vast majority of the Tibetan population. Tibetan herbal medicine was sometimes effective but was not widespread. The only kind of medical care available to most Tibetans was charms, blessings, spells, prayers, holy relics....

Oh yeah, the claim that China is suppressing Tibetan culture is also false. A lot more people can read and write in Tibetan now than before 1959. Here's a Human Rights Watch page which explains why accusations of "cultural genocide" are false. (http://www.hrw.org/pubweb/sperlingcont.html)


but for most of the occupations time only true "Chinese" were even allowed in the hospitals!

Where do you get this BS? In reality, and according to Encarta Encyclopedia for example:

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.


How does a few hospitals compensate the murders of hundreds of thousands of innocent farmer and monks?

OK, I know where you get this piece of BS; from the Tibetan government in exile. It's false however. Since it's a recycled falsehood, I'll recycle a response:


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 Tibetan 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 some 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." But the Dalai Lama's realm - today's Tibet Autonomous Region - was insulated from these policies and their effects.

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

Or hundreds of thousands, or whatever the number the Dalai Lama is pulling out of thin air this week.


Explotation is in the eye of the beholder.

In Tibet, exploitation was in the whip-scars on the backs of the serfs.


Nobody was getting richer or poorer,

What the fuck does this mean? Do you think that everyone in Tibet was remotely equal? That nobles and abbots ate the same as peasants? 'Cause they sure didn't.


so what was the problem? People were content

Says you, relying on reports from the former serfowners. Some people once claimed that slaves in the U.S. were content. If the serfs were so happy to support the religious hierarchy, why did their labor and crops have to be forcibly extracted from them as feudal duties? Why couldn't the monks rely on voluntary contributions?

Speaking of which, slavery was also legal in "free" Tibet, and foreign visitors reported seeing slave auctions. Serfdom rather than chattel slavery was the most common form of labor, however.


You know what else? Fuck China.

And with that lovely bit of chauvinism, let me suggest you should change your username to "Rage for the Right."

[Rage Against the Right]

Okay, maybe I did exagerate calling hospitals just a luxury. That's another thing they could have used revamping. But if their culture could survive for thousands of years without it, they didn't need it for their immeadiate survival. Criticizing China for Tibet's occupation is not an attack from the right at all. What China practices is hardly considered to be "red". In the last two decades China has gone from an authoritarian system to a sort of capitalism.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Rage Against the [email protected] 14 2005, 06:33 AM


Criticizing China for Tibet's occupation is not an attack from the right at all.

Thats what it was in the 1959-60 rebellion when the CIA backed th Tibeten monks uprising.


But if their culture could survive for thousands of years without it, they didn't need it for their immeadiate survival.

The idea is improvement. Thats like the arguement for capitalism, "we are going good now why would we change".


In the last two decades China has gone from an authoritarian system to a sort of capitalism.

Thats still better then Feudalism. If you dont know it goes Slavery-Feudalism-Capitalism and Tibet was a mix of Slavery and Feudalism.

[PRC-UTE]

I disagree with China's continued occupation. However the initial invasion was actually extremely beneficial to the Tibetan people.

The Chinese invasion brought much more agricultural production, modern medicine, ended a particularly despotic fuedelism (the Dali Lama, though only a boy, owned 2,000 slaves) and helped Tibet to develop.

Most Tibetans don't want it the way it was before the Chinese came. Even the Dali Lama doesn't. The Tibetan independence movement is a completely CIA-fabricated myth, and the primary source for the 'evils' of the Chinese invasion are from a Nazi.

[Rage Against the Right]

I disagree with China's continued occupation. However the initial invasion was actually extremely beneficial to the Tibetan people.

Sorry I guess that's what I meant to say Severian. I didn't articulate myself very well.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Dark Exodus+Jan 13 2005, 05:19 PM--> (Dark Exodus @ Jan 13 2005, 05:19 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 11 2005, 06:42 PM
rage against the right, i agree it's disgusting the minute China becomes important to the western econemy they just forget about tibet and numerous other human rights abuses.
What are they supposed to do? Invade?
Be realistic. [/b]
how about not encouraging companies to fund the chinese economy?

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 12:07 AM
I disagree with China's continued occupation. However the initial invasion was actually extremely beneficial to the Tibetan people.

The Chinese invasion brought much more agricultural production, modern medicine, ended a particularly despotic fuedelism (the Dali Lama, though only a boy, owned 2,000 slaves) and helped Tibet to develop.

Most Tibetans don't want it the way it was before the Chinese came. Even the Dali Lama doesn't. The Tibetan independence movement is a completely CIA-fabricated myth, and the primary source for the 'evils' of the Chinese invasion are from a Nazi.
Wouldn't it have been more benificial for China to fund a group from within tibet rather than rolling thousands of men and tanks over the border?

Anyway China can talk about oppression and despotism.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Rage Against the [email protected] 13 2005, 01:33 PM
Okay, maybe I did exagerate calling hospitals just a luxury. That's another thing they could have used revamping. But if their culture could survive for thousands of years without it, they didn't need it for their immeadiate survival.
Uh, yeah, hospitals are definitely not necessary for the survival of feudalism. Rather the opposite, if anything.

They are, however, often necessary for the survival of individual human beings.

It's all in what you care about, I guess.


Criticizing China for Tibet's occupation is not an attack from the right at all. What China practices is hardly considered to be "red". In the last two decades China has gone from an authoritarian system to a sort of capitalism.

Ah. So when you said you were disgusted by "the world's" silence, it's because you hoped the UN, presumably headed as always by Washington, would reverse the trend towards capitalism? Yeah, right. In reality, the "human rights" propaganda of the US and EU is a weapon to press Beijing to head even further down the road of opening China to Western capital.

Even if China was a totally capitalist country - a conclusion that's not supported by a look at the Chinese economy as a whole - advocating that the imperialist countries take a more aggressive policy towards Third World countries is still a right-leaning position.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Rage Against the [email protected] 14 2005, 10:41 PM

I disagree with China's continued occupation. However the initial invasion was actually extremely beneficial to the Tibetan people.

Sorry I guess that's what I meant to say Severian. I didn't articulate myself very well.
Ah. So what you "meant to say" was the opposite of what you qute explicitly did say? Please, be honest enough not to deny what's there in black and white....changing your position can be good but not trying to erase the past.

As for whether Tibet should continue to be part of the PRC, as McGlinchey posed the question...I think that's for Tibetans to decide. Those living in Tibet. There are continuing economic advantages to Tibet, so one can make a stong case that it's better that they stay. But certainly it should be their decision and it's an error to prevent a people's independence by force.

There's reason to think there's dissatisfaction in Tibet...but it's far from the most restless part of the PRC. Heck, there's been more unrest in a lot of the Han Chinese areas.

So you gotta wonder why there's such a focus on Tibet...I think a lot of Westerners like to romanticize its past isolation and backwardness. The whole "Shangri-La" myth y'know. Kinda like the "noble savage" myth only without actual "savages", i.e. primitive communism, but with a medieval civilization instead....

Clenched Fist wrote: " how about not encouraging companies to fund the chinese economy?"

Economic warfare is no different in principle than other kinds of warfare, and what's more it often leads to actual shooting war.

There is no worse error than to look to Washington and other big-business governments in the hope they'll bring freedom and human rights to the peoples of the world. By whatever means.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 15 2005, 04:54 AM
Wouldn't it have been more benificial for China to fund a group from within tibet rather than rolling thousands of men and tanks over the border?
Yes, a less bureacratized government would likely have chosen different means. Though the Chinese army might still have played some role in a more revolutionary strategy.

But before you start recommending tactics, shouldn't you decide which side you're on? A moment ago you were recommending tactics to the imperialist sponsors of the Tibetan theocracy: " how about not encouraging companies to fund the chinese economy?"

Now you're recommending tactics on how to overthrow the Tibetan theocracy. Which one is it? Whose goals do you share?

[jacobthehun]

isnt it good that Tibet has better hospitals and better agriculture?

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

I can't believe I been reading all this and no mention of the six year old kid who was kidnapped by the chinese government. He was the incarnation of the 10th panchan lama (thats the belief in tibetan buddism anyway). Those of you who are aware of this know he was taken in 1995 and nothing has been done to resolve this mysterious occurence. Why would an athiest government want with a Panchan Lama or any lama? He will be 15 this April and has no idea of what or who he is, he's probably been brainwashed not told who he is.
This only reinforces my faith that we are in the matrix and that higher officials are covering something up. I think Tibetan buddism will die along with the Dalai Lama unless something or someone does something about it. It'll be sad to see it go, i see tibet as the spiritual capital of the world and the Dalai Lama as our number one leader of peace next to Nelson Mandela who I see as number 2.
Anyway check this website out http://www.tibet.ca/panchenlama/ it's pretty freaky.

[Severian]

The Chinese government has its own supposed Panchen Lama incarnation, which hardly fits with the idea that they're trying to wipe out Buddhism. The whole business is, of course, politically repressive and contrary to the separation of church and state.

Is it brainwashing to NOT tell a kid he's a reincarnated lama, or is it brainwashing to tell him he is?

And why can't you believe it hasn't been mentioned? Objectively, why is this kid more important than the 6 billion other people on planet earth or the millions in Tibet who haven't been mentioned.

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

Yes I heard that the chinese government have there own Panchen Lama incarnation but I thought that they were athiest? Who gave them the right to intervene and say you can't have your own Panchen Lama? The Dalai Lama chose the Panchen Lama himself knowing that he was the real incarnation and I think it's rather insulting to the faiths tradition that the government chose there own Panchen Lama. Who is this random child they picked out? Why kidnap the real bona fide Panchen Lama and replace him with an atypical Lama? It doesn't make any sense!
If you believe in Buddism then it's not brainwashing to think that what the Dalai Lama says is true. It comes down to the point of how much faith you have in the religion and the people of Tibetan Buddism. Don't you think they have a right to believe what they want? Does it affect anybody?
Surely even if the Dalai Lama was wrong and he falsely chose this boy to be the incarnation of the previous Panchen Lama what harm would it cause? Hmmm false identity? Well why take the boy away from Tibet altogether and deny him his chance to be an important part of the faith. After all he may have rejected the offer as he got older but I'm pretty sure he wouldnt have but maybe.

Now can you see why I can't believe it hasnt been mentioned? Do you think that when the Dalai Lama dies the Chinese are going to replace him with there very own Dalai Lama?

Yes and there are others who havent been mentioned, thousands!. I'm not saying there not as important as the Panchen Lama but he seems to be a very prominent part to Buddism. Dont you think the Chinese are slowly trying to take over the religion altogether?

[Wurkwurk]

I myself am a Tibetan Buddhist, and I totally completely think the Chinese Invasion (note: not an 'extention' of a revolution) was unjust and wrong. Tens of thousands of innocents where massacred, thousand-year-old shrines destroyed, and the population virtually enslaved.

The situation has hardly gotten any better. Tibetans where never given government services awarded to Chinese immigrants, they where kept low on the education scale by the government to deny them any chance of a higher education, and to this day imprison thousands for even whispering about Independence.

Its a shame really that many of you do not see it for what it really is: a brutal imperialist occupation. Things in Tibet never got better after the invasion, just worse. Even now the peaceful and ancient Tibetan culture is being supplanted by the Chinese, who wrongfully invaded over false pretences.

FREE TIBET!

Fuck China!

[Hiero]

I myself am a Tibetan Buddhist

I doubt you are.


population virtually enslaved.

How excactly was the population enslaved. The Dalai Lama and other Lamas where the ones who had slaves.


The situation has hardly gotten any better.

Except all the improvements in education, medical, industrial and argiculture which means it got better.

"Whatever wrongs and new oppressions introduced by the Chinese in Tibet, after 1959 they did abolish slavery and the serfdom system of unpaid labor, and put an end to floggings, mutilations, and amputations as a form of criminal punishment. They eliminated the many crushing taxes, started work projects, and greatly reduced unemployment and beggary. They established secular education, thereby breaking the educational monopoly of the monasteries. And they constructed running water and electrical systems in Lhasa" - Curtain of Ignorance, 248 and passim; and Grunfeld, The Making of Modern Tibet, passim


Even now the peaceful and ancient Tibetan culture

How can any leftist or socialist ever call a feudal theocracy that had a serf lord economy be called peacefull.

Did any of you pro Tibet people read the links we gave.

[Hiero]

Here is another site with realiable sources that contradict your peaceful Tibet.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

[peagreenlad]

I'm sorry, are people saying that invading and occupying another country is acceptable if the invaders feel they can improve the conditions of the invadee?

Countries are invariably invaded for power and control, are they not - what makes this any different?

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

This is all wrong, so your saying that that the Dalai Lama had slaves? Whatever happened to him emphasizing the physical and spiritual discapline as a means of liberation from the physical world. We're are not in 1959 anymore, why bring up that? How can you even think that? The Dalai Lama isn't an oppressor! Whats the matter with you people! I thought I understood that it was wrong for the Chinese to take Tibet and that the Tibetans were very kindred people. All the Tibetans want is there autonomy, there not claiming for independance they want there country back right? Lets support these people. Peace

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Severian+Jan 15 2005, 11:22 PM--> (Severian @ Jan 15 2005, 11:22 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 15 2005, 04:54 AM
Wouldn't it have been more benificial for China to fund a group from within tibet rather than rolling thousands of men and tanks over the border?
Yes, a less bureacratized government would likely have chosen different means. Though the Chinese army might still have played some role in a more revolutionary strategy.

But before you start recommending tactics, shouldn't you decide which side you're on? A moment ago you were recommending tactics to the imperialist sponsors of the Tibetan theocracy: " how about not encouraging companies to fund the chinese economy?"

Now you're recommending tactics on how to overthrow the Tibetan theocracy. Which one is it? Whose goals do you share? [/b]
Hey, in that post I never said I supported the inavasion. Surely if the Tibetans hated it so much they would have done something about it themselves. Anyway it's ironic for China to invade a country in the name of liberty and freedom.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 05:30 PM
The Dalai Lama chose the Panchen Lama himself knowing that he was the real incarnation and I think it's rather insulting to the faiths tradition that the government chose there own Panchen Lama.
Actually, it's very much in the tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. Various Mongol and Manchu rulers have insisted on a primary role in picking reincarnate lamas, even establishing the procedures for picking them, and the PRC is attempting to place itself in that tradition - they don't care who the supposed reincarnation is, of course, but they want to establish the prerogative of approving it - part of making the religious hierarchy recognize PRC sovereignty over Tibet.

They negotiated a deal with the DL where he'd pick a supposed reincarnation and the PRC would announce it. The DL chose to make the announcement himself - probably because going through with the deal would have meant recognizing PRC sovereignty in the tradition of the Mongol and Manchu. Note that the title "Dalai Lama" itself is Mongolian, and it was a Mongol khan who first gave political authority to that line of supposed reincarnate lamas. The Tibetan elite has never been nationalist, and became nationalist against China only when China had a revolution and became a threat to their class domination.

The PRC's conduct is contrary to the traditions of communism, of course, and as I already said politically repressive and contrary to church-state separation. But clearly you're not criticizing their conduct from a communist standpoint but rather as the supporter of an exiled serfowning theocrat.


. It comes down to the point of how much faith you have in the religion and the people of Tibetan Buddism.

Why, yes. For my part, I have no faith in Buddhism and don't believe there is a "real" Panchen Lama, so why should I specially care?

Perhaps you have more faith in Tibetan Buddhim than I do. Possibly you're a Western convert? Let me point out, then, that the Dalai Lama says people should stick to their traditional religions and not convert. (http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2001/1/26_2.html)

Incidentally, did you know Stephen Seagal has been named a reincarnated lama? So much for the holy selection process, apparently the sacred almighty dollar has a certain role in it.....


Do you think that when the Dalai Lama dies the Chinese are going to replace him with there very own Dalai Lama?

Oh, you betcha. And after the exiles reneged on the Panchen Lama selection deal, the PRC's unlikely to let 'em roam around Tibet searching for a DL "incarnation." They'll have to pick one from the children of Tibetan exiles. Or maybe one of Steven Seagal's children? Anyway, there'll be two competing DLs, espousing different political lines.

How is this "the end of Tibetan Buddhism"...heck, even if there was only one, espousing the PRC's politics, how would that be the end of Tibetan Buddhism?


Dont you think the Chinese are slowly trying to take over the religion altogether?

Which one is it, take it over or end it?

Tibetan Buddhism wouldn't be Buddhism without the reactionary poltics of a buch of exiled serfowners who look to U.S. imperialism for support?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 08:03 AM
This is all wrong, so your saying that that the Dalai Lama had slaves? Whatever happened to him emphasizing the physical and spiritual discapline as a means of liberation from the physical world.
I don't know, why don't you ask him? Don't expect a straight answer though. Mostly he just spouts platitudes that have nothing to do with his actions. Actions do speak louder than words y'know.

McGlinchey's statement that "the Dalai Lama owned 2,000 slaves" may be imprecise though. Probably that should be serfs on his estates (inherited from supposed past incarnations, as well as state-owned.). The number of bought-and-sold slaves would be smaller. It's a subtle but important distinction -especially subtle when you get into landless serfs like a lot of the servants....

The existence of chattel slavery in feudal Tibet is admitted even by supporters of the exiled theocracy. See the talk.politics.tibet FAQ: (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/tibet-faq/), paragraph B3, for example. They make a pretty odd argument in defense of it there, since the Chinese revolution liquidated slavery throughout China, not only in Tibet.

I guess I haven't linked this before in this thread, here's an article I wrote about Tibet. (http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/3.1_freetibet.html) Everything's documented with sources, most of them pro-theocracy sources.

As for the "this is not 1959" argument, fine. Refuse to learn anything from history. DOwn the Orwellian memory hole. Just be consistent. Forget that there was a Chinese invasion or a de facto independent Tibet, while you're at it.

[Maksym]

I have not read these series of articles, sorry if posted before, but they may be useful. It is amazing how most of the members here argue about internationalism but when the Chinese practice this they cry for feudal monks.

http://rwor.org/a/firstvol/tibet/tib-in.htm

[Severian]

Originally posted by Clenched Fist+Jan 17 2005, 11:36 AM--> (Clenched Fist @ Jan 17 2005, 11:36 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:22 PM

Clenched [email protected] 15 2005, 04:54 AM
Wouldn't it have been more benificial for China to fund a group from within tibet rather than rolling thousands of men and tanks over the border?
Yes, a less bureacratized government would likely have chosen different means. Though the Chinese army might still have played some role in a more revolutionary strategy.

But before you start recommending tactics, shouldn't you decide which side you're on? A moment ago you were recommending tactics to the imperialist sponsors of the Tibetan theocracy: " how about not encouraging companies to fund the chinese economy?"

Now you're recommending tactics on how to overthrow the Tibetan theocracy. Which one is it? Whose goals do you share?
Hey, in that post I never said I supported the inavasion. Surely if the Tibetans hated it so much they would have done something about it themselves. Anyway it's ironic for China to invade a country in the name of liberty and freedom. [/b]
Thanks for the clarification.

If you're on the side of the theocracy and its Western backers, you don't get to recommend tactics for how to overthrow that theocracy. Sorry.

[Kaan]

Before the Chinese Revolution, no nation in the world recognized Tibet as an independant nation, it was a part of China. It wasn't until after the revolution that the western bourgeoisie began sympathizing with feudal slave owners and their cute religion. I wouldn't oppose an independant socialist Tibet, but we all know thats not what the "Free Tibet" groups are after, Most of these groups are theocrats/western liberals so its important to realize WHO's trying to free Tibet. Plus, the only suppression of "Buddhism" that Mao took part in was suppression of feudalism, which I'm sure benefitted from such a strong superstition.

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

Wow, so the PRC want to run Tibetan Buddism, I think I'm getting a clearer picture now even through all you do is spit dry facts out you have answered my questions to a certain extent but in a way it raises more questions.
I still dont understand about the Tibetan Slaves I'll have to do my research there, I really do find it suspicious that the Dalai Lama had slaves, it's so ironic to the buddist beliefs don't you think?
What I like about buddism is the 'Zen' factor and how it seems to have no limits, I'm not a buddist convert just an open minded searcher looking for answers.
I still believe that the DL represents a beautiful faith and the reason why he advised Westerners or people of other religions not to convert was for a very good reason; "To change it is not proper, it's much safer to follow one's own religion." I can understand this as Buddism involves meditation which seeks a stillness of mind.
When you meditate you release a kundalini energy which if released prematurely can draw grave damage to the soul and can take years to heal. You can look in to this more on this link I have supplied: http://www.geocities.com/leonie_faye/Kundalini2.html
it tends to look at the energy in Hindu terms rather than Buddist but it's basically the exact same thing, it's just words that seem to becloud it.

Anyway check it out

peace

[Hiero]

I still dont understand about the Tibetan Slaves I'll have to do my research there, I really do find it suspicious that the Dalai Lama had slaves, it's so ironic to the buddist beliefs don't you think?


Tibet was in feudalism, like Europe in Feudalism some christains believe its ironic what happen then to. You will just have to accept it.


I'm not a buddist convert just an open minded searcher looking for answers.

Then take an open mind about tibet and forgot all the lies about some paradise in Tibet.

Last year too supported Tibet independance, if you look back on this forum you will find post where i support Tibet and call Mao a monster.

I too looked into Buddhism as i was cynical about the world, how the market worked, mass poverty in the world, wars etc and was an atheist. To try and understand i was study buddhism just through the net and i seen its explanation as reasonable answer to the worlds probelms, that we create these problems due to our own wanting.

Later on i started learning Marxism and learning about class warfare, materialism etc. It was a scientific look at things which change my views about the world. Now with a logical look at the world and society development i was able to see alot of inconsistencies in buddhism. Later in learning a bit about Mao and what his army had done to strengthen the revolution i no longer saw Tibet an exception to expliotation and supported the revolution in Tibet.

I suspect that you too will find no answers in Buddhism. If you learn Marxism you will find a scientific thought on how the world works.

[amusing foibles]

A totalitarian, oppressive, imperialistic regime invades a totalitarian, oppressive, imperialistic* regime. Can I vote "fuck everybody?"

Romanticizing a poorly-understood, highly superstitious and brutal culture does nothing to help the actual people of actual Tibet. As much as us rich westerners like the idea of "romantic tradition" for others, who here would actually want to live in feudal Tibet? And yeah, undoubtedly, things are also comparatively not so hot under China, just like things are not so hot for everyone under China. So why the exceptional focus on Tibet? Why not champion the cause of all "ethnic minorities" under China's rule? Or how about everyone living under dictatorship?

Eastern religion is no different or better than Western religion (and yes, I would call Tibetian Buddhism a religion, given the emphasis on ceremony and dietys), and Eastern feudalism is no better than Western feudalism, even if it does take place shrouded in mists high in the Himalaya.

Also: Hi! I'm new!


------------
* although it hasn't been mentioned yet I think, Tibet itself has/had a fine history of invading and attacking autonomous regions, such as Bhutan.

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

Hey Militant I know your Mr materialist and a man of complete rational thought and you seem to hate Buddism, but what's your real beef with the religion? Ok I appreciate the fact that you looked in to it and found no answers but what was you expecting? Did you ever try meditation? Why are you so interested in Tibet? I'm not understanding your motivations in this forum, how come you give up on buddism as a religion? Do you not agree with the idea that what this world needs is enlightenment and for everyone to understand each other? Whats your solution to world peace then? Is it Communism? Anarchism? or the underlying thought, Marxism? or a combination of all?
How can your scientific approach help the world today? It's all very interesting you know, the big bang, the cooling planets, the primordial ooze, the lightening, the single-celled organisms clumping together into jelly fishes, lung fishes crawling out of the ocean turning into reptiles then into mammals, then monkeys into men.
dont you think science has done enough to the world already. What about a more spiritual look at life?

Sorry about all the questions but I'm so intrigued to find out exactly where your coming from here. I dont find your critisizing very stimulating, why dont you take on a more positive look on Tibet? I think positive skepticism would be more prolific in finding a solution to solving the worlds problems including Tibet. Your good at picking holes in everyones elses ideas Mr Militant but you dont seem to have any ideas yourself, why is that?

[Rage Against the Right]

I said it before on here, Buddhism is beautiful in form, not always in practice.

[peagreenlad]

The same can be said of everything, including Marxism.

[martingale]

Here's an article that traces the history of the China-Tibet relationship and places it in the context of US imperialism's designs:


http://www.workers.org/ww/tibet1204.html

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Severian+Jan 17 2005, 06:31 PM--> (Severian @ Jan 17 2005, 06:31 PM)
Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 17 2005, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:22 PM

Clenched [email protected] 15 2005, 04:54 AM
Wouldn't it have been more benificial for China to fund a group from within tibet rather than rolling thousands of men and tanks over the border?
Yes, a less bureacratized government would likely have chosen different means. Though the Chinese army might still have played some role in a more revolutionary strategy.

But before you start recommending tactics, shouldn't you decide which side you're on? A moment ago you were recommending tactics to the imperialist sponsors of the Tibetan theocracy: " how about not encouraging companies to fund the chinese economy?"

Now you're recommending tactics on how to overthrow the Tibetan theocracy. Which one is it? Whose goals do you share?
Hey, in that post I never said I supported the inavasion. Surely if the Tibetans hated it so much they would have done something about it themselves. Anyway it's ironic for China to invade a country in the name of liberty and freedom.
Thanks for the clarification.

If you're on the side of the theocracy and its Western backers, you don't get to recommend tactics for how to overthrow that theocracy. Sorry. [/b]
So I suppose i'm a capitlaisy, or not suporting an imperiali$t government. You could use all the arguments you've put forward for the British empire and many people did. The same arguments have also been used to justify the wa in Iraq.

[bolshevik butcher]

*capitalist.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 18 2005, 10:18 AM

So I suppose i'm a capitlaisy, or not suporting an imperiali$t government.
On this issue, you are taking a pro-imperialist position; you're even taking your guidance from the Tibetan government-in-exile, which is one of Washington's tools.


You could use all the arguments you've put forward for the British empire and many people did. The same arguments have also been used to justify the wa in Iraq.

What, that Washington carried out a social revolution in Iraq? No, can't say I've heard that one. It's claimed that they'll establish bourgeois democracy there - I have my doubts - but I'm pretty sure Washington hasn't claimed to be carrying through a social revolution.

I suppose you COULD use that argument; the difference is that it wouldn't be true.

You can't automatically take the same attitude towards all military interventions. Throughout history, some have advanced social progress and human freedom and some have done the opposite.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Severian+Jan 18 2005, 04:57 PM--> (Severian @ Jan 18 2005, 04:57 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 18 2005, 10:18 AM

So I suppose i'm a capitlaisy, or not suporting an imperiali$t government.
On this issue, you are taking a pro-imperialist position; you're even taking your guidance from the Tibetan government-in-exile, which is one of Washington's tools.


You could use all the arguments you've put forward for the British empire and many people did. The same arguments have also been used to justify the wa in Iraq.

What, that Washington carried out a social revolution in Iraq? No, can't say I've heard that one. It's claimed that they'll establish bourgeois democracy there - I have my doubts - but I'm pretty sure Washington hasn't claimed to be carrying through a social revolution.

I suppose you COULD use that argument; the difference is that it wouldn't be true.

You can't automatically take the same attitude towards all military interventions. Throughout history, some have advanced social progress and human freedom and some have done the opposite. [/b]
Serevian, since when has the Chinese government ever been interested in the people's welfare? it's mearley a capitlaist instituition, and even in the "good" old days, it never did anything that great for the people.

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

Hey did you know in Tibet it's actually illegal to own a picture of his holiness the Dalai Lama? It's laughable I mean you can actually get arrested for that! It's even illegal to recite a long life prayer for him and your not even allowed to buy him a birthday present and this is how we encourage a non-violent leader. If the world is fighting a war on terrorism, why are we not rewarding non-violence?

[Wurkwurk]

If you guys seriously think the occupation is OK, then you HAVE to be imperialists. Just like in Iraq right now, they are getting higher quality services under the Americans, but does that justify an invasion just like China's into Tibet?

Think of it in that context, and I doubt any of you will support such sick imperialism.

[PRC-UTE]

If you guys seriously think the occupation is OK, then you HAVE to be imperialists. Just like in Iraq right now, they are getting higher quality services under the Americans, but does that justify an invasion just like China's into Tibet?

The Iraqis lack clean water. They have had their incomes, food sources and other basic needs destroyed. They're not living better off at all. Roving black outs are common there.

Only the north of Iraq, Kurdistan is better off, and that's due to financial support from the imperialists.


Think of it in that context, and I doubt any of you will support such sick imperialism.

Unfortunately the only crowd calling for the Chinese to leave a province of China called Tibet are folks who want to re-instate the Dali Lama. That's something that most Tibetans and the Dali Lama himself don't want!

If the 'free tibet' crowd had a credible alternative, that would be different. I don't think the Chinese need to stay as they're treating the natives like second class citizens, despite the improvements they've introduced.

And btw, I would agree that there is a difference between Buddhism as a philosophy and Buddhism as a religion (Tibet). As a religion, Buddhism has been truly terrible.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 18 2005, 01:39 PM

Serevian, since when has the Chinese government ever been interested in the people's welfare? it's mearley a capitlaist instituition, and even in the "good" old days, it never did anything that great for the people.
Uff da. Have you been reading the thread, or follwed any of the links provided? This is like talking to a brick wall.

It's been demonstrated in considerable detail the benefits of extending the Chinese Revolution into Tibet. And yes, even today, Tibet is economically subsidized by a the Chinese state which has a number of beneficial aspects. Consider the economic effects of the Soviet breakup on the Central Asian republics.

The PRC leadership's purity of motive is not the issue; rather the class character of their state. See my article I linked earlier for a detailed discussion of their motives in taking various actions.

[BOZG]

Severian,
You could possibly clear this up for me as I know very little on Tibet. I was told by a comrade that the Tibet population is almost 45% Han Chinese and the likelihood of Tibet independance on a capitalist basis would result in massive communalist violence towards the Han Chinese population. Any info on that?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 04:57 PM
this is how we encourage a non-violent leader. If the world is fighting a war on terrorism, why are we not rewarding non-violence?
What nonviolence? There has never been any significant Tibetan nonviolent resistance, but there has been CIA-supported guerilla warfare. Which the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile were up to their necks in, and by one CIA agent's account, most of the guerillas were monks. So much for Buddhism's supposed pacifism.

(In reality, Buddhism doesn't even preach, let alone practice, turning the other cheek. It just says violence should be a last resort...which is what almost everyone on earth thinks, including even the U.S. government. It doesn't go to war if it can achieve its goals by other means.)

See my article "Free Tibet?" for details and sources. Here's the link again. (http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/3.1_freetibet.html)

Oh, and Buddhism is a religion for all practical purposes, and no better than any other. In much of eastern Asia, it's been the dominant religion of static, rigidly class-divided societies for centuries. As you'd expect from the dominant religion of such societies, it's helped keep the peasants accepting their lot, which its doctrines of unavoidable suffering, fatalism, and acceptance rather than struggle.

And, in its church structure, it's highly authoritarian, with the "seekers" owing total unthinking obedience to a guru or lama. This American Buddhist site summarizes the typical mindset. (http://www.american-buddha.com/fist.wisdom.htm)

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

(In reality, Buddhism doesn't even preach, let alone practice, turning the other cheek. It just says violence should be a last resort...which is what almost everyone on earth thinks, including even the U.S. government. It doesn't go to war if it can achieve its goals by other means.)
Yeh ok but you can hardly compare Tibetan Buddism with the US governments way of dealing with war, that's unfair I think you misunderstand what it means to be Buddist, your twisting the meaning of it to make it fit in with your Marxist view. This may seem over-hyperthetical but say the Buddists did resort to violence or anarchism how are they going to compete with the Chinese? Buy weapons off the internet? What have we got now Buddists with guns?
Preach? Have you ever heard of a Buddist preaching? Or a Buddist telling people what to believe? They keep themselves to themselves they dont go looking for trouble. If everyone did this then there wouldnt be any violence in the world! Get a grip buddy you need to understand the practice of Buddism a bit more and stop denying it's wisdom.


(There has never been any significant Tibetan nonviolent resistance)


Your right there, cant argue with that!



(there has been CIA-supported guerilla warfare. Which the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile were up to their necks in, and by one CIA agent's account, most of the guerillas were monks. So much for Buddhism's supposed pacifism.)
I think you'll find that the CIA actually turned there backs on the whole idea in the end.

[amusing foibles]

Get a grip buddy you need to understand the practice of Buddism a bit more and stop denying it's wisdom.

What, exactly, is the wisdom of buddhism? The essence of buddhism is traditionally summed up in the Four Noble Truths, namely:

1) Suffering is a nessecary factor of life;
2) Suffering is caused by attachment (to things, ideas, their ego, etc)*;
3) To overcome suffering, one must overcome attachment;
4) To overcome attachment, one must follow the noble eight-fold path**

Enlightenment (that is, freedom from attachment) is generally seen as the product of meditation, a process by which one becomes disattached from one's own "monkey mind."

So, to put it bluntly, the goal of Buddhism is to detach oneself from the world, to remove your self entirely from it as a solution to pain and suffering, rather than to take any action. The suffering of others is the fault of their attachment. Thus oppressive governments should not be overthrown, action should not be taken in the world to promote equality, justice and freedom, rather people should turn in on themselves and escape. It is a passive, escapist and rather selfish philosophy, in my mind, although I am more than open to debate on this topic.

Because of the "eastern" and unknown nature of Buddhism it tends to be let off the hook easier than, say, Christianity, but that in my mind is rather unfair.


edit: And all of this barely even touches on Tibetian Buddhist specifically, which is a beast of a whole different color having been mixed with ancient animistic religions and acquireing in the process whole bucketloads of attachment in the form of gods, elaborate cerimonies (and oracles!), strict heirarchies and more creepy dark undertones than you can shake a stick at.

-----------------------
* Clearly, a child starving to death only suffers due to their attachment to food and life.

** Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 02:36 PM
Severian,
You could possibly clear this up for me as I know very little on Tibet. I was told by a comrade that the Tibet population is almost 45% Han Chinese and the likelihood of Tibet independance on a capitalist basis would result in massive communalist violence towards the Han Chinese population. Any info on that?
The number's probably way too high (see below), but that could be a serious issue. As it has been in some former Soviet republics, or worse Yugoslavia. (Realistically, a Soviet-style breakup seems to me like the most likely way an independent Tibet could conceivably happen.)

Certainly the attitude of the exiles and the "free Tibet" people, if they managed to get any influence in Tibet again, would encourage intercommunal violence. All their propaganda preaches against Han in Tibet, and bemoans the loss of its purity and isolation. (Whipping up pogroms might be a useful tool for regaining influence, now that I think about it...)

There's probably resentment in Tibet they could tap into as well, given that Han are often successful in competing in business and for the best jobs in Tibet. One likely cause is the major educational gap which still exists between Tibet and the rest of the PRC....and then, there's the parallel with the overseas Chinese who have traditionally been dominant in commerce in southeast Asia and Indonesia. And often been scapegoated for it.

While it's a potentially serious problem, I don't think it works as an argument for current PRC policy or simply taking a hard line against separatism. IMO it works best as an argument for stronger affirmative action, broadly and boldly conceived, to narrow the educational gap, open up more of the best jobs to Tibetans, etc, so as to defuse all justifiable resentment.....especially if one's goal is greater unity of working people, not just (or primarily) preserving a set of borders.

And a policy of self-determination, as Lenin argued for, is still correct, IMO - forcibly denying independence, if that's what most Tibetans want is unsustainable long-term and will only lead to greater resentment being stored up against the day when the force-based multinational state inevitably disintegrates.

****

Nobody really has an accurate figure on the Han population in Tibet, as most of it is unregistered, semilegal migrants. Like those described in this Washington Post article. (http://www.bansheewerks.com/frivolities/climb/tibet_han.htm)

But nothing serious I've read estimates anywhere near 45%, especially if it refers to political Tibet, aka the Tibet Autonomous Region aka rougly the territory formerly ruled by the Dalai Lama's government. Lhasa, the capital, might possibly be 45% Han, but the countryside would be almost 100% Tibetan, and Tibet is very rural.

(Political Tibet as opposed to ethnographic Tibet, the larger area inhabited (mostly) by ethnic Tibetans. Ethnographic Tibet includes eastern areas which were traditionally mixed in population, but majority Tibetan, and which were officially ruled by Chiang Kai-Shek's government, but in practice by various warlords and whatnot. When the PRC says Tibet, it means political Tibet; when "Free Tibet" people say Tibet, they mean ethnographic Tibet - except when they switch back and forth between the two without notice, usually in the course of dishonestly juggling statistics.)

The political vs ethnographic Tibet distinction, or the failure to clearly make it, is the cause of a lot of confusion when discussing Tibet.

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

So, to put it bluntly, the goal of Buddhism is to detach oneself from the world, to remove your self entirely from it as a solution to pain and suffering, rather than to take any action. The suffering of others is the fault of their attachment. Thus oppressive governments should not be overthrown, action should not be taken in the world to promote equality, justice and freedom, rather people should turn in on themselves and escape. It is a passive, escapist and rather selfish philosophy, in my mind, although I am more than open to debate on this topic.

Well what I think the Buddists have in mind is to free the mind from the ego factor and set an example of a higher state of consciousness otherwise known as nirvana. Achieving this status alleviates all means of suffering to themselves because they have increased there awareness of self!
Oppressive governments seem to reflect there suffering on to others in war and obviously you've never been to war or you would see that fear induced in WAR has no limits. Look at what happened when Mao invaded Tibet destroying their culture and temples, killing thousands of Tibetans and forcing them into slave labor.
Can't you see that all this World needs to do is take a look in the mirror? The answers lie within the individuals soul, anyone who wants to cause violence to others is hurt themselves and needs healing.

Peace


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[DUNKiNUTS]

but still at the end of the day china is still wrong and Tibet should be free, plain and simple.

[amusing foibles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 08:28 PM
Well what I think the Buddists have in mind is to free the mind from the ego factor and set an example of a higher state of consciousness otherwise known as nirvana. Achieving this status alleviates all means of suffering to themselves because they have increased there awareness of self!

Yeah, that's basically what I said. My point is that this is like doing drugs to avoid your problems (not exactly, but bare with me): it doesn't actually solve anything. I mean, sure, if everyone was high all the time there wouldn't be any war, but that's hardly realistic.

As well, in order to attain Nirvana, one must basically give up one's humanity in the sense that all strong emotions and intimate relationships are eliminated as "attachment."


Oppressive governments seem to reflect there suffering on to others in war and obviously you've never been to war or you would see that fear induced in WAR has no limits. Look at what happened when Mao invaded Tibet destroying their culture and temples, killing thousands of Tibetans and forcing them into slave labor.

What are you trying to say here? I'm afraid I don't understand...



Can't you see that all this World needs to do is take a look in the mirror? The answers lie within the individuals soul, anyone who wants to cause violence to others is hurt themselves and needs healing.

Looking inward is, of course, a nessecary part of any change- but do you honestly belive that that alone can foster any kind of change? Only action, not just reflection, can create change, and despite what you seem to think it is not nessecarily "violent."

And on a *slightly* off topic point, you really should do a touch more research into pre-invasion Tibet. As has been stated, repeatedly, it was a harsh, feudal society, hardly free from war, in which Monks and Nobles held the rest of the population in near "slave labor" through no small doses of oppression. I am not excusing the invasion; I'm just saying you have to get your head out of the clouds in regard to what Buddhist societies can actually be like. It is a religion, and like any other it can and has been horribly abused.



but still at the end of the day china is still wrong and Tibet should be free, plain and simple.

But should it be under the theocratic rulership of the Dalai Lama? And what do the people of Tibet themselves actaully want? That should be the most important part.

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

Oppressive governments seem to reflect there suffering on to others in war and obviously you've never been to war or you would see that fear induced in WAR has no limits. Look at what happened when Mao invaded Tibet destroying their culture and temples, killing thousands of Tibetans and forcing them into slave labor.



What are you trying to say here? I'm afraid I don't understand...


Basically there is no limits to the damage war can cause to a person or society, war comes from fear right? Dont come from love does it? Ok I acknowledge it can come from the love and pride of ones nation being inferior of destruction by another culture. When Mao went to war with Tibet there was reports that his soldiers forced Monks to fornicate with Nuns! If you watch that documentary Tibet: Cry Of The Snow Lion, you will see that it contains graphic and very disturbing images of gentle elderly Buddhist monks and nuns being brutalized by PLA soldiers.

Anyway in generalisation of world peace I'll just add that if each countrys leaders talked about there social problems and there beef with other countries, there would be less violence. I think it comes down to lack of understanding of ones culture and lack of understanding of ones problem. This might be radical but maybe we need a social bereavement or some form of social-healing practice. Any suggestions? I cant see George Bush hugging Saddam Hussien, I cant even see George Bush on the couch!

[amusing foibles]

Basically there is no limits to the damage war can cause to a person or society, war comes from fear right? Dont come from love does it? Ok I acknowledge it can come from the love and pride of ones nation being inferior of destruction by another culture. When Mao went to war with Tibet there was reports that his soldiers forced Monks to fornicate with Nuns! If you watch that documentary Tibet: Cry Of The Snow Lion, you will see that it contains graphic and very disturbing images of gentle elderly Buddhist monks and nuns being brutalized by PLA soldiers.

Yes, War is bad. Tell that to the Tibetians, like I said they started and participated in tons of wars back in the glory days.

I would also like to point out that some of those "Gentle Monks" carried around big sticks to beat people when they said the wrong thing.

And yes, by most accounts the PLA did bad shit when they invaded Tibet, but that's not the point. The point is that Tibet was not Shangra-La; That the Monks were, in many cases, simply feudal lords using religion to keep supersticious peasents in line; and that even though China is an frightening authoritarian dictatorship at least they have freakin' hospitals now. I am all for Tibetian independance, provided that it is done as the people of Tibet want it, not the Dalai Lama or any Monk or Nun (who, incidentally, were treated as mear servants by the monks and were told that they could never attain enlightenment on account of being women) wants it.



Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 08:52 PM
Yeh and I'll just add that if each countrys leaders talked about there social problems and there beef with other countries, there would be less violence. I think it comes down to lack of understanding of ones culture and lack of understanding of ones problem. This might be radical but maybe we need a social bereavement or some form of social-healing practice. Any suggestions? I cant see George Bush hugging Saddam Hussien, I cant even see George Bush on the couch!
This is somewhat similar to my long-charished goal to replace war with switchblade death matches between the world leaders in question. You know you all want to see GW take on Saddam.


Seriously though, the main problem I see with your idea is that if you could get nations to the point where they're willing to sit down and try to understand one another you've already solved the problem.

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

Can you see the Dalai keeping slaves now? Can you see the monks cracking someone around the head with a stick? Part of the Buddist tradition is to let go of your past and thats part of the solution to healing our nation right?

[amusing foibles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 09:42 PM
Can you see the Dalai keeping slaves now? Can you see the monks cracking someone around the head with a stick? Part of the Buddist tradition is to let go of your past and thats part of the solution to healing our nation right?
But why should the Dalai Lama's opinions on the way Tibet should be run outweigh the desires of the people? It could very well be that the people, for whatever reason want the old theocracy back (probably with less head-crackin' , I'd imagine...), that should be their decision.

And no, I can't see "His Holiness" keeping slaves now, but if China had never invaded what do you think the situation in Tibet would be? Do you think that he, unlike all of his predesscors, would have abolished the feudal system altogether?

"Buddhist Tradition" obviously has some good elements, just like, say, Christianity has some good elements. That doesn't mean you have to buy into the whole package, or accept corrupt Buddhist Theocracies.

[martingale]

Historian Michael Parenti documents what the lives of the vast majority of Tibetans were like under the old feudal order:

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shangri-La (for Lords and Lamas)

Religions have had a close relationship not only with violence but with economic exploitation. Indeed, it is often the economic exploitation that necessitates the violence. Such was the case with the Tibetan theocracy. Until 1959, when the Dalai Lama last presided over Tibet, most of the arable land was still organized into manorial estates worked by serfs. Even a writer sympathetic to the old order allows that "a great deal of real estate belonged to the monasteries, and most of them amassed great riches. . . . In addition, individual monks and lamas were able to accumulate great wealth through active participation in trade, commerce, and money lending."6 Drepung monastery was one of the biggest landowners in the world, with its 185 manors, 25,000 serfs, 300 great pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen. The wealth of the monasteries went mostly to the higher-ranking lamas, many of them scions of aristocratic families.

Secular leaders also did well. A notable example was the commander-in-chief of the Tibetan army, who owned 4,000 square kilometers of land and 3,500 serfs. He also was a member of the Dalai Lama's lay Cabinet.7 Old Tibet has been misrepresented by some of its Western admirers as "a nation that required no police force because its people voluntarily observed the laws of karma."8 In fact. it had a professional army, albeit a small one, that served as a gendarmerie for the landlords to keep order and hunt down runaway serfs.

Young Tibetan boys were regularly taken from their families and brought into the monasteries to be trained as monks. Once there, they became bonded for life. Tashì-Tsering, a monk, reports that it was common for peasant children to be sexually mistreated in the monasteries. He himself was a victim of repeated rape, beginning at age nine.9 The monastic estates also conscripted impoverished peasant children for lifelong servitude as domestics, dance performers, and soldiers.


In Old Tibet there were small numbers of farmers who subsisted as a kind of free peasantry, and perhaps an additional 10,000 people who composed the "middle-class" families of merchants, shopkeepers, and small traders. Thousands of others were beggars. A small minority were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned nothing. Their offspring were born into slavery.10 The greater part of the rural population---some 700,000 of an estimated total of 1,250,000---were serfs. Serfs and other peasants generally were little better than slaves. They went without schooling or medical care. They spent most of their time laboring for high-ranking lamas or for the secular landed aristocracy. Their masters told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. And they might easily be separated from their families should their owners send them to work in a distant location.11

One 22-year old woman, herself a runaway serf, reports: "Pretty serf girls were usually taken by the owner as house servants and used as he wished." They "were just slaves without rights."12 Serfs needed permission to go anywhere. Landowners had legal authority to capture those who tried to flee. One 24-year old runaway welcomed the Chinese intervention as a "liberation." He claimed that under serfdom he was subjected to incessant toil, hunger, and cold. After his third failed escape, he was merciless beaten by the landlord's men until blood poured from his nose and mouth. They then poured alcohol and caustic soda on his wounds to increase the pain.13

The serfs were under a lifetime bond to work the lord's land---or the monastery's land---without pay, to repair the lord's houses, transport his crops, and collect his firewood. They were also expected to provide carrying animals and transportation on demand.14 They were taxed upon getting married, taxed for the birth of each child, and for every death in the family. They were taxed for planting a tree in their yard and for keeping animals. There were taxes for religious festivals, for singing, dancing, drumming, and bell ringing. People were taxed for being sent to prison and upon being released. Those who could not find work were taxed for being unemployed, and if they traveled to another village in search of work, they paid a passage tax. When people could not pay, the monasteries lent them money at 20 to 50 percent interest. Some debts were handed down from father to son to grandson. Debtors who could not meet their obligations risked being placed into slavery sometimes for the rest of their lives.15

The theocracy's religious teachings buttressed its class order. The poor and afflicted were taught that they had brought their troubles upon themselves because of their wicked ways in previous lives. Hence they had to accept the misery of their present existence as a karmic atonement and in anticipation that their lot would improve upon being reborn. The rich and powerful of course treated their good fortune as a reward for, and tangible evidence of, virtue in past and present lives.

Torture and Mutilation

In the Dalai Lama's Tibet, torture and mutilation---including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation--were favored punishments inflicted upon runaway serfs and thieves. Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: "When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion."16 Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then "left to God" in the freezing night to die. "The parallels between Tibet and medieval Europe are striking," concludes Tom Grunfeld in his book on Tibet.17

In 1959, Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, and breaking off hands. There were instruments for slicing off kneecaps and heels, or hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling.18

The exhibition presented photographs and testimonies of victims who had been blinded or crippled or suffered amputations for thievery. There was the shepherd whose master owed him a reimbursement in yuan and wheat but refused to pay. So he took one of the master's cows; for this he had his hands severed. Another herdsman, who opposed having his wife taken from him by his lord, had his hands broken off. There were pictures of Communist activists with noses and upper lips cut off, and a woman who was raped and then had her nose sliced away.19

Early visitors to Tibet comment about the theocratic despotism. In 1895, an Englishman, Dr. A. L. Waddell, wrote that the populace was under the "intolerable tyranny of monks" and the devil superstitions they had fashioned to terrorize the people. In 1904 Perceval Landon described the Dalai Lama's rule as "an engine of oppression." At about that time, another English traveler, Captain W.F.T. O'Connor, observed that "the great landowners and the priests . . . exercise each in their own dominion a despotic power from which there is no appeal," while the people are "oppressed by the most monstrous growth of monasticism and priest-craft." Tibetan rulers "invented degrading legends and stimulated a spirit of superstition" among the common people. In 1937, another visitor, Spencer Chapman, wrote, "The Lamaist monk does not spend his time in ministering to the people or educating them. . . . The beggar beside the road is nothing to the monk. Knowledge is the jealously guarded prerogative of the monasteries and is used to increase their influence and wealth."20
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[martingale]

Parenti also dismisses the Dalai Lama's claim of 1.2 million dead as propaganda:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the Dalai Lama and his advisor and youngest brother, Tendzin Choegyal, claimed that "more than 1.2 million Tibetans are dead as a result of the Chinese occupation."32 But the official 1953 census---six years before the Chinese crackdown---recorded the entire population residing in Tibet at 1,274,000.33 Other census counts put the ethnic Tibetan population within the country at about two million. If the Chinese killed 1.2 million in the early 1960s then whole cities and huge portions of the countryside, indeed almost all of Tibet, would have been depopulated, transformed into a killing field dotted with death camps and mass graves---of which we have not seen evidence. The thinly distributed Chinese military force in Tibet was not big enough to round up, hunt down, and exterminate that many people even if it had spent all its time doing nothing else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have to wonder about the veracity of all the other claims of the so-called "free Tibet" movement.

[amusing foibles]

The theocracy's religious teachings buttressed its class order. The poor and afflicted were taught that they had brought their troubles upon themselves because of their wicked ways in previous lives. Hence they had to accept the misery of their present existence as a karmic atonement and in anticipation that their lot would improve upon being reborn. The rich and powerful of course treated their good fortune as a reward for, and tangible evidence of, virtue in past and present lives.


I totally forgot this aspect in my rant above... but yeah, the willingness to accept ones' conditions and the belief in the need for disattachment (I should stress that that last point is traditionally seen only to apply to monks) makes buddhism a religion that is greatly incompatible with any kind of revolution.

[Eddie Van Halen]

My opinion on Tibet is that the chinese are wrong to have invaded with tanks and soldiers, surely they could have fostered revolution (if it was wanted), by more under-hand means, planting spies etc, however one would go about these things.

I think that if the chinese left now, that the Tibetans would sort out their own government, how they wanted it to be.

But yeah, free Tibet from the chinese, but dont give it back to feudalism, or back to a religiously dominated state, because that helps the people absoultely Nil.

[Severian]

Christ on a crutch. You have to be one of the most dishonest posters I've ever seen on the internet, and believe me you have a lot of competition. You keep repeating stuff that's already been refuted, and stuff you musta known in advance was false.

Like that nonviolence stuff. You came back with a response indicating you already knew about the CIA-backed guerillas and the lack of any significant nonviolent resistance, so why did you put out that nonviolence BS to start with? You musta known it was false.

[bolshevik butcher]

The CIA is doing no worse than China. Both are trying to exploit Tibet.

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

What I was actually indicating was that the CIA didnt do anything about these so called gorilla monks did they? I did some research and Im learning here, it seems that the Dalai Lama DID advise his fellow monks not to fight back! Why didnt the CIA prosecute I wonder? Why did they turn there backs on the whole thing? They saw the Buddists deserved there torture by Mao's army because they kept slaves? Or they didnt want to start a war with the Chinese? Maybe they just had better things to do? Who nows?
I just think that Mao's army had no right to intefere with the Tibetans like they did with such harshness, maybe the Tibetans feudilism was wrong but Mayo was heartless. He said he was going to liberate Tibet! Yeh right! Lets kill all there Monks and blow there buildings to pieces that'll liberate them! Okay they'll have better resources and they'll be protected from Imperialism. Okay so now the American Capitalists want to take over Tibet? Where does it end? Or better when does it end?

[PRC-UTE]

who's the DL shaking hands with in that photo?

Did you read the above article by Parenti? What is your reaction to all the crimes commited under the despotic Buddhist regime?

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

Let me explain something the Dalai Lama is all for world peace and harmony thats why he met with George Bush, its not in his nature to hold grudges against anyone but its in his divine nature to 'love'. You dont get peace by being ignorant you know. Here is the link supplied below on details of the Dalai Lama meeting George Bush.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf.../dalai.bush.02/ (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/23/dalai.bush.02/)


Yeh I read the article and if it is true it seems that alot went on in these monastries that we have not been told. Still what does the Dalai Lama stand for? He's still loved by alot of people especially monks and scientists. Check out this web link it shows that the Dalai Lama is helping to make a positive change.

http://www.news.wisc.edu/6205.html[/URL][/URL]

Monks are also starting to doubt the Dalai Lamas status as a religious leader, which I think is sad.

http://english.people.com.cn/english/20010...0516_70069.html (http://english.people.com.cn/english/200105/16/eng20010516_70069.html)

I think we need to reform not a new religion but a new way of life for the people of the world. I think meditation can help people realise who they really are. Maybe the Dalai Lama doesnt reperesent Tibetan Buddism (even through he I think he does) he certainly represents a significant spiritual leader.

[Hiero]

I think it comes down to lack of understanding of ones culture and lack of understanding of ones problem

You should read some marxist text. Wars are not as simple as buddhist philosophy gives an explanation for.

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the peoples cultures and lack of understanding of cultures. The American, English, Australian and the rest of the countries that invaded, the peoples of these nations did not all of a sudden come to a collective idea that we should go to war with Iraq. It was the politicians of these countries that decided. These politicians which are linked to transnational corporations. The the right wing media which have links to politicians and the transnational corporation, then pumped the nation full of propoganda. Then you have a supporting base of ill educated people on the real means for the war supporting the invasion.

When it came down to it the common individuals thoughts and actions didn't have anything to do with the war. The economy was the reason for the war. Your conclusion is a very simple idealistic view of things. You have to understand each class role in society and economy and then things can be seen objectively and truthfuly.


Can you see the Dalai keeping slaves now? Can you see the monks cracking someone around the head with a stick? Part of the Buddist tradition is to let go of your past and thats part of the solution to healing our nation right?

The Chinese are not babysiting the area of Tibet so the old aristocrats can go out and get some progressive leasons.


I think we need to reform not a new religion but a new way of life for the people of the world.

Thats what Marxist-Leninism is.

I think you are very narrow minded, you do not want to accept many things. You would rather continue believing in a spiritual world were Tibet was a shangrai la and that buddhism can slove the worlds problems through a nice peaceful method. The fact is this doesn't contribute anything, it does not solve problems it can not feed the world it can not stop wars. Only looking at society objectively and acting scientificly can we really achieve things for the good and move in a progressive way.

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

I think you are very narrow minded, you do not want to accept many things. You would rather continue believing in a spiritual world were Tibet was a shangrai la and that buddhism can slove the worlds problems through a nice peaceful method. The fact is this doesn't contribute anything, it does not solve problems it can not feed the world it can not stop wars. Only looking at society objectively and acting scientificly can we really achieve things for the good and move in a progressive way.

Ok I'm narrow minded now am I? I'm learning alot here and I thank you for your honest opinion but I agree and disagree with your statement. I think yeh I can learn more about Marxism and Leninism and I will look in to it. How will acting scientificly and objectively change anything? All it will do is keep the world the same as it is. Marxism is doing fuck all at the moment. I'd like to think I'm wrong here? Please someone explain to me how this communist/Marxist/leninist theory is going to work in a world doomed with the demons of capitalism? I don't see anything happening, one of the last major anti-capitalist movement was in Seattle against the WTO back in 1999 am I right?
I think the main reason why Marxism failed was because it had a state which goes against our own true nature, if we as humans want it to work then it's got to happen naturally, it cant be forced on people like Mao wanted. People have got to see each other as equal on a spiritual level.
I do still believe that we are evolving as a human race and we have much more to discover including learning peace of mind, then we will instinctively know how to structure our society.

Anne Frank once wrote:

Everyone has inside of him a piece of good news. The good news is that you don't know how great you can be! How much you can love! What you can accomplish! And what your potential is!

I keep my ideals, because in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart.

Ghandi went on to write:

You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist.

[Union gal]

Even though China is Communist, theyre slipping into darkness with their move to capitalism. Slave labor, 'Re Education' and the murder of thousands along with their cultures is all bad, i dont personally blame the chinese people but Fuck their government for destroting the enviornment, calling the Dahli Lhama a terrorist and the like. and Fuck the world's governments for Tolerating it! :ph34r:

[Weathermen333]

I think Tibet should be free and be its own country.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 04:28 PM
What I was actually indicating was that the CIA didnt do anything about these so called gorilla monks did they?
Yes, in fact, the CIA aided the Tibetan guerillas for decades. Read my article fer crying out loud. Washington eventually ditched the guerillas and the Tibetan government-in-exile because China had become an ally against the USSR and Vietnam. (The DL's' response was to suck up to the USSR, which did give him verbal support.)

Note that it was Washington, not the supposedly pacificist Buddhist monks, that called a halt.

And in fact the Dalai Lama and his government-in-exile were involved with the guerillas, regardless of what claims he may make publicly. His brother, Gyalo Thondup, made the first contacts with the CIA and arranged for training and arms for guerilla warfareas early as 1953.

The Dalai Lama repeatedly lied about this, claiming that there were no outside weapons going to the Tibetan rebels, or U.S. money to his government in exile. When, decades later, he finally admitted these statements had been false, he claimed to have had no idea what was going on. If anyone buys that Reagan-like excuse, you have to conclude he's a clueless puppet of his staff. Irrelevant or dishonest, your choice.

Sources: Orphans of the Cold War by Knaus and Making of Modern Tibet by Grunfeld. CIA agent's statement (http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1999/3/21_1.html) DL's denials (http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1998/10/1_3.html)


Can you see the monks cracking someone around the head with a stick?

Yes, in fact, they do still beat up heretics. (http://www.tibet-internal.com/index.html?/frHaupts.htm)

Since all of this has been available in links already provided, and you've made no effort to refute it, but just keep repeating the same falsehoods, I have to stand by my earlier statement that you're being massively dishonest.

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

Your right out of heart the Dalai Lamas brother did set up The Tibetan Resistance Movement and it failed miserably because after all the monks dont really dedicate themselves to gorilla warfare do they? It was basically a last resort to try and reclaim there country back right? THEY WAS ACTING IN DEFENSE! Okay its not exactly what Ghandi wouldve done but it's still a very bold thing to do!

Peace

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 08:41 PM
Your right out of heart the Dalai Lamas brother did set up The Tibetan Resistance Movement and it failed miserably because after all the monks dont really dedicate themselves to gorilla warfare do they?

Fighting badly does not make you a pacifist.


It was basically a last resort to try and reclaim there country back right? THEY WAS ACTING IN DEFENSE! Okay its not exactly what Ghandi wouldve done but it's still a very bold thing to do!

So why were you praising their supposed nonviolence earlier?

[Eddie Van Halen]

Okay, im missing something in this discussion, is the basic feeling so far that it is okay for china to be in tibet because they are supposed to be communist ?

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Eddie Van [email protected] 23 2005, 12:04 PM
Okay, im missing something in this discussion, is the basic feeling so far that it is okay for china to be in tibet because they are supposed to be communist ?
That's what my point was. Chinas no more communist than anywhere else, and even if it was, it doesn't have the right to invade other countries.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 02:41 AM
Your right out of heart the Dalai Lamas brother did set up The Tibetan Resistance Movement and it failed miserably because after all the monks dont really dedicate themselves to gorilla warfare do they? It was basically a last resort to try and reclaim there country back right? THEY WAS ACTING IN DEFENSE! Okay its not exactly what Ghandi wouldve done but it's still a very bold thing to do!

Peace
Well if nothing else's working, I don't see why violence shouldn't be used. What's wrong with fighting violence with violence?

[choekiewoekie]

Its not oke to just invade a country. If you believe in communism, you're still not alowed to take a country the way they did. China was not a big Che.

[redstar2000]

Putting aside all the spiritualist crapola, I hope people here will also look at Skeptic's article

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32654

Make all the criticisms you want of Mao and the Maoists (and I've made plenty!), but I can't for the life of me see any fault to find with their overthrow of the Buddhist bastards and their disgusting society!

It's like condemning "Stalinists" in the USSR for executing Nazis after the defeat of the Third Reich.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

So why were you praising their supposed nonviolence earlier?

The Chinese invaded Tibet in 1949, the tibetans didnt actually get help from the CIA until 1956 and it wasnt all of them at all. Violence is a last resort to the tibetans, I think you misunderstand that the Dalai Lama's after happiness not distruction but violence is derived from fear, fear then causes action. Was the Dalai Lama the source of the fear? No the Chinese were! They caused this confliction and your perpetually denying the idea of the Dalai Lama being a peace symbol? Some even look to the Dalai Lama as a God, these are people with hope for a better future for there country.

The Dalai Lama stated:

I always explain that violence is not the human way. I believe that, fundamentally, human nature is positive, gentle; therefore, the non-violent way is the human way. Also, whatever result we achieve through non-violence has no negative side effect. Through violence, even though we may get some kind of satisfaction, negative side effects are also incurred. Then, most importantly, whether we like it or not, we have to live side by side with the Chinese; thus, in the long future, generation to generation, in order to live happily, peacefully, it is extremely important, while we are carrying on the struggle, to accord with the principle of non-violence.
-- from The Art of Peace: Nobel Peace Laureates discuss Human Rights, Conflict and Reconciliation

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 02:06 PM
Putting aside all the spiritualist crapola, I hope people here will also look at Skeptic's article

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32654

Make all the criticisms you want of Mao and the Maoists (and I've made plenty!), but I can't for the life of me see any fault to find with their overthrow of the Buddhist bastards and their disgusting society!

It's like condemning "Stalinists" in the USSR for executing Nazis after the defeat of the Third Reich.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
The buddhists never attacked them in the first place, it's nothing like the aftermath of ww2 it's a completely different situation. For goodnasake the "buddhist bastards" were only defending themselves.

[Dark Exodus]

I agree with redstar, that is a very good article and should be red by anyone still defending Tibet.

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

Putting aside all the spiritualist crapola, I hope people here will also look at Skeptic's article

That "spiritual crapola" happens to have everything to do with war, how can you put it aside?


It's like condemning "Stalinists" in the USSR for executing Nazis after the defeat of the Third Reich.

Thats rather a simple minded quote on your behalf, all you've basically done is said friendly feudalism is similar to anarchism or stalinism when it is so not. Stalinism was a perversion of marxism-leninism which he used to dominate the Soviet union. Friendly Feudalism if you can call it that (its a myth, if you click to a previous page there is a link, thanks to our friend severian) its totally different, its more to do with Lords and Slaves but Buddism is now being realised as an important key to enlightenment where Stalinism and Nazism has near enough died. Oh yeh and by the way how many people have Nazis killed in the recent century? Quite alot eh? Something like 6 million Jews? Now look at how many people Buddists have killed in the recent century? Erm... yes I thought so


"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."

Gandhi

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

Here's an interesting fact which lyes in Isabel Losadas book: There's 135 political prisoners in Tibet's notorious Drapchi prison, 99 are monks, 21 are nuns and only 15 are lay people.

Isnt it quite bizarre that Buddism is one of the biggest threats to communism?

Buddism must expose some kind of truth!

[amusing foibles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 09:10 PM
Isnt it quite bizarre that Buddism is one of the biggest threats to communism?

Buddism must expose some kind of truth!
Hey, the US sure has a lot of people in jail for drug offenses!

Heroin must expose some kind of truth!

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

Hey, the US sure has a lot of people in jail for drug offenses!

Heroin must expose some kind of truth!

lol! Bit of a difference between Buddism and Heroin, how many lives has heroin claimed?

my guess, more than Buddism!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary+--> (Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary)Some even look to the Dalai Lama as a God...[/b]

And some even think that Britney Spears can sing.

Who gives a rat's ass about the opinions of fools?


That "spiritual crapola" happens to have everything to do with war, how can you put it aside?

War is a consequence of material conditions and class relations...the spiritual crapola is developed or modified to justify the underlying conflict.


...but Buddhism is now being realised as an important key to enlightenment where Stalinism and Nazism has near enough died.

"An important key to enlightenment"? What the hell does that mean?

I can't see that Buddhism has "enlightened" a cup of coffee!


Now look at how many people Buddhists have killed in the recent century?

How much opportunity have they had to kill a lot of people "in the recent century"?

We know that Buddhists have been guilty of atrocities directed against Muslims in Burma and Thailand.

And wasn't there a big Buddhist empire in what is now northern India?


Isn't it quite bizarre that Buddhism is one of the biggest threats to communism?

Don't get "the big head" -- at this point it's one of the marginal "threats" to communism.

It is annoying though. Westerners strutting around like they're "superior" to all the other godsuckers...just because their brand of superstitious babble doesn't have the bloody track record of Christianity or Islam.

Where the Buddhists have had the opportunity, they've behaved just as badly as the rest.

Tibet is "exhibit A" against them.


Buddhism must expose some kind of truth!

Yeah...the kind of "truth" that we generally refer to as lies.


Clinched Fist
For goodness sake the "Buddhist bastards" were only defending themselves.

No, they were defending an absolutely rotten combination of feudalism and slavery.

Go read Skeptic's article, dammit!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:01 AM

So why were you praising their supposed nonviolence earlier?

The Chinese invaded Tibet in 1949, the tibetans didnt actually get help from the CIA until 1956 and it wasnt all of them at all.
Eh...no. If you want to talk about the invasion, that moves the U.S. involvement considerably earlier. Chinese troops first moved into the Dalai Lama's domain (political Tibet) in late '50, actually. ("Free Tibet" people sometimes say '49 based on more dishonest juggling of political vs ethnographic Tibet.)

Even before this happened, the Lhasa government was asking for U.S. help, even troops and planes if they could get 'em - in 1949, when the People's Republic of China was proclaimed. They asked for British help even earlier, and Britain encouraged India to send weapons (which India did) and promised to ship replacement weapons to India. All this in Grunfeld, starting around p. 93.

The U.S. didn't move quickly enough to significantly aid the Tibetan army before the PLA acted. And the Tibetan serf army probably couldn't have effectiively used even the best weapons. But the failure of their efforts doesn't make the Tibetan lamas any more pacifist.

Violence was not their last resort as you say, but rather their first and only resort. As you must know, because you admitted earlier that there had never been any significant Tibetan nonviolent resistance.

[amusing foibles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:38 PM

Hey, the US sure has a lot of people in jail for drug offenses!

Heroin must expose some kind of truth!

lol! Bit of a difference between Buddism and Heroin, how many lives has heroin claimed?

my guess, more than Buddism!
My point is that your logic is crap

[whatLurks]

Ha, I find both Heroin and Buddism kinda funny so that post is a hell of a lot of giggles for me!

[PRC-UTE]

Spot on, Redstar2k.

Severian and Sceptic have provided overwheleming evidence that Tibet was a hell hole. Possibly the worst in the world.

Three cheers for the Maoist campaign there. I could see that there are abuses of power today, but nothing like the crushing slavery that Buddhism offered up regularly.

This discussion has already been decided imo.

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

Violence was not their last resort as you say, but rather their first and only resort. As you must know, because you admitted earlier that there had never been any significant Tibetan nonviolent resistance.

Okay so remind me who are the oppressors here? The Maoists? or the Buddists? Who started the trouble? I guess you like to look at it from the angle that the Maoists liberated Tibet hence the PLA. They took Tibet because it was an easy target and used feudalism as there main reason for invading, is this right? If you look the way Tibet is run you'll see that they are not free and the act or process of trying to achieve equal rights and status has not yet been justified.
Tortures still go on and people are still imprisoned, they cant even carry or yet own a picture of the Dalai Lama. They cant even protest in peace, how is this liberation?

[TheKingOfMercy]

The Maoists destroyed a society that was over what, 800 years out of date ? It had only existed until the 50's because of some warped respect for the reigilous thing of the area, and a sort of romanticised interest in european past, when all nations were run by feudal oppressors.

[Hiero]

Here is why i support Mao's revolution in Tiber (Tibet is pretty much a are in China)

* I support the peasants over the Feudal Lords
* I support science of the brutality of Superstition
* I support modernisation over backward Feudal society
* I support actions taken to stop the rise of the old society that oppressed the people for so many years.

I am progressive so i support the actions in Tibet. Even today after Mao's death and the trial of the Gang of Five that lead to revisionism Tibet is better off now.

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

Here is why i'm against Mao's revolution in Tibet (Tibet is pretty much still oppressed because of him)

The number of deaths that occurred in China as a result of Mao's reign places him in the same league as Stalin or Hitler. erm.. i say no more

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:26 AM
Okay so remind me who are the oppressors here? The Maoists? or the Buddists? Who started the trouble?
I guess this is an attempt to justify the Tibetan elite's use of violence. What actually needs justifying is your dishonest claim that they were nonviolent - and the Dalai Lama's continuing hypocritical preaching of nonviolence which he doesn't practice.

I'm not a pacifist, so I don't think violence is automatically wrong. I am a communist, so to me no defence of serfdom and slavery can be right, whether it's violent or nonviolent.


They took Tibet because it was an easy target

No. They took Tibet because they thought of it as part of China, and the PRC was going to reunify China and make it strong and independent again. Chiang Kai-Shek's government also claimed Tibet as part of China, and all Chinese governments for some time back. You may disagree, but that's how the Chinese government thought of things (and still does.)

Tibet was and is also of strategic military value. The Himalayas are a natural line of defense, while feudal, British-influenced Tibet was a potential base for guerilla or other attack on China. (And in fact, feudal Tibet up to 1959 was a base for rebels in neighboring areas.)

Those, IMO, are the Chinese motives for going into Tibet, and remaining there.


If you look the way Tibet is run you'll see that they are not free and the act or process of trying to achieve equal rights and status has not yet been justified.
Tortures still go on and people are still imprisoned, they cant even carry or yet own a picture of the Dalai Lama. They cant even protest in peace, how is this liberation?

They're not serfs. This is a tremendous step forward. Next question.

Incidentally, it would remain a tremendous step forward even if China was 100% capitalist and always had been.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 05:57 PM
Where the Buddhists have had the opportunity, they've behaved just as badly as the rest.
Right. A few recent examples:

Sri Lanka, where Sinhalese Buddhist monks have helped incite pogroms against the Tamil minority, who are mostly Hindu.

Bhutan, a "Buddhist kingdom" closely linked ethnically and religiously to Tibet, which is currently forcing its Hindu minority to convert or leave.

Myanmar/Burma, whose notorious military regime has developed an ideology of "Buddhist socialism" to justify its rule.

[bolshevik butcher]

I neve said I supported the reigeme in Tibet before it was invaded, in the same way that the anti-war protestors didn't support Saddam.

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

Incidentally, it would remain a tremendous step forward even if China was 100% capitalist and always had been.

please explain?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 24 2005, 11:40 AM
I neve said I supported the reigeme in Tibet before it was invaded, in the same way that the anti-war protestors didn't support Saddam.
Some antiwar protestors did support Saddam. The Workers World Party for example even took their political line from his regime in a number of respects, including on Kuwait.

Similarly, as I said earlier, you're taking your political line - directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously - from the Tibetan government-in-exile. And taking a pro-imperialist position on this issue.

From the beginning of the thread:

rage against the right, i agree it's disgusting the minute China becomes important to the western econemy they just forget about tibet and numerous other human rights abuses.

So here you're calling on "western" imperialism to intervene on behalf of Tibetans with economic sanctions.

Or the next page:
Surely if the Tibetans hated it so much they would have done something about it themselves.

This is one of the standard arguments of the Tibetan government-in-exile: the peasants were content with their situation, and the proof is that they didn't overthrow the system.

Think about if this were applied worldwide: slaves in the U.S. musta been content, since it took the Union Army invading the Confederacy to abolish slavery. In fact, in world history, successful slave revolutions are very rare - I guess they musta all been pretty happy.

In reality, poverty and oppression are not the only conditions required to produce rebellion let alone revolution. If they were, there'd be a lot more revolution in the world.

Nathan, I don't know what's unclear to you. Capitalism is better than feudalism.

'Course nowadays capitalist regimes are not in the habit of carrying out anti-feudal revolutions...

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

Nathan, I don't know what's unclear to you. Capitalism is better than feudalism.

'Course nowadays capitalist regimes are not in the habit of carrying out anti-feudal revolutions...

Yeh but Capitalism is better than Communism, so why bring it up? Feudilism and Communism both have more limits than capitalism its fairly obvious.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Severian+Jan 25 2005, 04:48 PM--> (Severian @ Jan 25 2005, 04:48 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 24 2005, 11:40 AM
I neve said I supported the reigeme in Tibet before it was invaded, in the same way that the anti-war protestors didn't support Saddam.
Some antiwar protestors did support Saddam. The Workers World Party for example even took their political line from his regime in a number of respects, including on Kuwait.

Similarly, as I said earlier, you're taking your political line - directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously - from the Tibetan government-in-exile. And taking a pro-imperialist position on this issue.

From the beginning of the thread:

rage against the right, i agree it's disgusting the minute China becomes important to the western econemy they just forget about tibet and numerous other human rights abuses.

So here you're calling on "western" imperialism to intervene on behalf of Tibetans with economic sanctions.

Or the next page:
Surely if the Tibetans hated it so much they would have done something about it themselves.

This is one of the standard arguments of the Tibetan government-in-exile: the peasants were content with their situation, and the proof is that they didn't overthrow the system.

Think about if this were applied worldwide: slaves in the U.S. musta been content, since it took the Union Army invading the Confederacy to abolish slavery. In fact, in world history, successful slave revolutions are very rare - I guess they musta all been pretty happy.

In reality, poverty and oppression are not the only conditions required to produce rebellion let alone revolution. If they were, there'd be a lot more revolution in the world.

Nathan, I don't know what's unclear to you. Capitalism is better than feudalism.

'Course nowadays capitalist regimes are not in the habit of carrying out anti-feudal revolutions... [/b]
Ok, so some of the anti-war protestors did support saddam, but that was a tiny fraction. Did it ever occur to you that I don't support the Tibetan government in exile? Where did I ever claim to? I think that Tibet should run itself, through democracy, why should it be controled by another country? China or anyone else.

[Severian]

"capitalism is better than communism" Wow, some extreme revolutionary you are. BTW, what's up with the DL with Bush pic? Have you stopped admiring the DL, or just started admiring Bush?

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

"capitalism is better than communism" Wow, some extreme revolutionary you are. BTW, what's up with the DL with Bush pic? Have you stopped admiring the DL, or just started admiring Bush?

Nah i dont admire Bush at all I just think he needs to take tips from the DL, its a positive thing. This is what i'm talking about, you misunderstand the way the Buddists think, thats why Communism doesn't work. It not only limits the physical world it limits a mans thoughts. Works in theory but not in practice, thats a bit of a cliche' I know. All this scientific thought is all very well and logical but you have to put people and there feelings first.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Relevent Commentary (http://rhinoflaven.tripod.com/yakpanda5.html)

[bolshevik butcher]

Maybe China's rule isn't as bad as it was in Tibet before the invasion. But that doesn't mean that it's good.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary
This is what I'm talking about, you misunderstand the way the Buddhists think, that's why Communism doesn't work.

:lol:

I guess if we communists studied the Buddha, restored serfdom and slavery, then "communism would work".

If this is an example of "how Buddhists think", I'd say we could probably get along without it pretty good. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

I guess if we communists studied the Buddha, restored serfdom and slavery, then "communism would work".

If this is an example of "how Buddhists think", I'd say we could probably get along without it pretty good.

yeh okay so all Buddists have slaves still? ok lets not perpetuate the 1950's argument and the idea of feudilism. I'm not denying it didnt happen but i know u communists like to romanticize that tibet was more of a hell hole than it was. The truth is even if it was a hell hole we cant measure how much of one it was and still is. Monks were willing to die and get tortured for the Dalai Lama and Tibet so i guess it werent all that bad.
Anyway these communists think they can walk in there with guns and liberate people (lol), when they dont understand what to liberate means.
The truth is the communists are oppressing there religion by intervening with guns and violence and torture.

Long Live The Dalai Lama!

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Monks were willing to die and get tortured for the Dalai Lama and Tibet so i guess it werent all that bad.

I think history shows that people are more often willing to die for the wrong causes than the right ones, haha. I think we ought to try to objectively look at the implications of Buddhism in Tibet, rather than giving x points for number of idiots who'll immolate themselves.


Anyway these communists think they can walk in there with guns and liberate people (lol), when they dont understand what to liberate means.
The truth is the communists are oppressing there religion by intervening with guns and violence and torture.


While I am in extreme opposition to the practices of the Chinese government, I don't think it's fair to defend Buddhism by attacking Chinese policy. I think it ought to be clear that this isn't a case of good-guys v badguys, but rather considering the actual implications of the specfic situation: religious-whackos-running-a-feudalist-theocracy v Militarist-Bureacratic-Capitalists-suppressing-theocratic-whack-jobs.


Long Live The Dalai Lama!

Fuck hero worship.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 05:42 AM
Monks were willing to die and get tortured for the Dalai Lama and Tibet so i guess it werent all that bad.
Monks were a privileged group in feudal Tibet, just as the clergy were the First Estate in monarchist France. So it's to be expected they would defend the old regime and oppose the new social order; just as one expects plantation owners to support the Confederate States of America.

[bolshevik butcher]

Nathan, maybe you could argue that Tibet was like the USSR, not what it claimed to be?

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

Whats going on? First the Buddist temples now the Maoists are now taking over the Hindu realms as well. So much for the Hindu goddess Kali's temple. So what does this mean? Hindu's have been feudal in the past as well? We can forget about the worlds only official Hindu country. These Maoists are destroying peoples cultures, fuck maoism.

[amusing foibles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 09:03 AM
Whats going on? First the Buddist temples now the Maoists are now taking over the Hindu realms as well. So much for the Hindu goddess Kali's temple. So what does this mean? Hindu's have been feudal in the past as well? We can forget about the worlds only official Hindu country. These Maoists are destroying peoples cultures, fuck maoism.
Details / Source? What, exactly, are you talking about now?

Please, don't start defending Hinduism too...

[Nathan_The_Extreme_Revolutionary]

Details / Source? What, exactly, are you talking about now?

Please, don't start defending Hinduism too...

okay here's the source

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/s...sp?story=607945 (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=607945)

[maoist_revolution]

Tibet should be a Left-wing Religious democracy

This also made me think about Israel is should be a neutral country where Palistinians and the Jewish can live I think that will stop the problems there.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Nathan_the_Extreme_Wanker
fuck maoism

No, fuck Hinduism! :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Cobra]

Let’s create a new religious state. One where Extreme Wankers are sacrificed to coconut eating monkeys every Sabbath in order to calm dark lord Kali’s anger and bring peace to the land. :rolleyes:

[American_Trotskyist]

No, fuck Hinduism!

Goddamned right! It still never ceases to amaze me how people defend an autocratic feudalist regime. The Dali Lama’s rule was no different than that of the Taliban, defend Omar with the Dali.

A CIA funded whore, a man who lived better than most kings while the vast majority of the people live more like dogs.

Jesus Christ! Do some research on your Monarch before you defend him!

[RedStarOverChina]

Finally! some words of reason. I thought I have to explain and defend the whole thing all over again. Even then no one would believe me cause Im Chinese :(

[ice87]

For those of you who believes that under international pressure, China will be convinced to give Tibet its independence, you are wrong. China will not give up its unity by freeing Tibet simply because outside, non-government groups urge it to do so. It simply will not happen.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yes, the dali lama headed over a brutal religous dictatorship, but is the chinese replacement any better?

[RedStarOverChina]

didnt we go thro this already...? remember the land reform and stuff?

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, but did you know the land refoem lead to a famine, and that the chinese prevented the tibetans from wearing there traditional clothing, also tibet was a sverign country until it was invaded.

[Rasta Sapian]

China and Tibet share the same land, up to the world's highest mountains, cultural history and much more, China has brought progress, however Tibet is losing its spiritually remoteness; which the west does not want ot preserve anyway, rather to exploit it for International Tourism and Impirialism.

The world is forever evolving Tibet, you can be apart of it , or not :huh:

[RedStarOverChina]

But should Tibetans stay in the rangs of Himalayas forever? I dont think thats will of the majority of Tibetan (maybe monks want that).

There is a Tibetan pop song called "Walk Out of Himalaya, one of my fav. songs. Tibet is opening up rapidly. Nothing can make it go backwards, not even the "living buddha" Dalai.

[ice87]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 26 2005, 11:56 AM
Yeh, but did you know the land refoem lead to a famine, and that the chinese prevented the tibetans from wearing there traditional clothing, also tibet was a sverign country until it was invaded.
The chinese NEVER forbid the tibetans to wear their traditional clothing. They were free to excercise their religion and traditions. And China DOES have a historical claim to tibet. As early as the Chinese Yuan dynasty, when the mongols unified china, tibet was a part. in the later dynasties of Ming and Qing also, tibet chinese governed.