"free tibet"?

[VermontLeft]

i just saw another free tibet line on another site i go to and i started wondering, what is the general leftist thinking on this question?

i mean I agree that the china has no right to be killing people and settling their own citizens there (kind of like Israel actuallyt :o) but i mean ive done my research on the old Lama regime and it looks like it was practically mideval!

so is the thinking that we should support the tibeters in getting out of china but not support them putting the dalai back in power or is it that we should suport china being in their but change there poicies or neither...

im a little confused and i dont know anymore. i used to be a big free tibeter but conce i started reading more (and realized that that brad pitt movie is kind of propaganda ...although he is still a hottie :blush:) im much less certain.

help! :lol:

[Horatii]

but i mean ive done my research on the old Lama regime and it looks like it was practically mideval!

I've come to the same conclusion. Tibet doesn't need "freeing" so that they can oppress their citizens with fundementalist buddhism.

[Scars]

Free Tibet? Definately not. I can't say I support the Chinese, and in the past Han Chauvanism did make many Tibetans lives difficult (I'd like to note here that Mao deeply opposed Han Chauvanism), but compared to the old Theocracy any bad things happening are irrelivant.

The question you ask any 'free tibet' activist is "Do you support the Taliban, accepting that the Taliban regime was largely reflective of Afghanistan's history and culture?". If they say "No" Then they are hypocrites, as the Tibetan Theocracracy was just as bad, if not worse than the Taliban regime- 80% of the population of Afghanistan weren't in some form of bondage (either Serfdom, which was about 60% of the population or Slavery which was about 20% of the population).

In addition, many of these people are also part of various anti-war groups and other various liberal activist groups (that achive nothing and ignore the CAUSES of problems, but that's a whole different issue). Point out to them that the Dalai Lama is on the CIA payroll and has been since the '50s and that he has come out in support of every US led war, that is is even more conservative than the Pope (a favourite scapegoat for people criticising religious conservatism) when it comes to issues like homosexuality, abortion, womens rights and so on.

[RedKnight]

http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/D/DalaiLama_Marxist.htm

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 05:10 AM
http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/D/DalaiLama_Marxist.htm
Yeah, there is other quotes by him were he says he is something like "half Buddhist, half Marxist."

However, he was driving a car around his mansion in circles well there was still no roads in Tibet, and the only "destruction" he feared was that of the society that kept him in his privleged position.

http://individual.utoronto.ca/mrodden/study/tibet.htm

edit: Note: change the lakar.co.uk to lakar.org to find the correct link for those articles.

[Gottwald]

Tibet has been Chinese territory for the past 600 or so years. The Chinese Communists were far from the first to correctly consider Tibet as part of Chinese territory. This mock-liberation movement in the West amongst bourgeois Hollywood is a farce and an insult to all those that have strived for liberation. What is not mentioned in the western propaganda press is that the Dalai Lama of Tibet owned several hundred slaves. If you are for Tibetan separation, you are also for slavery, feudalism, and exploitation.

[redstar2000]

An amusing footnote...


Originally posted by BBC
Giant Mao statue erected in Tibet

The Chinese authorities say they are putting up a huge statue of Chairman Mao Zedong in Tibet.

The 35-ton memorial is being built to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the former leader's death.

It is being erected in Gonggar County, near the Tibetan capital Lhasa, China's state-run news agency Xinhua said.

The statue will rise 7m from a 5m pedestal strengthened to withstand earthquakes. Mao Zedong ordered the Chinese takeover of Tibet in 1950.

The statue will be the central landmark of Gonggar County's Shangcha square, which covers about 40,000 sq metres, and is scheduled for completion in July.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/asia-pacific/4915122.stm

Burning question of the day: do they have pigeons in Lhasa? :lol:

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

[Gottwald]

Mao Zedong ordered the Chinese takeover of Tibet in 1950.

Tibet has been Chinese territory for hundreds of years. Chairman Mao did not "take over" Tibet. For 700 years, there was not and never will be an separate Tibetan state. Tibet is not entitled to anything above autonomous status within the People's Republic of China.

[bcbm]

Tibet is not entitled to anything above autonomous status within the People's Republic of China.

Even if the Tibetans themselves want it? :rolleyes:

[321zero]

Marxism and the National Question - Stalin


A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

Check on all counts. If China is capitalist, then the Chinese presence in Tibet should be opposed.

Personally I say fuck the CIA\Tibet counter-revolutionaries

[321zero]

Tibet has been Chinese territory for the past 600 or so years.

On these grounds you could make an argument to legitimise the British in Ireland.

[Janus]

i mean I agree that the china has no right to be killing people and settling their own citizens there (kind of like Israel actuallyt
Not exactly. The state of Israel was artificially created while Tibet has actually been part of China since the Yuan dynasty. Furthermore, the government isn't settling people there, Han Chinese are moving there for economic benefits and such.

Now, the Chinese reclamation of Tibet was in no means truly right but you also have to analyze how "great" Tibet was doing by itself. Basically, the "benevolent" Dalai Lama and the lamas and aristocrats were the rulers of Tibet and lived off of the toil of the peasants. When land reform was later implemented, there was a revolt which spread to Lhasa by 1959.

Self-determination? Sure, but I think that with the Dalai Lama around, Tibet would just return back to pre-1950 times.


An amusing footnote...
I think that more concern should be placed over the hosting of the World Buddhist Forum by China.

Anyways, I found one quote somewhat strange from that article:

"Many Tibetan people suggested we should have a statue of Chairman Mao to show our gratitude," a local Communist Party official.
I wonder whether they're true Tibetans or Han people. :lol:

Anyways, that article like most BBC articles is wrong. It listed the wrong hometown of Mao.

[Gottwald]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:40 PM

On these grounds you could make an argument to legitimise the British in Ireland.


Well, Ireland would not be out of place in the UK given that the Celtic Scottish and Welsh are part of the UK.

But then again, at the moment you cannot legitimise such a claim because Ireland has been an internationally-recognised independent country for some 80 years.

[LSD]

I think he was talking about the six counties of Northern Ireland, not the presently constituted Republic of Ireland.

And it does indeed pose a fascinating questions for those on the "old left" who find themselves supporting imperialism in the name of "culture" or "history".

After all, Ulster has been a province of Great Britain for nearly as long as Tibet has been a province of China, and has actually been far more culturally and politically integrated than Tibet ever was.

Yes, Tibet has been a subject of the Chinese Empire for most of the past thousand years, but you need to understand that the same is true for most of East Asia. The Chinese Empire, after all, was absolutely dominant for over two millenia.

A history of expansionism, however, is not the same thing as legitimacy. And despite the PRC's insistance that it has some "right" to former Chinese territory, the standard for judging an occupation is more rigurous that merely checking old maps.

Tibet is culturally, ethnically, linguistically, politically, historically, and socially distinct from China and as such has a more than reasonable claim of a national identity.

The former theocracy of the Dalai Llama and his ministers was a feudalistic disgrace and I certainly have no sympathy for his "plight" or that of any other "displaced" aristocrat; but denying the existance of a Tibetan nation on the basis of the primitivity of its former government is like pretending that Italy doesn't exist because you don't like Mussilini.

Now, Tibet has become something of a cause celebre due to both its "romantic" character and the political maneuverings of the US and her allies. And while obviously the fantastical stories of Chinese "genocide" are exagerated and the apologism for the Llama regime is despicable, none of the "press" surrounding this issue is actually relevent to the central question.

And that is, do the Tibetan people have a right to self-determination?

I honestly fail to see how anyone could answer no to that question.

[TC]

do the Tibetan people have a right to self-determination?

Sure...but i very much doubt that if a referendum on Tibet's indepedence where held today, there is no way that Tibet's population (of all ethnic groups, and not counting the Tibetian junta exiles in India) would support seperation from the rest of China, and certaintly not the return of the Lama's theocratic slave-state despotism.


The democratic, elected government of Tibetan peasents, the Tibet Autonomous Region, which benefits from money being poured in from coastal china in the China Western Development project for education, health care, and infrastructure development that Tibet never had before the revolution, has never asked for seperation from the rest of China, and would not do so as it is not in their best interests.

The only people calling for an "independent tibet" are the unelected Tibetan theocratic royality exiles who exploited the Tibetan people in a military ruled feudel state among the most repressive in the world. They don't speak for Tibetan people only for themselves, just as every group of privileged exiles has turned to the United States to help them return to power.


Before the revolution more than half of Tibet's population were personally owned slaves of Lamas, the rest were under the autocratic rule of the Tibetan aristocracy. The Tibetan exiles are a self interested group that are trying to rob the Tibetan people of their right to self determination; they already exercised that right in deciding they didn't want to be slaves anymore, thats why the peasents sided with the Communists and the Tibetan Red Guard kicked out the monks.

[LSD]

Sure...but i very much doubt that if a referendum on Tibet's indepedence where held today, there is no way that Tibet's population (of all ethnic groups, and not counting the Tibetian junta exiles in India) would support seperation from the rest of China

Well, the latest census data states that 70% of the Tibet population is ethnic Tibetan so, while your probably right in your implication that most Han Chinese would oppose independence, I don't think that would be a serious obstacle in a fair plebiscite.

Not to mention that a good number of non-native Tibetans are concentrated in areas that are not really historically Tibetan and so especially if a more reasonable border was chosen than that demanded by the Dalai Llama and the government in exile, it is unlikely that ethnicity would be an "issue".


and certaintly not the return of the Lama's theocratic slave-state despotism.

Well, of course not.

Again, there is a difference between supporting the right of the people of Tibet to formulate an independent nation and supporting the Dalai Llama in his quest to reclaim his kingdom.


The democratic, elected government of Tibetan peasents, the Tibet Autonomous Region

:rolleyes:

The PRC is many things, but "democratic" is not one of them. Lately, it's not even socialist.

Tibet should be organized as an independent and sovereign state under the control of its own local peoples. If, afterwords, it choses to enter into a relationship with the China, that will be the will of its people.

But to imagine that a Chinese "autonumous district" is actually "autonomous" is simply naive.


[The government of Chinese Tibet] has never asked for seperation

Neither has the government of Northern Ireland.

[VermontLeft]

yeah, i guess i agree with LSD (again :wub:). Tibet should be able to get out of china, but the Lamas shouldnt be allowed to take over again.

its kind of like Napolean, you know? all those countries that he invaded got rid of their local aristocrats cause he killed them and replaced them with fake republics. but once he got kicked out a lot of them kept the republic part and got rid of the fake part.

I think that tibet can do the same thing. :)

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 02:25 AM
I think he was talking about the six counties of Northern Ireland, not the presently constituted Republic of Ireland.

And it does indeed pose a fascinating questions for those on the "old left" who find themselves supporting imperialism in the name of "culture" or "history".

After all, Ulster has been a province of Great Britain for nearly as long as Tibet has been a province of China, and has actually been far more culturally and politically integrated than Tibet ever was.

Ulster is not part of the UK state.

[TC]

Well, the latest census data states that 70% of the Tibet population is ethnic Tibetan so, while your probably right in your implication that most Han Chinese would oppose independence, I don't think that would be a serious obstacle in a fair plebiscite.

You would need more than 2/3rds of the ethnic Tibetan population to vote for seperation though, and theres absolutely no way that would happen. I mean, first of all, of the entire ethnic Tibtan population both within and outside of the TAR, .7 million were slaves and only .5 million were non-slave subjects (with no rights) of the Lamas, just a few decades ago. Do you really think the former slaves and children of slaves would really vote for a seperate Tibet?

The Tibetan peasents had one of the most radicalized, hard-leftwing Communist movements of all of China's people percisely because they suffered more under the former government than most Chinese, the Tibetan Communists were the ones who aggressively attacked Tibetan-Theocratic institutions, not the Han Communists who were comparatively tolerant of the Lamas.


Not to mention that a good number of non-native Tibetans are concentrated in areas that are not really historically Tibetan and so especially if a more reasonable border was chosen than that demanded by the Dalai Llama and the government in exile, it is unlikely that ethnicity would be an "issue".


So you're advocating gerrymandering along ethnic lines like the Kadima Party in Israel then?


Again, there is a difference between supporting the right of the people of Tibet to formulate an independent nation and supporting the Dalai Llama in his quest to reclaim his kingdom.


The vast majority of the Tibetan people in Tibet do not want to formulate an indepedent nation, they want to remain part of China as they've been for centuries. Simply because the Tibetan exiles have declared Tibet to be a seperate nation does not mean that this has any currency on the ground with the people of Tibet.


The PRC is many things, but "democratic" is not one of them. Lately, it's not even socialist.


The PRC is socialist in Tibet. Its not socialist everywhere but its socialist in Tibet, the Tibetan Communist Party is to the left of the national government.

And any electoral government of free citizens, even one under a capitalist system, is far more democratic than the Tibetan slave-state.


But to imagine that a Chinese "autonumous district" is actually "autonomous" is simply naive.


No, actually they really are highly autonomous, your ignorance of the chinese legal and political system shouldn't lead you to make such an assumption. The autonomous regions make their own laws, regulate their own economies, set their own taxes and determine the content of their own educational system, their own artistic and cultural funding, maintain an indepedent police force controlled locally, and additionally the Tibetan Autonomous Region stipulates that only Tibetans can hold the top political offices (which is racist), and despite this they recieve huge amounts of funding and subsidize from the central government (even though the central government doesn't get to choose how its spent).

Really they have a very good deal.


Neither has the government of Northern Ireland

You think the Tibetans deserve the right to self-determination and whether or not they want to be part of China but the Ulster-Scots don't deserve self determination and the right to decide whether or not they want to be part of the Republic of Ireland????

My feeling is that they both need to have self determination and it happens that in both cases the majority want to preserve the status quo.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:49 PM

Well, the latest census data states that 70% of the Tibet population is ethnic Tibetan so, while your probably right in your implication that most Han Chinese would oppose independence, I don't think that would be a serious obstacle in a fair plebiscite.

You would need more than 2/3rds of the ethnic Tibetan population to vote for seperation though, and theres absolutely no way that would happen.
As a general rule: plebescites on self-determination should be only for the oppressed nationality. The state of the dominant nationality shouldn't be allowed to pack them by encouraging settlement. That applies a lot of places besides Tibet, from Western Sahara to New Caledonia.

More generally on Tibet:
Free Tibet? (http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/3.1_freetibet.html)

This board's biggest thread on Tibet so far (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32169)

[LSD]

You would need more than 2/3rds of the ethnic Tibetan population to vote for seperation though, and theres absolutely no way that would happen. I mean, first of all, of the entire ethnic Tibtan population both within and outside of the TAR, .7 million were slaves and only .5 million were non-slave subjects (with no rights) of the Lamas, just a few decades ago. Do you really think the former slaves and children of slaves would really vote for a seperate Tibet?

Again, you're assuming that an independent Tibet must be a theocratic Tibet, which is simply nonsense.

Obviously the current situation is preferable to Llama-rule, but we are not forced to chose between the Tibet of today and the Tibet of 1949.

History moves forwards!


So you're advocating gerrymandering along ethnic lines like the Kadima Party in Israel then?

No, I'm just suggesting that the borders of a hypothetical Tibetan state actually be consistant with historical and ethnic Tibet.

It's not "gerrymandering", if it's based on valid historical and national facts.


And any electoral government of free citizens, even one under a capitalist system, is far more democratic than the Tibetan slave-state.

Again, I entirely agree. But no one (save the "government" of Tibet in "exile") is arguing for a restoration of the theocracy.

What I, and I think VermontLeft, are rather suggesting is that a modern Tibetan state be constituted so that the people of Tibet enjoy genuine automony and political freedom.


No, actually they really are highly autonomous

Relative to PRC norms, that may be true, but I'm not grading on a curve here.


You think the Tibetans deserve the right to self-determination and whether or not they want to be part of China but the Ulster-Scots don't deserve self determination and the right to decide whether or not they want to be part of the Republic of Ireland????

You know, I used to agree with that position and opposed the unification of Ireland, but I have since realized that supporting the status quo means endorsing imperialism and justifying exactly the kind of "gerrymandering" you were speaking of earlier.

In 1999, as I recall, a majority of Hong Kong wished to remain British, but that did not mean that it should not have been returned to China.

Similarly, in 1938, the majority of the Sudeten population favoured unification with the Reich. That didn't make either Hitler's actions or the imperialist Munich treaty any more justified.

Self-determination is not universal, it applies to peoples and nations not to arbitrary groups of artificial composition.

There are numerous examples in history of instances where ostensible "self-determination" would be anti-progressive and to take the line that any arbitrary jursidiction should be granted the right to "determine its fate" is hopelessly counterproductive.

Hell, even in my own backyard, I can point to an example in which "self-determination" was undesirable. The island of Montreal was recently "unified" under one municipal government and the burough of Westmount now wants automonomy so that its predominantly wealthy citizens do not have to support the rest of the city.

Now, technically, this is a "self-determination" issue, but practically, it's a class one.

You see we need to actually analyze situations carefuly so that we understand what is actually happening. Blanket generalizations only harm our efforts.

[321zero]

I need to revise what I said above it the light of what follows - Tibet should have the right to secede, shouldn't neccesarily exercise that right.

[321zero]

The government of Chinese Tibet has never asked for seperation

Neither has the government of Northern Ireland.

A prime example of gerrymandering borders to manufacture a localised majorty.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:07 PM
No, I'm just suggesting that the borders of a hypothetical Tibetan state actually be consistant with historical and ethnic Tibet.
Which one? Historical or ethnic?

There never was a Tibetan state whose boundaries corresponded even roughly to those of ethnographic Tibet. (If you go back to the 11th century C.E. or before, there was a strong kingdom that ruled rather more....but nothing like it since.) The present-day Tibet Autonomous Region roughly corresponds to the area formerly ruled by the Lhasa government. (Using the word "ruled" very loosely; the DL or more often his regent headed a very weak central government with most real power held by local aristocrats or abbots.)

But self-determination for oppressed nationalities should generally correspond to...the territory inhabited by that oppressed nationality. The "ethnographic" boundaries. Often regardless of present or past state borders; Kurdistan is a good example.

Partition, or the threat of partition, is often another maneuver of the oppressing state. For example, the creation of the six-county British enclave in Ireland!


Now, technically, this is a "self-determination" issue,"

No, it isn't. Your wealthy suburb example has nothing to do with the national question.

321zero wrote:

If China is capitalist, then the Chinese presence in Tibet should be opposed.

It isn't, wholly, yet; but national self-determination shouldn't be conditional on that. Achieving political unity among working people is the priority, more than a set of borders. In this case, including unity against the regime and its ongoing privatizations and other moves towards capitalism.

Taking a stand for self-determination can help advance that kind of unity.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 04:49 AM
You think the Tibetans deserve the right to self-determination and whether or not they want to be part of China but the Ulster-Scots don't deserve self determination and the right to decide whether or not they want to be part of the Republic of Ireland????

My feeling is that they both need to have self determination and it happens that in both cases the majority want to preserve the status quo.
As the Unionists (or to use the latest trendy term, "Ulster Scots") don't constitute a nation, nor do they claim to, the argument for self determination is not valid.

Tibet is at least a nation, unlike the six counties of Norn Iron, which is not even the entire province of Ulster (those identifying with the Orange are actually a minority in Ulster).

[memoryhouse]

Via the website of the Tibetan Government in Exile, here's the governing system that the Dalai Lama would like see implemented.

Avoiding the two extremes of capitalism and socialism, Tibet will formulate a special economic system to suit its own needs. The taxation system of Tibet will be based on income criteria.
http://www.tibet.com/future.html

I got kick out of the following:

Under Tibet's Kings and the Dalai Lamas, we had a political system that was firmly rooted in our spiritual values. As a result, peace and happiness prevailed in Tibet.

[VermontLeft]

yeah obviously the dali lama and his supporters are in the wrong on this, but im pretty convinced now that Tibetans should get their own country. :)

maybe it will even learn from chinas mistakes and make a real socialist country this time. i mean i dont think that many Tibetans will welcome back the aristocrats and slave-holders, so theyll probably set up a pretty leftleaning type country you know?

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 02:25 AM
Tibet is culturally, ethnically, linguistically, politically, historically, and socially distinct from China and as such has a more than reasonable claim of a national identity.
Every part of China is "culturally, ethnically, linguistically, politically, historically, and socially distinct". China has 56 official ethinicities:

http://www.index-china.com/minority/minority-english.htm

[LSD]

Every part of China is "culturally, ethnically, linguistically, politically, historically, and socially distinct".

No, not "every part", but you are correct in that China is a very multicultural country.

That has no bearing, however, on whether or not the Tibetan people have the right to self-determination.

Again, I point to the UK as a relevent example. The fact that the UK is presently composed of several "nations" (English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish...) does not mean that its continued occupation of Norther Ireland is justified.

Nations must have the opportunity to pursue their own individual sovereignty; and a history of occupation does not negate basic social rights.

[TC]

As the Unionists (or to use the latest trendy term, "Ulster Scots") don't constitute a nation, nor do they claim to, the argument for self determination is not valid.

Tibet is at least a nation, unlike the six counties of Norn Iron, which is not even the entire province of Ulster (those identifying with the Orange are actually a minority in Ulster).

Ulster scots have their own language, Lowland Scots, though like the Irish principly speak English as a first language.

It is entirely arbitrary to call one population a "nation" and another not a nation. Its the same tactic used by the Zionists to claim that the Palestinians had no right to self determination because they "weren't a nation."

All populations have a right to self determination period, the idea of "nations" rights as opposed to "people's" rights is reactionary.

China is a country with many different languages, ethnic groups, historical religous beliefs, that has been through periods both of being a unified country and many different kingdoms...the Tibetans are not anymore diverse or a unique "nation" than any other Chinese group.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:16 PM

As the Unionists (or to use the latest trendy term, "Ulster Scots") don't constitute a nation, nor do they claim to, the argument for self determination is not valid.

Tibet is at least a nation, unlike the six counties of Norn Iron, which is not even the entire province of Ulster (those identifying with the Orange are actually a minority in Ulster).

Ulster scots have their own language, Lowland Scots, though like the Irish principly speak English as a first language.

It is entirely arbitrary to call one population a "nation" and another not a nation. Its the same tactic used by the Zionists to claim that the Palestinians had no right to self determination because they "weren't a nation."

All populations have a right to self determination period, the idea of "nations" rights as opposed to "people's" rights is reactionary.

China is a country with many different languages, ethnic groups, historical religous beliefs, that has been through periods both of being a unified country and many different kingdoms...the Tibetans are not anymore diverse or a unique "nation" than any other Chinese group.
They don't have 'their own' language. Some of them, a minority, speak a dialect of English called Scots. They do not constitute a seperate nation from Britain in any sense.

A large number of Unionists reject the entire "ulster scots" identity outright, including such leading unionists as Trimble. They insist they're British subjects, not a seperate identity, no more no less. In essence you are supporting a minority group within the six county state.

The Ulster Scots identity, especially those who advocate a language, have been almost exclusively a phenomena in response to the growth of Irish. For example, when a community with Irish speakers want to add signs in Irish, they block this by insisting they be in Scots. When invited to use their language in more everyday contexts and to provide examples such as parliamentary debates in Scots by Irish language activists, the Ulster Scots responded 'it's not that kind of language'. :lol:

[Janus]

Tibet is culturally, ethnically, linguistically, politically, historically, and socially distinct from China and as such has a more than reasonable claim of a national identity.

No, not "every part",

In China, there is a different dialect in almost every city. The major unifying forces is simply Pu Tong Hua and the writing system. Even Han Chinese can be divided into many further subgroups.

Therefore, one can apply your statement to Xinjiang, Heilongjiang, Inner Mongolia, Guizhou, Yunnan, and others.

Furthermore, autonomous regions are quite independent in that there is actually quite a significant amount of autonomy as there are also autonomous prefectures, counties, and banners in addition to regions. There are over a hundred different autonomous entities in the PRC.

Since Tibetans are the dominant majority in Tibet (Over 90%), it should be their right to decide on what's best for themselves, of course. Though the influence of the Dalai Lama must be taken into account as well. After all, he is the main cause why the Tibetan cause is so romanticized.

[Z.Hume]

The question of Tibet's freedom was answered long ago. No nation in the world recognized it as a sovereign nation, and although Tibet and Great Britain signed treaties in the early 1900's, they too have never thought of Tibet as anything more than a vassal state to China (both Empirical and the Republic).

Under the PRC Tibet has only seen little benefit to the ethnic Tibetans while the region has been stripped of its resources for China's expansion. The PRC has migrated Han's by the train car load into Tibet and basically made the Tibetans a minority in their own land.

I'm an IR student, a Buddhist and a Tibetan sympathizer as well as being a socialist. My belief is that Tibet's cultural sovereignty needs to be protected and that Tibet's independence as a nation-state is lost. We may see China squash a religion and a culture away otherwise.

[Agrippa]

In China, there is a different dialect in almost every city. The major unifying forces is simply Pu Tong Hua and the writing system. Even Han Chinese can be divided into many further subgroups.

The same is true of Spain, but that doesn't make Dutch people any more Spanish....

[Agrippa]

I can't say I support the Chinese

Yet you're perfectly willing to uncritically parrot their key mass-media propaganda talking points, such as the claim that Tibetan Lamaists are as bad or worse than the Taliban (something that can only be said to be true of is the Buddhist-fascist Gelugs who are a PRC front)


in the past Han Chauvanism did make many Tibetans lives difficult

In the past? The policies, and the consequences the Tibetan people must endure, have gotten worse, what with the "democratic reforms" and the development of the Chinese police/security infastructure.


(I'd like to note here that Mao deeply opposed Han Chauvanism)

Of course he did. All ethnic groups should be equally subservient to and subjugated by the Party. :lol:


but compared to the old Theocracy any bad things happening are irrelivant.

Irrelevant to people who don't live in Tibet.


The question you ask any 'free tibet' activist is "Do you support the Taliban, accepting that the Taliban regime was largely reflective of Afghanistan's history and culture?". If they say "No" Then they are hypocrites, as the Tibetan Theocracracy was just as bad, if not worse than the Taliban regime

How could you even possibly say that? The Tibetan theocracy (which didn't even control the entire reigon of Tibet) never outlawed music, forced women to wear burquas outlawed oral and anal sex...in fact, Tibetan society was very tolerant of homosexuals and especially transgendered and polyamorous people, (Tibetan society did, as I understand it, have a pederasty problem, but that's par for the course for Greco-Aryan civilization which Tibet was as much a part of as it could be considered in any way a part of China)


80% of the population of Afghanistan weren't in some form of bondage

almost 100 percent of the population of Afghanistan does exist "in some form of bondage", both now and under the Taliban, as the vast majority of Afghans are either proletarian or peasants, and both classes are forms of bondage. (Even being bourgeois could be considered a form of bondage, especially if you compare the life of a bourgeoisie to that of an aristocrat, but that might be going too far)


(either Serfdom, which was about 60% of the population or Slavery which was about 20% of the population)

They didn't have Zogby in medieval Tibet, so I call total BS on that unsourced statistic. It's sort of the Maoist equivalent of the "Mao killed 80 million people!" claim


Point out to them that the Dalai Lama is on the CIA payroll and has been since the '50s and that he has come out in support of every US led war

All of which will already be well-known to any serious acolyte of Tibetan national liberation politics. Most Tibetan radicals loathe the Dalai Lama for his religious conservatism, his pacifism, his mediationism, and the obviously neo-colonial nature of the Tibetan Government in Exile.


that is is even more conservative than the Pope

That's such a baseless claim. The current Dalai Lama is one of the more conservative Lamas, (for example, he claims anal sex is a sin) yet he has never called for condom-burning, referred to Muslims as enemies of civilization, participated in the Hitler Youth, claimed Harry Potter is a Satanic conspiracy, claimed there are Satanic subliminal messages in the Eagles, (trivia: if you play the Eagles backwards, all that happens is that you hear really shitty 70s pop played backwards) and so on...

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

The "free Tibet" movement is for the massive majority led by radical Buddhist theocrats who want to restore some kind of feudal theocracy in Tibet.
Imagine a Buddhist Iran-like state, that's about what the "free Tibet" guys want.

[Yehuda Stern]

The PRC is socialist in Tibet. Its not socialist everywhere but its socialist in Tibet, the Tibetan Communist Party is to the left of the national government.

Wonderful - "socialism in one district."


The "free Tibet" movement is for the massive majority led by radical Buddhist theocrats who want to restore some kind of feudal theocracy in Tibet.
Imagine a Buddhist Iran-like state, that's about what the "free Tibet" guys want.

So we shouldn't support the Palestinian resistance against Israel either, because it is led by Islamic and nationalist reactionaries?

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Wonderful - "socialism in one district."



So we shouldn't support the Palestinian resistance against Israel either, because it is led by Islamic and nationalist reactionaries?
Even Islamism is better than the zionist oppression.
But Buddhist extremism is by no means better than Chinese Socialism.

[gorillafuck]

Are there any statistics on how many Tibetans want to completely secede from China?

[mosfeld]

The “free Tibet“ movement is headed by monks who'd love to restore the old theocracy and I think can safely assume that the workers of Tibet have absolutely nothing to gain from such change, and frankly, anyone who claims that the Tibetans, who are fighting, are fighting for “freedom“ should be restricted for claiming there's any freedom in fighting for theocracy.

[LeninBalls]

Are there any statistics on how many Tibetans want to completely secede from China?

I've looked, but haven't been able to find any. The best proof we've got is, if you look at a pro-Tibet rally (by Tibetans) you'll find that it's mainly if not only led by monks and their students.

[Agrippa]

I'm waiting for the Marxist-Leninist argument about how we shouldn't support Leftist movements in Latin American countries such as Guatemala because they're allegedly "led" by Catholic nuns and priests....

[Yehuda Stern]

But Buddhist extremism is by no means better than Chinese Socialism.

A very interesting socialism, which is market capitalist (not even state capitalist like China used to be), and brutally exploits the working class.


The “free Tibet“ movement is headed by monks who'd love to restore the old theocracy and I think can safely assume that the workers of Tibet have absolutely nothing to gain from such change, and frankly, anyone who claims that the Tibetans, who are fighting, are fighting for “freedom“ should be restricted for claiming there's any freedom in fighting for theocracy.

What stupid useless logic. These people are actually just disagreeing with your biased and false assertion that only Buddhist extremists are fighting for a free Tibet. If anything, people like you should be restricted for denying the right of self-determination for an oppressed people. But since these people are not white, you will not be.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00100/pg-36-china-afp-get_100783t.jpg


http://harrietsdaughter.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/sweatshop.jpg
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/articles/aug07/055Mattelfactory_468x310.jpg

All power to the sweatshops! Long Live Glorious "Chinese Socialism"!:laugh::laugh::laugh:
And how would the extremists from Tibet make it better?

[LeninBalls]

only Buddhist extremists are fighting for a free Tibet. If anything, people like you should be restricted for denying the right of self-determination for an oppressed people. But since these people are not white, you will not be.

Can you find any proof that the majority wants independence? If it were so I'd let Tibet be, as it would clearly being Chinese imperialism clinging onto Tibet. However, like my post states earlier, after countless searches the only things I've seen are Tibetan monks and their students fighting and protesting.

[mosfeld]

false assertion that only Buddhist extremists are fighting for a free Tibet Did you actually read my post? I said that the movement is HEADED by Buddhist monks who don’t have the interest of the working class at heart at all, however, that doesn’t mean I'm denying that there are non-Buddhist monks in this movement, although they do seem like the majority.


If anything, people like you should be restricted for denying the right of self-determination for an oppressed people. I'm not denying their right to self-determination, if the majority actually wanted independence I wouldn’t ***** about it, but there’s no proof of that whatsoever.


But since these people are not white, you will not be. Sorry, what?

[mosfeld]

Perhaps the "feudal" "reactionary" "Buddhist" "extremists" will build a temple and pray all of capitalism's troubles away?

In seriousness, by supporting capitalist China, you have lost any semblance of being taken seriously. Not supporting a CIA backed movement headed by theocrats automatically means you support China? If someone doesn't like A, does that automatically mean he likes B?

[Agrippa]

And how would the extremists from Tibet make it better?

As I've said before, the Tibetan "extremists" are pro-PRC.

You might have a difficult time understanding this, since you appear to be so ignorant of the situation, willfully or otherwise.

Y'know how Catholic fascist like Mel Gibson think the last four or five popes have been phonies, and basically imply it would be a good thing if some real Catholics overthrew the Catholic church and restore it to its former glory?

Well, the Tibetan Buddhist extremists feel the same way about the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile

The Vatican has a lot of sway in Italian politics, and Italy isn't a "fuedal, reactionary" state. That's because there's nothing "fuedal" or even "reactionary" about the Vatican state or the bureaucracy of the Catholic church. There are reactionary elements in the Vatican just as there are in the Tibetan Buddhist religious bureaucracies and the Tibetan Government in Exile, but in both cases, they are outnumbered by the garden-variety technocratic capitalists.

The Tibetan-Buddhist fascists have a certain prayer that calls for the total destructon of every other sect - that includes the Dalai Lama, and thus they end up siding with the PRC - not because they're buddies or have the same long-term goals or philosophical positions - but because they have the same interests. Just like the Tibetan bourgeoisie and Western Intelligence. However, you live in the past. The US has no interest anymore in trying to "liberate" Tibet. The US can barely manage their own affairs, much less stand up to a far more advanced and sophisticated capitalist state such as the PRC.

[FreeFocus]

China's occupation of Tibet has everything to do with providing a buffer against other states in the form of the Himalayas. Having Tibet and Xinjiang on the western border protects the Chinese "heartland."

Regardless of who leads the independence movements, it's simply a fact that the Chinese state clings to these territories to protect and expand its imperialist interests - something it has always done, whether in the form of having vassal states in earlier centuries or outright incorporating territories, as it has done with Tibet and Xinjiang.

[Verix]

if the united states was claiming another country as its own you guys would be against it, but china who is accually worse then the united states when it comes to expolitation almost everybody supports it :laugh:

The “free Tibet“ movement is headed by monks who'd love to restore the old theocracy and I think can safely assume that the workers of Tibet have absolutely nothing to gain from such change, and frankly, anyone who claims that the Tibetans, who are fighting, are fighting for “freedom“ should be restricted for claiming there's any freedom in fighting for theocracy.
and your idea of freedom is working 18 hours a day in a factory making shit for places like wal-mart and getting paid 3 cents a hour? you need to take a class on freedom, atleast under the lamas people were not slaves

[RedHal]

if the united states was claiming another country as its own you guys would be against it, but china who is accually worse then the united states when it comes to expolitation almost everybody supports it :laugh:

Yeah tell that to people in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, South America, Southeast Asia etc... Just cuz American's can get fat and ignorant while watching TV all day, doesn't make the US a more benevolent empire.


and your idea of freedom is working 18 hours a day in a factory making shit for places like wal-mart and getting paid 3 cents a hour? you need to take a class on freedom, atleast under the lamas people were not slaves

Did Richard Gere tell you that?

[Revy]

Free Tibet reminds me too much of Zionism. I know that there may have been "progressive" people back then who supported Zionism believing it to be a national liberation movement - and now here we are.

The tendency among some in the Free Tibet movement and the Dalai Lama has been to demonize Han for choosing to move and live in Tibet - this could mean a very prejudiced regime if the reactionaries have control.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Perhaps the "feudal" "reactionary" "Buddhist" "extremists" will build a temple and pray all of capitalism's troubles away?

In seriousness, by supporting capitalist China, you have lost any semblance of being taken seriously.
Comrade, I think you misunderstand me.
I do not totally "support" China, I sipmly prefer China above some thoecratic reactionaty morons in Tibet.

[LeninBalls]

If someone doesn't like A, does that automatically mean he likes B?

^

[mosfeld]

atleast under the lamas people were not slaves Actually, something like 90-95% of Tibet were slaves/serfs. I suggest you read this excellent article by Michael Parenti.

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

[Yehuda Stern]

Can you find any proof that the majority wants independence? If it were so I'd let Tibet be, as it would clearly being Chinese imperialism clinging onto Tibet.

I'm not denying their right to self-determination, if the majority actually wanted independence I wouldn’t ***** about it

Since under a totalitarian regime, the wishes of the majority are often pretty unclear, it would be good to actually learn the history and structure of the occupation rather than take a position of it based on some liberal-bourgeoisie argument of majority support.


Free Tibet reminds me too much of Zionism. I know that there may have been "progressive" people back then who supported Zionism believing it to be a national liberation movement - and now here we are.

A position based on a shallow analogy is almost always a bad one. Need I really specify all the important ways in which the Zionist movement is different from the Tibetan people?

[Verix]

Yeah tell that to people in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, South America, Southeast Asia etc... Just cuz American's can get fat and ignorant while watching TV all day, doesn't make the US a more benevolent empire.
tell that to the people of tibet

[x359594]

...The tendency among some in the Free Tibet movement and the Dalai Lama has been to demonize Han for choosing to move and live in Tibet - this could mean a very prejudiced regime if the reactionaries have control.

That's true in part, but the Dalai Lama has come to recognize that any future Tibetan Autonomous Region will have to accommodate the Han settlers who already live and in fact out number the Tibetan population.

[x359594]

Actually, something like 90-95% of Tibet were slaves/serfs...

No, they weren't. The actual figure would be closer to around 40 % living in serfdom or as tenants of monastic domains. The economic position of the Tibetans was part nomadic in the eastern pasture lands, part mercantile in the urban centers and border regions, part free holder in the central regions.

Note that the 1959 uprising originated with the pastoral nomads who were being forced to settle and part of who's former roving territory was incorporated into China.

The entire Tibet question is much more complex than people think. It's not a question of good guys vs. bad guys, CIA games in central Asia, brutal Chinese exploitation of gentle harmless Buddhists or progressive Mao Tse Dung thought vs. reactionary Buddhism.

For starters it would be useful to read Dragon in the Land of the Snows by Tsering Shakya and other sources cited in his notes.

[Agrippa]

No, they weren't. The actual figure would be closer to around 40 % living in serfdom or as tenants of monastic domains. The economic position of the Tibetans was part nomadic in the eastern pasture lands, part mercantile in the urban centers and border regions, part free holder in the central regions.

Note that the 1959 uprising originated with the pastoral nomads who were being forced to settle and part of who's former roving territory was incorporated into China.

The entire Tibet question is much more complex than people think. It's not a question of good guys vs. bad guys, CIA games in central Asia, brutal Chinese exploitation of gentle harmless Buddhists or progressive Mao Tse Dung thought vs. reactionary Buddhism.

For starters it would be useful to read Dragon in the Land of the Snows by Tsering Shakya and other sources cited in his notes.

Wow, someone who actually knows something about Tibet....I'm impressed.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

That's true in part, but the Dalai Lama has come to recognize that any future Tibetan Autonomous Region will have to accommodate the Han settlers who already live and in fact out number the Tibetan population.
And still every "Free Tibet" movement includes persecutions of the ethnic Han poulation. In the last uprising in Lhasa, Tibetan monks have burned down Han houses and attacked the people with swords.

[x359594]

And still every "Free Tibet" movement includes persecutions of the ethnic Han poulation. In the last uprising in Lhasa, Tibetan monks have burned down Han houses and attacked the people with swords.

Well, one person's persecution is another person's resistance to oppression. And the houses were burned by ordinary Tibetans as well as a group of monks.

Again, the situation is more complicated than its painted here. Contrary to popular belief and Chinese propaganda, the Dalai Lama does not command the Free Tibet movement within the borders of the TAR. His position within the movement is on the wane, and a more militant leadership has emerged. It's highly likely that this faction will capture the movement and take up armed struggle after the Dalai Lama dies if not before. At that point, I think we can expect the Free Tibet movement's bourgeois supporters in the West to melt away since armed struggle is not their cup of tea.

[Agrippa]

And still every "Free Tibet" movement includes persecutions of the ethnic Han poulation. In the last uprising in Lhasa, Tibetan monks have burned down Han houses and attacked the people with swords.

As x359594 has explained, this cannot be adequately described as "persecution" any more than an indigenous Hawaiian being rude to a white tourist could be called "persecution", or Hamas shooting a rocket launcher into Israeli settlements, or an American Indian guy making a joke about killing all white people.

Han settlers benefit from a system of racist police/prison/educational system control - just like white settlers in the US, just like Anglo-Saxon and Scotch settlers in Ireland, etc. They are making the choice to settle an occupied territory, to be pawns in the economic development of a once-free land. Many Han settler may be ignorant of these conditions, but like all able-minded, adult settlers, their ignorance is willing.

Nuns have been arrested sabotaging bombers on a US Air Force base. Just because it includes the participation of members of a hierarchical, organized religion that you find objectionable, doesn't mean that the US anti-war movement is "controlled" by members of that religious group, especially "reactionary" members.

[x359594]

In 1979 Deng Xiao Ping admitted to errors in governance of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, and officials since then have engaged in criticism and self-criticism regarding the treatment of the indigenous population.

Fan Ming, the Deputy Secretary of the CCP Tibet Work Committee, told a meeting that "Great Han Chauvinism in Tibet is manifested in the feeling of superiority of the Han race, repugnance towards the backwardness of Tibet, discrimination of Tibet, distortion of Tibet, failure to respect the religious beliefs and traditional customs of the Tibetans." Such views, he said, had become prevalent among the PLA and others officials who had become "conceited and arrogant, and cherished the thought of having special privileges." Thus, Chinese cadres are well aware of the serious mishandling of the Tibetan situation; all the unrest in Tibet does not emanate from the Dalai Lama, his clique, monkish factions and CIA agitators.

[FreeFocus]

Han chauvinism cannot be understated. It is extremely prevalent, as ethnic chauvinism is when you have a settler population.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

In 1979 Deng Xiao Ping admitted to errors in governance of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, and officials since then have engaged in criticism and self-criticism regarding the treatment of the indigenous population.

Fan Ming, the Deputy Secretary of the CCP Tibet Work Committee, told a meeting that "Great Han Chauvinism in Tibet is manifested in the feeling of superiority of the Han race, repugnance towards the backwardness of Tibet, discrimination of Tibet, distortion of Tibet, failure to respect the religious beliefs and traditional customs of the Tibetans." Such views, he said, had become prevalent among the PLA and others officials who had become "conceited and arrogant, and cherished the thought of having special privileges." Thus, Chinese cadres are well aware of the serious mishandling of the Tibetan situation; all the unrest in Tibet does not emanate from the Dalai Lama, his clique, monkish factions and CIA agitators.

Deng Xiaoping was a traitor, I couldn't care less about what he said.

[Agrippa]

Deng Xiaoping was a traitor, I couldn't care less about what he said.

Deng Xiaoping, as a ruthless capitalist, would not act against his self-interest. Thus his concern for the potentially disruptive consequences of contradictions within Chinese capitalism (yes, capitalism) between a chauvinistic Han settler culture and the indigenous Tibetans should be taken seriously, just as capitalist panic around global warming and peak oil should be taken seriously. Your argument is basically equivilant to a frequently right-wing anti-global warming argument: "our government is corrupt and self-interested and therefore bad and they want us to believe in global warming, therefore believing in global warming is also bad".

Also, what is Xiaoping a "traitor" to? To the measly scraps of bread and cheese Mao gave to his subjects? To be a traitor, one must at first have loyalty. Capitalist bureaucrats (including those who use once-communist parties as organs of capitalist control, such as Zedong and Xioping) have no loyalty to the masses when they feed them, because their only reasons for feeding them in the first place are those of pure self-interest

[IrishWorker]

Free Tibet?


Liam O Ruairc IRSP • 12 May 2004
In Western countries, the movement to 'free Tibet' from Chinese occupation is very popular among the 57 different varieties of liberals and human rights campaigners. The media generally presents a very positive image of Buddhism, the Dalai Lama is hailed as a modern saint, and an idealized image of Tibet before the Chinese take over is given. However, it is worth examining what sort of place Tibet was before the Chinese intervention, who benefited and who lost from it, and who the people campaigning for 'free Tibet' are (1).

In Tibet, prior to the Chinese take over, theocratic despotism had been the rule for generations. An English visitor to Tibet in 1895, Dr. A. L. Waddell, wrote that the Tibetan people were 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" and "a barrier to all human improvement." 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 the world has ever seen." Tibetan rulers, like those of Europe during the Middle Ages, "forged innumerable weapons of servitude, invented degrading legends and stimulated a spirit of superstition" among the common people (Stuart Gelder and Roma Gelder, The Timely Rain: Travels in New Tibet, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1964, 123-125). In Tibet, slavery was the rule.

The following account was written by Sir Charles Bell, who was the British administrator for Chumbi Valley in 1904-05: "'Slaves were sometimes stolen, when small children, from their parents. Or the father and mother, being too poor to support their child, would sell it to a man, who paid them _sho-ring_, "price of mother's milk," brought up the child and kept it, or sold it, as a slave. These children come mostly from south-eastern Tibet and the territories of the wild tribes who dwell between Tibet and Assam.' (Charles Bell, Tibet: Past and Present, Oxford, 1924, pp. 78-79. Taken from http://www.faqs.org/faqs/tibet-faq (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.faqs.org/faqs/tibet-faq))

In 1953, six years before the Chinese takeover, the greater part of the rural population (some 700,000 of an estimated total population of 1,250,000) were serfs. Serfs and other peasants generally received no schooling or medical care. They spent most of their time working for the monasteries and high-ranking lamas, or for a secular aristocracy that numbered not more than 200 families. They were in practice owned by their masters who told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. A serf might easily be separated from his family should the owner send him to work in a distant location. Serfs could be sold by their masters, or subjected to torture and death (for more details see http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html)).

Whatever wrongs and new oppressions introduced by the Chinese in Tibet after 1959, they did abolish slavery and the serfdom system of unpaid labor. They started work projects, and greatly reduced unemployment and beggary. They built the only hospitals that exist in the country, and established secular education, thereby breaking the educational monopoly of the monasteries. They constructed running water and electrical systems in Lhasa. They also put an end to floggings, mutilations, and amputations as a form of criminal punishment under Buddhist rule. Chinese rule in Tibet has often been brutal, however its extent has often been exaggerated.

The accusations made by the Dalai Lama himself about Chinese mass sterilization and forced deportation of Tibetans, for example, have remained unsupported by any evidence. 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. This figure is more than dubious. The official 1953 census, six years before the Chinese take over, recorded the entire population of Tibet at 1,274,000. Other estimates varied from one to three million. Other census counts put the ethnic Tibetan population within the country at about two million (Pradyumna P. Karan, The Changing Face of Tibet: The Impact of Chinese Communist Ideology on the Landscape, Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1976, 52-53). If the Chinese killed 1.2 million then entire cities and huge portions of the countryside, indeed almost all of Tibet, would have been depopulated - something for which there is no evidence. The Chinese military force in Tibet was not large enough to round up, chase, and exterminate that many people even if it had spent all its time doing this.

It is worth examining who is behind the 'Free Tibet' movement. The former elites lost many of their privileges due to the Chinese takeover. The family of the Dalai Lama lost no fewer than 4000 slaves! It is thus not surprising that feudal lords should campaign against the social gains of Maoism. Their campaign has found an international echo thanks to the CIA. Throughout the 1960s the Tibetan exile community received $1.7 million a year from the CIA, according to documents released by the State Department in 1998. The Dalai Lama's organization itself admits that it had received millions of dollars from the CIA during the 1960s to send armed squads of exiles into Tibet to undermine the Maoist revolution. The Dalai Lama's annual share was $186,000, making him a paid agent of the CIA. Indian intelligence also financed him and other Tibetan exiles (Jim Mann, "CIA Gave Aid to Tibetan Exiles in '60s, Files Show," Los Angeles Times, 15 September 1998; and New York Times, 1 October, 1998). Today, mostly through the National Endowment for Democracy and other conduits that are more respectable-sounding than the CIA, the US Congress continues to allocate an annual $2 million to Tibetans in India, with additional millions for "democracy activities" within the Tibetan exile community (See Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison, The CIA's Secret War in Tibet, Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 2002, for example).

Also, while presenting himself as a defender of human rights, the Dalai Lama supports more than dubious causes. For example, in April 1999, along with Margaret Thatcher and George Bush senior, the Dalai Lama called upon the British government to release Augusto Pinochet.

While Chinese rule is resented by many in Tibet, people are also afraid to loose the social gains of Maoism. A 1999 story in the Washington Post notes that the Dalai Lama continues to be revered in Tibet, but "few Tibetans would welcome a return of the corrupt aristocratic clans that fled with him in 1959 and that comprise the bulk of his advisers. Many Tibetan farmers, for example, have no interest in surrendering the land they gained during China's land reform to the clans. Tibet's former slaves say they, too, don't want their former masters to return to power. "I've already lived that life once before," said Wangchuk, a 67-year-old former slave who was wearing his best clothes for his yearly pilgrimage to Shigatse, one of the holiest sites of Tibetan Buddhism. He said he worshipped the Dalai Lama, but added, "I may not be free under Chinese communism, but I am better off than when I was a slave." (John Pomfret, "Tibet Caught in China's Web," Washington Post, 23 July 1999)



(1) This article has benefited greatly from much of the information contained in http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html. (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html.)


It is a bit of a dated article but it is still relivant.

[Module]

Could you please increase the font size on that for easier readin'.

[IrishWorker]

Could you please increase the font size on that for easier readin'.
no problem:)

[st.joshua]

[QUOTE=IrishWorker;1481361]Free Tibet?

The accusations made by the Dalai Lama himself about Chinese mass sterilization and forced deportation of Tibetans, for example, have remained unsupported by any evidence.

Maby if he were to see Tibet for himself his oppinion migh change wait he's not alowed to come back to his homeland. This proves that the Chinese are so paranoid that if he were to return to Tibet, Tibetans would not want to listen to them and demand that Tibet be ruled by the Dalai Lama (which the vast majority want)

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. This figure is more than dubious. The official 1953 census, six years before the Chinese take over, recorded the entire population of Tibet at 1,274,000. Other estimates varied from one to three million. Other census counts put the ethnic Tibetan population within the country at about two million (Pradyumna P. Karan, The Changing Face of Tibet: The Impact of Chinese Communist Ideology on the Landscape, Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1976, 52-53). If the Chinese killed 1.2 million then entire cities and huge portions of the countryside, indeed almost all of Tibet, would have been depopulated - something for which there is no evidence. The Chinese military force in Tibet was not large enough to round up, chase, and exterminate that many people even if it had spent all its time doing this.

If you want proof here is a table from the Bureau of Information of the
Tibetan government-in-exile:

TIBETAN DEATHS UNDER CHINESE OCCUPATION (through 1988)

CAUSE OF DEATH U-Tsang Kham Amdo Total
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tortured in prison 93,560 64,877 14,784 173,221
Executed 28,267 32,266 96,225 156,758
Killed in fighting 143,253 240,410 49,042 432,705
Starved to death 131,072 89,916 121,982 342,970
Suicide 3,375 3,952 1,675 9,002
"Struggled" to death 27,951 48,840 15,940 97,731

TOTAL 427,478 480,361 299,648 1,207,387
New Tibetans have come into existance sinse 1953 not all these people were born in 1953. Some would have been born later and thus would not have been recorded.

Throughout the 1960s the Tibetan exile community received $1.7 million a year from the CIA, according to documents released by the State Department in 1998. The Dalai Lama's organization itself admits that it had received millions of dollars from the CIA during the 1960s to send armed squads of exiles into Tibet to undermine the Maoist revolution. The Dalai Lama's annual share was $186,000, making him a paid agent of the CIA. Indian intelligence also financed him and other Tibetan exiles (Jim Mann, "CIA Gave Aid to Tibetan Exiles in '60s, Files Show," Los Angeles Times, 15 September 1998; and New York Times, 1 October, 1998).

So what if they took some money from the CIA they were desperate and the CIA offered them some money. They even offered to train some Tibetan Gurillas Khamba horsemen. The CIA abandoned them when Henry Kissinger flew to Bejijing and Mao told him that if he wanted better relations with China then he should end Funding the Gurrilas. So the CIA left 14,000 gurillas for dead.

the US Congress continues to allocate an annual $2 million to Tibetans in India, with additional millions for "democracy activities" within the Tibetan exile community

Firstly this is nothing compared to the $287.8 billion China gets from exporting merchandise made in PLA (Peoples Liberation Army) run factories.

"I may not be free under Chinese communism, but I am better off than when I was a slave."

This persons views runs against the vast majority of Tibetan's views. If they perfered the Chinese running Tibet then Tibetans then why were there 3 massive uprisings in Tibet in the last 50 years.

1959 (Dali Lama and 11,000 Tibetans fled ) (relaxed politics)

1989 (Marshell law was declared after. 60 People died)

Marth 10th 2008 49 anaversery of the failed 1959 Uprising (Marshell law was declared after. 30 people Died)

No such uprisings ever took place during the history of Independant Tibet (before the 1950 "Peaceful Invasion"). These Uprisings show us how much the Tibetans resent Chinese rule that they are willing to brave the Chinese gun and tank to send the Dali Llama their message of support. These uprisings don't happen when they like the Chinese ocupying their country this happens when they feel they have suffered for far too long and they rebel as an act of defyance against Chinese opression. I believe that we cannot (as human beings) pretend that the Occupation of Tibet is moraly justified when 6,254 monesteries are destroyed.

If you want to see a Tibet run how the current Dali Lama would like to run it look to Dharamsala no fudalism or slavery there. With a government, School system, Hospitals and Children's vilages it is run as the ideal model for Tibet in the 21st century.

The "Tibetan Aristocracy" that you talk about has not gone away because the Chinese are in power acording an Internet Journalist site "Now Public" there is a new aristocracy in Tibet.

Interestingly, I caught hold of an investigation report titled, “An Investigation report of the Social and Economic causes of March 14 Uprising in Tibet” done recently on the March 14 incident in Tibet by some Chinese think tank established by Beijing University law professors and several other economics professors. They visited Lhasa, the capital of Tibet and Labrang in Qinghai privince which was previously under Tibet.
The findings were remarkably unbelievable as it mentioned that new Tibetan aristocracy has taken over power and it is worse than the old aristocracy. As the new aristocracy, loyalist to Beijing get all their funding directly from Beijing (Central Government), and they do not care about the well being of Tibetans. These new aristocracy came into power during the Cultural revolution and are still very much in power. They also deliberated that the younger generation of Tibetan who grew up in the so called "liberated" Tibet has stronger Tibetan national identity than the elder generation.

[Pogue]

Tibet needs to be run by the workers just as everyone else.

So yeh, free Tibet, free everywhere else too, its being oppressed by an authoritarian capitalist state

[x359594]

Tibet needs to be run by the workers just as everyone else...

I agree completely, and I would add that the Tibetans themselves are the ones to bring that about, not state appointed bureaucrats, whether Chinese or Tibetan.

Pace Parenti, there has been a human rights disaster in Tibet since the 1959 uprising. The actual numbers are in doubt because the borders of Tibet are configured differently by various interested parties. According to Tibetan nationalists there were 6 million ethnic Tibetans at the time of the rebellion of which about 1 million perished in the ensuing years due largely to famine. Parenti disputes this figure but doesn't deny the famine which was part of a famine that afflicted the whole of China in the wake of Mao's failed experiment in social engineering called the Great Leap Forward. Further depredations took place during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

Of course, no amount of factual information will ever persuade the PRC groupies (whether Maoist or not) that their favored country has done anything wrong. Ironically, their belief in the rightness of theire cause borders on religion, the very thing they so object to about the old Tibetan ruling class.