Chinese apologists, explain Tibet

[Phalanx]

The motive for Chinese takeover of Tibet was imperialist, no doubt about it. Chinese takeover of the area has become blatantly colonialist, with the Chinese government crushing the Tibetan culture and changing the demographics of the region.

Please explain how this isn't imperialist. And no, Beijing wasn't "enlightening" the Tibetan as part of the Han man's burden.

[JazzRemington]

Any country that deliberately invades another country in order to gain something (usually resources) from the latter is imperialist. Period.

[Severian]

For many Marxists, "imperialist" has a definite meaning in relation to finance capital and division of the world market, but you're probably not interested in that.

Probably what you mean is more like "How is the invasion of Tibet not bad?" Well, how is it bad? Let's see if you actually know something about the subject.

Oh, and "changing the demographics of a region" is not automatically bad. Nor is "invading a country" or "trying to gain something" (how vague can you be?) You gotta show things are bad, not just define them as "imperialist" through wordgames.

The assertion that China is crushing Tibetan culture is simply false; there's more Tibetan-language education, literature, etc., then ever before. But don't take my word for it, read this article on the Human Rights Watch webpage (http://www.hrw.org/pubweb/sperlingcont.html)

Now if you mean "Explain what the invasion of Tibet was about, and what you think of it...." then
Here ya go (http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/3.1_freetibet.html)

Free Tibet ?
by Evan Roberts

"The people of Tibet and their nonviolent struggle are crucial for all peoples. The Tibetans will not resort to guns or bombs. It is nonviolence in its purest and most essential form." -website of the Milarepa Fund

"More than 500,000 pounds - 250 tons - of...military gear...were dropped by the CIA to the Tibetan resistance forces from 1957 to 1961." - former CIA agent John Kenneth Knaus, in his book Orphans of the Cold War

"Only deities that are recognized by the [Dalai Lama's] government may be worshipped. Worshipping deities that are not recognized by the government is against the law." -Tibetan exile politician Tashi Angdu

Organizations and individuals throughout the world have called on the US and other governments to pressure the Chinese government to get out of Tibet. And they have promoted the image of pre-1950s Tibet as a land of mystical harmony under the benevolent rule of the god-king known as the Dalai Lama.

There are two problems with this. The smaller problem is the glorification of a bunch of feudal serf-owners and theocrats. The bigger problem is looking to the US government to force China out of Tibet thereby giving cover for Washington's moves towards a military confrontation with China.

The strange affair of Dorje Shugden
One peculiar scandal involving the Tibetan government-in-exile headed by the Dalai Lama helps cut through the layers of myth to the underlying reality.

Dorje Shugden is a once-respectable Tibetan Buddhist god. But now the Dalai Lama says anyone who worships him is aiding the Chinese Communist occupiers of Tibet. Those who persist in the worship of Shugden have been driven out of Tibetan exile communities, beaten, their possessions destroyed. Three monks have been killed in this dispute.

Wall posters and newspaper ads egg on the vigilantes. The Tibetan government-in-exile rules that no follower of Shugden may be a government official. The Dalai Lama writes to the abbot of Seramey Monastery, "Should anyone continue to believe in the deity Dorje Shugden, make a list with his name, address, birth place...keep the original and send a copy to us."

Yet somehow Tibet's former feudal elite retain their image as pacifist defenders of religious freedom -- against ‘godless totalitarianism’ of the Chinese Revolution, of course.

History of the confict

1949 - the peasant armies led by the Chinese Communist Party win the civil war. The new government begins consolidating its control over the territory claimed by the former rulers, who have fled to Taiwan.
June 1949 - the Indian government, encouraged by the US and Britain, begins supplying weapons, ammunition, and training to the Tibetan army.
June 1950 - the Korean War begins.
August 1950 - the US government offers to send arms to Tibet.
Fall 1950 - the Chinese army crosses the Yangtze river into the territory ruled by the Dalai Lama. Whether these lands were legally part of China or an independent country has been endlessly debated. In any case the Tibetan people, like any other, have the right to self-determination whether or not they were previously conquered by China's emperors.

The Tibetan army was unable to put up an effective fight due to its out-of-date organization and methods. (Most of its soldiers were peasants doing their corvee. What's corvee, you ask? Here's how the American Heritage Dictionary defines it: "1.Labor exacted by a local authority for little or no pay or instead of taxes and used especially in the maintenance of roads. 2. A day of unpaid work required of a vassal by his feudal lord." It's originally a French word, but a number of authors use it in describing Tibet.)

The Tibetan government had no choice but to agree to Chinese troops entering Tibet. In exchange, Mao's government promised to respect local self-government , and, more importantly, not to touch the property and privileges of the hereditary nobility and the religious hierarchy. In essence, the so-called Communist Party of China promised there would be no social revolution in Tibet.

Both sides stood to gain from keeping this agreement - only the Tibetan peasants were left out. But it was inevitable that both sides would break it. The contradiction between Tibet's social structure and the revolutionary upheaval sweeping China could not be smoothed over.

Social structure

As David Patt - an admirer of the old Tibet - admits in his book A Strange Liberation, "Unquestionably the political power in the country was held by two major groups: a collection of aristocratic families or clans, and the monastic establishment....The aristocracy and the monasteries owned huge estates, usually received as patronage from the central government. Many small peasants owned their own plots, but many also worked the land of the great estates, owned by the monasteries and leading families. A taxation system which demanded payment to the local authority, either in grain or free labor, kept such peasant families bound to their estates and deep in debt."

In general, Asian countries did not go through exactly the same stages of social evolution as Europe did. But the similarity of Patt's description to Europe in the Middle Ages is striking.

Even the arguments used to justify this system only confirm its feudal character:

Even the children of poor families could become monks and hope to climb up through the religious hierarchy. --Yes, just as in medieval Europe the Church was the main route for moving up in the class system.

The Dalai Lama began some reforms after 1950. --Yes, just as the French aristocrats gave up some of their privileges, hoping to keep the Revolution from taking them all.

The Tibetan peasants were so religious they were glad to work to support the monasteries. --If they were so glad to support the monasteries, why was it necessary to compel them to work under penalty of law? And pre-1959 Tibetan justice was no pacifist affair. Floggings and whippings were common. Another punishment was gouging out the offenders' eyeballs. The nobility had judicial power over their own peasants.

If the peasants were born poor and deprived, it was punishment for their sins in past lives. --I don't intend to debate theology, but this argument could be used to justify any kind of oppression - even the abuses of the Chinese occupation. After all, the Beijing regime could just as easily claim that anyone who suffers at its hands is also being punished by the gods for their own bad karma.

"No country is allowed to invade, occupy, annex, and colonize another country just because its social structure does not please it." --Now this is a real point. It could well be applied to the many wars carried out by Washington in order to prevent or reverse anti-capitalist revolutions. And I don't intend to justify the Chinese occupation --it was up to Tibetans to make a revolution in Tibet. Who knows - if the Chinese Communist Party had been led by genuine communists (rather than Stalinists) the tremendous mass uprising that was the Chinese revolution might have inspired an indigenous revolutionary movement in Tibet.

Stalinist ‘revolution’

Stalinists --including Mao and the current leaders of the Chinese Communist Party-- are not motivated by the ideas of Marxism, which they falsely claim to represent. What they really represent is a privileged bureaucratic caste that looks out for its own self-preservation and economic interests. Anyone who thinks the brutality of Mao and his successors is caused by excessive revolutionary idealism is making the mistake of believing what Mao said about himself.

Still, from the beginning the Chinese government and army had a destabilizing effect in Tibet. There were the smaller ways, such as paying workers for road construction instead of pressing them into traditional unpaid serf labor. Or ruling that students in the Chinese-run schools didn't have to do corvee labor for their feudal lords.

But the greatest was the impact of the People's Liberation Army, which started as a peasant guerilla army and in the years immediately after the 1949 victory of the revolution, was still not so far from that origin.

What's more, rebellions were growing among Tibetans and other non-Chinese peoples in regions bordering the Dalai Lama's realm. The Chinese government was carrying out land reform and other social transformations in these neighboring regions, enraging feudal lords and their followers. The rebels were also angered by the Chinese Stalinists' chauvinistic lack of respect for their national and religious traditions.

By 1956, the CIA had agreed --at the request of the Dalai Lama's exiled brothers-- to assist these rebels. Knaus says "monks constituted more than half of the resistance force" - another illustration of the limits of Buddhist pacifism. Refugees from conflicts in the border regions fled to central Tibet, further destabilizing the Dalai Lama's realm.

By 1959, anti-Chinese protests filled the streets of Lhasa, Tibet's capital. The Dalai Lama fled into exile and full-scale armed conflict broke out.

It was only then that Mao's government moved to abolish serfdom and feudal economic relations and to redistribute land to the peasants. This was in part an attempt to convince Tibetans to support the Chinese side of the war, and it had some success.

As Tibetan exile Ama Adse says in A Strange Liberation, "The Chinese collected all the beggars in our region....They indoctrinated them, telling them 'You became poor because these monasteries and these noble estate-holders took your property. Otherwise you are a human being just like them.'" Some of these poor Tibetans, she says, "were really converted by the Chinese ideas."

This process, in which economic relations are overthrown after several years of trying to get along with the local exploiters, is similar to events in postwar Eastern Europe. When the Soviet army occupied Eastern Europe after World War #2, initially governments were set up which included representatives of the local capitalist classes. Several years later - after the capitalists and Stalinists had discovered that, in fact, they could not all just get along - capitalist property was nationalized.

The CIA continued supporting armed groups in Tibet up to 1962, by which time they had been militarily defeated. It hired a public relations firm for the Tibetan government-in-exile and paid the Dalai Lama's court a covert subsidy up to 1974, by which time Washington had begun treating the Chinese regime more like an ally against the Soviet Union -- and a weapon against the VietNamese revolution.

Atrocities

I will not go into detail on the accusations by either side of horrific atrocities and human rights violations. I suspect that both the Chinese Stalinists and the Tibetan feudalists are guilty of most of the accusations they make against each other.

This doesn't mean the two sides are the same. Of course, accounts of atrocities will produce feelings of revulsion from any decent human being. But they are not by themselves the basis of real understanding and analysis.

Independence?

It's not up to me to say whether or not Tibet should be independent. Nor is it up to the Tibetan government-in-exile. It's up to the Tibetan people.

I won't pretend to know what the majority in Tibet wants. After all, they don't have democratic rights or much political space to express themselves. However, street protests in Lhasa seem to indicate dissatisfaction with their rulers.

In any case, the real allies of anyone in Tibet wanting to fight against national oppression aren't the U.S. government and other imperialist powers. All of these powers are themselves oppressors and colonizers. No, their real allies are workers and peasants throughout the People's Republic of China.

U.S. goals

Why did Washington get involved in Tibet? Here's what John Knaus says: "The primary objective has little to do with aiding the Tibetans: It was to impede and harass the Chinese Communists." And "U.S. geopolitical interests would be served by forcing Mao to divert his already stretched resources to counter guerrillas in a remote and rebellious area." He was in a position to know. When he was with the CIA, he helped train Tibetans in guerilla warfare at a base in Colorado.

China is, potentially, a tremendous market and source of exploitable labor-power. The world's imperial powers squabbled for decades over who would control it. Imagine their rage when the Chinese declared that they would control their own country - and worse, nationalized capitalist property. For decades, Washington attacked China in every way it felt it could get away with.

Now, of course, all kinds of US businesses are operating in China. They benefit from the regime's repression against workers, including its ban on independent unions. So what's up with the increasing hostility towards China among many in Washington?

All the talk about human rights, prison labor, democracy, Tibet, and so forth is just a smokescreen. If these politicians were against prison labor they could oppose it here --prisons hold a much bigger percentage of the US population than China's.

Trade issues, though, are not a smokescreen. Of course, they want China to buy more stuff from U.S. companies, pay royalties on "intellectual property," and so forth.

But there's more to it. The imperialists sense the limits on how far they can go in restoring capitalism in China without the massive application of military force. Perhaps they've learned something from the problems they're having trying to restore capitalism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

War moves

Consider the following:
saber-rattling over Taiwan
threats against North Korea
the spy scare (which is based on virtually no evidence)
the campaign finance accusations (reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy's charges of treason and his battle cry, "Who lost China?")
the proposals to deploy anti-ballistic missile systems around China the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia. (the CIA can't buy a tourist map of Belgrade?)

Of course, the popular reaction in China to the embassy bombing is even more significant than the attack itself. It shows the Chinese people’s anti-imperialist consciousness, courtesy of a long history of being kicked around and divided up by Japan and the West. It also shows a lot of anti-capitalist anger directed at businesses operating in China.

So it’s in this whole context that the call comes for U.S. government action to "free Tibet."

I'm sure the people who make this demand don't intend to clear the road for war. They're not all big fans of the U.S. government, either.

And they say they’re just calling for economic sanctions against China. But economic war is . . . war. And it often leads to shooting war, Iraq and Yusoslabvia being just the latest examples.

Different way

Let me suggest that the main enemy is at home. That those living in the U.S. have a duty first of all to oppose the crimes of the U.S. government (which, of course, include arming numerous repressive regimes around the world). That the U.S. is the strongest imperial power in history and therefore the main enemy of humanity. That the nation which oppresses another forges its own chains.

The same applies to those who live in other imperialist countries. For example, how can anyone in the United Kingdom call for China to get out of Tibet while Britain remains in Ireland? Anyone in Canada while the Quebecois and Natives remain oppressed?

Let people in China--including the Tibetan portion--deal with Beijing's crimes. Of course denouncing them from North America, Europe, or Japan is both easy and safe. It’s also worse than useless.

_____________

Note on sources: Even the most basic facts are disputed when it comes to Tibet. For maximum credibility, I have relied mostly on sources with a viewpoint opposite to my own like Orphans of the Cold War by John Kenneth Knaus, and A Strange Liberation by David Patt. The information on the Dorje Shugden Affair is drawn mostly from transcripts of German and Swiss TV programs found on the Dorje Shugden Society's website at www.he.net/~shugden.

A useful book is The Snow Lion and the Dragon by Melvyn C. Goldstein. The author maintains a stance of academic neutrality. For those interested in the views of "Tibetan freedom activists" I recommend www.tibet.org.

In no case have I quoted Chinese Stalinist sources. However, those interested can examine www.chinatibet.org or Tibet Transformed by Israel Epstein (New World Press, Beijing).

[Phalanx]

Obviously Tibet was living under a feudalist system, which was bad, but can you really justify an empire taking the place over?

Was it right for the Ottomans to invade Wallachia, a place that was run by one of the cruelest leaders in the world (Vlad the Impaler), or was it ok that the Spanish obliterated the Aztecs, an empire that once killed 1,500 people in a day in sacrifices?


Oh, and "changing the demographics of a region" is not automatically bad

But when a government is obviously trying to quell autonomous voices by changing the demographics of an area, such as the Chinese in Xinjiang, their motives are not for the well-being of the Uighurs.

[luxemburg89]

Obviously Tibet was living under a feudalist system, which was bad, but can you really justify an empire taking the place over?


Have you seen Michael Palin's Himalaya? That has some interesting interviews with people of Tibet who seem to be pretty pleased about the Chinese Government and the current situation in Tibet. Now I don't support the Chinese Government at ALL - well, in fact, I fucking hate it - it's the biggest insult to true Communism (though I'm sure you don't believe me when I say that), but we have to consider what the people are saying. On the other hand you could argue they were told to say that but the interviews seem pretty genuine.

[The Author]

An interesting article written by Michael Parenti on Tibet and its feudal past (no, it wasn't Shangri-La as the Dalai Lama would have you believe):

Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html)

[RNK]

Some random facts about Tibet:

In 1904, the British invaded Tibet and, after massacring 1,000-5,000 Tibetens, formed a puppet ministry with the British at the head.

In 1906, Britain and (fuedal) China agreed that Tibet was Chinese domain; and further, that China agreed "not to permit any other foreign state to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet".

The British Empire annexed over 90,000 square km of Tibet in 1914, which was passed on to India and remains an Indian province today.

The Republic of China, better-known as Taiwan (that lil island filled with sweatshops and billions of US military money), still maintains it's sovereignty over Tibet.

Every single government on this planet recognizes China's dominion over Tibet as legitimate, and none have recognized the exiled Government of Tibet in India.

Explain those to me, and then maybe I'll explain why China continues its sovereignty over Tibet.

[Phalanx]

In 1906, Britain and (fuedal) China agreed that Tibet was Chinese domain; and further, that China agreed "not to permit any other foreign state to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet".

Are you saying that Britain and Beijing had the right to tell who Tibet belonged to? Of course not. Tibet was an independent entity for hundreds of years, actually competing with China in Central Asia.


The Republic of China, better-known as Taiwan (that lil island filled with sweatshops and billions of US military money), still maintains it's sovereignty over Tibet.

That's because RoK is the product of an evil Nationalist dictator. Why should the world take anything they say into consideration?


Every single government on this planet recognizes China's dominion over Tibet as legitimate, and none have recognized the exiled Government of Tibet in India.

Every single government on earth has more to gain by siding with China rather than Tibet. China will soon be the powerhouse of Asia, while Tibet is more or less on the level of Nepal, one of the poorest countries on Earth. And tell me, why as a revolutionary would you consider current world governments to be a credible source of knowledge?

[Dr Mindbender]

Im no chinese apologist, but i think the main justification for the invasion was two-fold
1. Maoist China regarded Tibet as their own land anyway,

2. Their argument was that they were liberating Tibet from reactionary theism (ie. the buddhist establishment)

[Iron]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:03 am
Some random facts about Tibet:

In 1904, the British invaded Tibet and, after massacring 1,000-5,000 Tibetens, formed a puppet ministry with the British at the head.

In 1906, Britain and (fuedal) China agreed that Tibet was Chinese domain; and further, that China agreed "not to permit any other foreign state to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet".

The British Empire annexed over 90,000 square km of Tibet in 1914, which was passed on to India and remains an Indian province today.

The Republic of China, better-known as Taiwan (that lil island filled with sweatshops and billions of US military money), still maintains it's sovereignty over Tibet.

Every single government on this planet recognizes China's dominion over Tibet as legitimate, and none have recognized the exiled Government of Tibet in India.

Explain those to me, and then maybe I'll explain why China continues its sovereignty over Tibet.
Every Government recognized Nazi Germanys annexations of Czechoslovakia and Austria so I’m sure those were justified. Just because the other imperialist say its right, i'm sure that makes it justified also. and by the way no one cares about what Taiwan says about Tibet, thats irrelavent to the issues of maoist imperalism.

[RNK]

What was the point of that?

[Iron]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:49 am
What was the point of that?
Useing examples, to show even if global power say its ok. does not make it justified.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by JazzReming[email protected] 21, 2007 07:30 am
Any country that deliberately invades another country in order to gain something (usually resources) from the latter is imperialist. Period.
What exactly did China get from Tibet? They put much much much much much much more in then they took out. Aside form that, it was always part of China anyhow. Enemies of Communism only decided it wasn't part of China when communism came in.

Also, China was and is not capitalist, so it can't be imperialism in the same sense as international capital.

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

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Iron+July 23, 2007 04:54 pm--> (Iron @ July 23, 2007 04:54 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 11:49 am
What was the point of that?
Useing examples, to show even if global power say its ok. does not make it justified. [/b]
Doesn't make what justified? Tibet was part of China always, it was never a nation. You can't invade your own country. Tibet independence is simply the cruel and former high class wanting their privilege back. See my study materials: http://individual.utoronto.ca/mrodden/study/tibet.htm

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:01 am
Please explain how this isn't imperialist. And no, Beijing wasn't "enlightening" the Tibetan as part of the Han man's burden.
Han man's burden? That's a very "interesting" way of putting it. In that case, let us also campaign for the independence of Xinjiang. That good old commie-killer Sheng Shicai is long gone, but I'm sure we can find someone else. And if the Chinese intervene, we'll just accuse them of doing it out of "Han man's burden". Let the noble savages of Xinjiang return to their traditional lifestyles! :rolleyes:

Oh, while we're at it! Manchuria was clearly much better off under the leadership of Puyi, because they were nominally ruled by a Manchu! Free Manchukuo! Don't like it? Han man's burden! And let's not forget those poor Inner Mongols who are being oppressed by the imperialist Han man's burden. We should bring back Mengjiang as well.

:wacko:

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Marcel
Also, China was and is not capitalist, so it can't be imperialism in the same sense as international capital.

Funny claim that. By all standards of capitalism, China today is capitalist. Lets have a little looky shall we?

Private property, extending beyond simple usage, check.
Interest, rent, profit, check.
Workers being exploited (both by local and international firms), check.
"Free" market system for many (most?) products, check.

Well, looks like China is capitalist today... Whether they were 50 years ago or not is a different question, but they are today.


On Tibet, I personally support the right of all areas to self-determination.

[Dean]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 24, 2007 08:43 am
Private property, extending beyond simple usage, check.
Interest, rent, profit, check.
China has had private property like this for decades... recently the constitution was changed specifically to allow private property.

It's truly mind boggling when people try to say that it's communist.

[Phalanx]

Oh, while we're at it! Manchuria was clearly much better off under the leadership of Puyi, because they were nominally ruled by a Manchu! Free Manchukuo! Don't like it? Han man's burden! And let's not forget those poor Inner Mongols who are being oppressed by the imperialist Han man's burden. We should bring back Mengjiang as well.

China did the same thing America did with the Native Americans (sans the genocide). They sent the army into regions, under the pretense that they're defending the frontier, take it over, and eventually send settlers into the region to solidify their control. It's fact, and I find it amazingly hypocritical of leftists to denounce imperialism of any kind except the shining example of China's western provinces. Until you stop being so hypocritical, I'm not sure anyone can take you seriously.

[Janus]

There were definitely some national interests in gaining back Tibet but one must also understand the history behind Chinese-Tibet relations as well as the social structure which existed in Tibet before 1949.

Tibet (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62467&hl=Tibet)
Tibet myth (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59386&hl=Tibet)
Tibet (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48841&hl=Tibet)
free tibet (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57205&hl=Tibet)


But when a government is obviously trying to quell autonomous voices by changing the demographics of an area, such as the Chinese in Xinjiang, their motives are not for the well-being of the Uighurs.
Economic incentives are not the same as government incentives. There really are no benefits to moving to Xinjiang though residents are exempt from the one child policy; most of the Han Chinese have been relocating to Tibet or Xinjiang for purely economic and work related reasons which are shaped by the burgeoning market rather than the CP.

[Hiero]

The Chinese army came to Tibet to support the Tibetans, this has been the relationship between China and Tibet for a long time. When China had it's revolution Tibet through it's dependence on China went through a similar movement. The Tibet peasants want to get rid of the feudel system, it was Tibetans that were burning buddhist building and executing buddhist monks. The only people who resisted China's assitance were CIA backed monks and feudel lords

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 11:56 pm
China did the same thing America did with the Native Americans (sans the genocide). They sent the army into regions, under the pretense that they're defending the frontier, take it over, and eventually send settlers into the region to solidify their control. It's fact, and I find it amazingly hypocritical of leftists to denounce imperialism of any kind except the shining example of China's western provinces. Until you stop being so hypocritical, I'm not sure anyone can take you seriously.
Oh no, not a hypocrite. Okay, you've got me. I'll support the return of theocracy, slavery, serfdom, rape, beatings, taxes on every little thing, the gouging out of eyes, mutilation, disembowelment... everything that the good old Shangri-La of Tibet represented before those evil communists came in and ruined the paradise and killed all the flowers, and when those uppity peasants could no longer be mistreated (they deserved it after all, it's karma, dude!).
(http://michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html)

After all, I wouldn't want to be considered a hypocrite and not being taken seriously by a turncoat asshole like you.

By the way, the Native Americans comparison has been shown to be BS long ago.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292188794 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57205&view=findpost&p=1292188794)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:49 pm
What was the point of that?
I assume it was to expose your fucking stupid logic.

[TC]

Even if you believe that China is an 'imperialist' state, i'd rather live under imperialism (as i do now) then under the slave society of the fedual dictatorship of the Dalai Lama and his aristocratic caste.

And btw, the Tibetan god-king based monarchy only got the notion that it was an independent nation and not a province of China after the Communist Tibetans wanted to liberate the serfs and slaves; the Dalai Lama recognized Tibet as a Chinese province when the KMT were in power because they tolerated the monk's oppression of Tibet.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 04:56 pm
Chinaa did the same thing America did with the Native Americans (sans the genocide).
Sunshine is the same as rain, except not so wet.

There's another teensy little difference: Native Americans were driven off the land, Tibetan peasants took the land as part of the extension of the Chinese Revolution into Tibet. They still hold the land today. Chinese immigrants are mostly settling in the cities, not driving the natives off the land.

This is what you don't want to deal with: the extension of the Chinese Revolution into Tibet, and the participation of Tibetan peasants in this social transformation. It's not just the spread of an "empire".

And yes, if the spread of an "empire" has social-revolutionary effects, I probably will support it. An example historically was Napoleon's wars, which abolished serfdom and other elements of feudalism in far-flung parts of Europe.

You haven't explained why this should be automatically bad.

The truth is, what the Tibetan exiles really objected to was the revolution, not the "empire". They suddenly discovered Tibetan nationalism when the Chinese Revolution was on the verge of victory in 1948. Before that, every abbot and noble basically only cared about his own fiefdom. They preferred foreign control - British, Chinese, whatever - to strengthening and, key word, modernizing the Tibetan central government.

That changed as soon as it was a question of a revolutionary government in China, Bam. Suddenly they're all about Tibetan nationalism. And suddenly the U.S. is sympathetic to Tibetan nationalism. Then they ally with China against the USSR and suddenly they forget all about Tibet. Then the Cold War ends, China becomes a bogeyman again, and suddenly Tibet is fashionable.

It's an excuse to use against China, that's all "Free Tibet" is or ever can be.