Log in

View Full Version : Tibet Occupation



eQuaLiTy
9th January 2005, 19:43
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. I do not know the in depth story of the situation but I do know some, and please, if any of you do know something about it feel free to state your opinion.

eQuaLiTy
9th January 2005, 21:02
If you are interested, here is a video of the situation.

http://www.gnn.tv/videos/video.php?id=25

Severian
9th January 2005, 21:10
Here's an article I wrote about Tibet once (http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/3.1_freetibet.html)

Here's an old thread on this board. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=16652)

eQuaLiTy
9th January 2005, 22:05
Thanks Comrade.

praxis1966
10th January 2005, 04:41
Personally I don't support either of the primary parties competing for control of the Tibetan government. While on the one hand I am opposed to imperialism in all it's guises, I don't believe that a return to theocracy run by the Dalai Lama to be the best alternative to Chinese occupation either. Ideally, there would be a government based upon a constitution (subject to approval via national referrendum of course) independent of either body. Ultimately, I believe the right of the people to self-determination to be absolute, and the Tibet situation is no exception.

comrade_mufasa
10th January 2005, 19:20
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 11:41 PM
Personally I don't support either of the primary parties competing for control of the Tibetan government. While on the one hand I am opposed to imperialism in all it's guises, I don't believe that a return to theocracy run by the Dalai Lama to be the best alternative to Chinese occupation either. Ideally, there would be a government based upon a constitution (subject to approval via national referrendum of course) independent of either body. Ultimately, I believe the right of the people to self-determination to be absolute, and the Tibet situation is no exception.
i think that the theocracy of Tibet is the only good one in the world. The Dali Lama created a constitution with a clouse that he can be voted out be the people. He is not king so much as he is just the highest priest so you can live in Tibet and not follow his rule. He is a socalist himself and has stated that if science could prove that reincarnation is not possible he would motion to remove it form the buddist faith, but in his words "how would you prove that reincarnation does not exist". he is a great man.
On topic the occupation needs to end. China gains nothing from Tibet and has made more truble then good for the Tibetian people

Severian
11th January 2005, 01:36
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:20 PM
. The Dali Lama created a constitution with a clouse that he can be voted out be the people.
Not when he was in power he didn't. He was both king and high priest: that's what theocrat means. And the Dalai Lama continues to excercise unchallenged control over the exile communties in India. I give a rather repressive example at the beginning of my article linked above. Actions speak louder than words, and the constitution decreed by the Tibetan government-in-exile remains merely a piece of paper.

The main difference with the reincarnate-lama monarchy is it guaranteed the new monarch wouldn't be born until a few years after the old one died; so there inevitably were long regencies between monarchs. Most Dalai Lamas were also short-lived - only 3 of the 14 ever grew old enough to assume power. Melvyn Goldstein, a leading historian of Tibet, suggests this may have been, in part, because they were often poisoned by rivals in the clerical hierarchy or nobility. If that's accurate, perhaps the current office-holder owes his long life to the Chinese Revolution? (In part because the sky-high infant mortality rates and low life expectancy of traditional Tibetan society would clearly provide a simpler partial explanation.)

This made for a weak central power and let local nobles, heads of monasteries, etc excercise the real power in their areas. They tended to block anything even slightly progressive the central government might attempt.

It was, in fact, the worst theocracy in the world, and the most resistant to change.