China's Oppressive policies (toward Tibet)

[benhur]

Seems like China is doing to Tibet, what Zionists are doing to Palestinians. This link gives very good information on how Tibetans (though it primarily concerns women) are oppressed by Chinese, it destroys the common myth that Tibet is better off under Chinese occupation. Far from it.

http://www.tibet.com/women/twdiirrpt.html

[BobKKKindle$]

It is absurd and frankly insulting to suggest that the situation in Tibet is comparable to the oppression of Palestine. Tibetans are not being forced to move out of their homes by armed gangs of Han Chinese, they are not being forced to go and spend their lives in overcrowded and diseases refugee camps organized by a UN agency because they have been denied the right to collect their identity papers from their homes, their crops are not being destroyed, they do not have to go through a system of checkpoints and roadblocks to get to work each day, the Tibetan economy is not in a state of recession because they do not have access to external aid, Han Chinese are not beyond the reach of the law - in short, the situation in Tibet does not resemble the situation in Palestine in any way, and to prove me wrong you need to provide detailed case studies which shows that the kind of things that are currently happening in Palestine are also occurring in Tibet - which you won't be able to do, because the situations are not remotely comparable. If there is anyone who is suffering persecution in Tibet it is the Han Chinese, as during the disturbances in Tibet earlier this year, gangs of Tibetan youths beat up Han and Hui (a Muslim minority in the east of China) people in the middle of the street and burnt down shops which were known to belong to people who were not Tibetan, often with the inhabitants still inside. It is admirable that the Chinese authorities acted with such calm and restraint in this context.

Tibet is not being "enslaved" or "exploited" by the rest of China, as since Tibet was incorporated into the PRC, the average life span of Tibetans, has risen from only 35 years in 1950 to 67 as of 2001, and infant mortality, which was an astounding 43 percent in 1950, has dramatically decreased to 0.661 percent, as of 2000. The recent opening of the Lhasa-Qinghai railway, connecting Tibet to the rest of China, has also led to economic development and an improvement of living standards. It is also laughable to suggest that women were better off prior to the removal of the theocratic state, as under the rule of the feudal monks women were treated as mere objects and denied elementary freedoms such as the right to access education and attaine economic independence. The Tibetan economy has maintained an average 12% growth rate for seven consecutive years, mainly due to the aid provided by the central government, as income funded by government subsidies in Tibet accounted for 102.8% of Tibet's financial expenditures in 2007 – remaining the highest nationwide. The Tibetan secessionist movement has been consistently supported by imperialist states as a means to undermine the territorial integrity of the PRC and it is unfortunate that a large section of the left seems to have ignored this basic fact and are now actively cooperating with imperialism by calling for Tibet to separate from the rest of China. The United States provided Tibetan exiles with military equipment as well as extensive financial aid and even transported militants into China to conduct attacks against government property and personnel throughout the 1960/70s and struck a further blow against the PRC last year by holding a meeting between the reactionary Dalai Lama and George Bush in October.

The following article comprehensively defeats all the myths of the middle-class "Free Tibet" movement: Tibet: Friendly Feudalism? (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html)

[benhur]

It is absurd and frankly insulting to suggest that the situation in Tibet is comparable to the oppression of Palestine.

It's legitimate, because Tibet is being occupied by China. Else, why would Tibetans complain at all? The historical fact is, China invaded Tibet, are you gonna deny that as well? If you do, you alone are right, and millions of Tibetans as well as non-Tibetans are wrong about this.:rolleyes:


Tibet is not being "enslaved" or "exploited" by the rest of China, as since Tibet was incorporated into the PRC, the average life span of Tibetans, has risen from only 35 years in 1950 to 67 as of 2001, and infant mortality, which was an astounding 43 percent in 1950, has dramatically decreased to 0.661 percent, as of 2000.

If Israelis can do all this for Palestinians, would you justify Israeli occupation? If Americans can do this for Iraqis, would you justify American invasion?


The United States provided Tibetan exiles with military equipment as well as extensive financial aid and even transported militants into China to conduct attacks against government property and personnel throughout the 1960/70s and struck a further blow against the PRC last year by holding a meeting between the reactionary Dalai Lama and George Bush in October.

Weren't you the one supporting Hezbollah's atrocities, saying they had the right to defend themselves by any means necessary? Seems like the oppressed Tibetans are doing just that, desperate people resort to desperate measures.

[benhur]

] It is admirable that the Chinese authorities acted with such calm and restraint in this context.


Very calm indeed. See the pictures to see how restrained the imperialists are.

http://studentsforafreetibet.org/img/pic/Norbu-15.jpg

http://studentsforafreetibet.org/img/pic/Gephen%20Thaklo-64.jpg

http://studentsforafreetibet.org/img/pic/Tashi%20Wangchuk-27.jpg

http://studentsforafreetibet.org/img/pic/1_4.jpg

Source: http://studentsforafreetibet.org

[benhur]

Record of Chinese atrocities against Tibet, as per Amnesty International and related sources. (of course all this must be a lie concocted by Amnesty International to defame the Chinese imperialists:rolleyes: )

1.2 million Tibetans died as a direct result of Chinese atrocities.

Over 6000 monasteries and institutes of learning have been destroyed.
Precious Tibetan artifacts were vandalized and sold in Hong Kong markets.
Over 6000 Tibetan religious and historical literature have been destroyed.


Tibetans in Tibet are second class citizen without basic Human Rights, such as Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion, Right to Education, etc. (Chinese treatment here no different from treatment given to Jews by Nazi Germany)



Tibetan women are subjected to forced abortion and sterilization.


Tibetan Children are denied their right to education.


70% of Tibetans living in Tibet now are illiterate. (so much for some member's claim that chinese actually developed their economy).



Arbitrary arrests, torture, intimidation and imprisonment without trial are the order of the day for Tibetans in their country. (very Zionist, indeed)


Tibet has been divided into different parts and incorporated with Chinese provinces, thereby removing the existing Tibetan identity.

Thousands of Tibetans are still in prisons in China. Tibet’s natural resources and fragile ecology are irreversibly destroyed. (Similar to how Israel paralyzes Palestine economy).
6 Million Tibetans have been outnumbered by 7.5 Million Chinese inducted into Tibet causing demographic disadvantage to Tibetans in their own country. (NOTE: This is identical to how Zionists displaced Palestinians)

Sources:
Amnesty International.
Human Rights Watch.
Freedom House.
Human Rights First.
United Nations.

[BobKKKindle$]

If Israelis can do all this for Palestinians, would you justify Israeli occupation? If Americans can do this for Iraqis, would you justify American invasion?In your first post you asserted that the treatment of Tibet is the same as what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. You have now acknowledged that this is not the case, as whereas Palestine as one of the highest unemployment rates in the world and is bankrupt, Tibet has experienced rapid economic growth. In other words, you have contradicted yourself, and negated the assertion you set out to prove.

******

I don't have time to respond to all of these silly lies at the moment, but let me first point out that posting a series of statements with a list of sources at the bottom (several of which are suspect in terms of factual accuracy and objectivity) is not sufficient referencing - you should refer to specific reports and articles if you want people to accept your assertions. In the same way, posting pictures of wounded or dead bodies is not an argument - people get hurt in every state around the world on a daily basis but this does not mean that the governments of these states are committing atrocities or are behaving in the same way as Israel. I could post pictures of reactionaries killed in Spain but presumabely you would not condemn the Spanish proletariat for having committed atrocities. Let's look at some of the gems you posted:


Chinese treatment here no different from treatment given to Jews by Nazi GermanTibetan people are not being sent to gas chambers and systematically exterminated. This is an insult to the people who died in the Holocaust.


6 Million Tibetans have been outnumbered by 7.5 Million Chinese inducted into Tibet causing demographic disadvantage to Tibetans in their own countryWhat does "demographic disadvantage" mean? The PRC has been providing financial incentives for people from other parts of China to move to Tibet because Tibet is one of the most underpopulated provinces and also contains a range of valuable minerals and resources which have not yet been exploited due to the lack of available personnel. Israel is removing Palestinians from their homes by force but there is not a single case of this happening in China and Tibetans are not being made to live in refugee camps, as mentioned in my first post. Communists support open borders which means that all the inhabitants of China and any other country should be able to move to Tibet and stay there as long as they like - the arguments put forward by "Free Tibet" activists in opposition to inwards migration are strongly reminiscent of far-right groups in Europe which protest against immigration on the mistaken grounds that the "influx" of migrants from Eastern Europe and Africa is damaging the cultural traditions of European countries - we can only assume that you see these arguments as legitimate and believe that migration should be stopped so as to allow the "original" inhabitants of these countries to remain free of nasty foreign cultures.


Tibet’s natural resources and fragile ecology are irreversibly destroyed. (Similar to how Israel paralyzes Palestine economy).

The PRC is not preventing countries from trading with Tibet, and the PRC does not use blockades to obstruct trade between different areas of Tibet. As mentioned above, and as admitted by you in your second post, Tibet is receiving aid from the central government, and has benefited economically as a result.

[benhur]

The PRC has been providing financial incentives for people from other parts of China to move to Tibet because Tibet is one of the most underpopulated provinces and also contains a range of valuable minerals and resources which have not yet been exploited due to the lack of available personnelSo you admit that chinese are not only illegally occupying Tibet, but like Zionists, they also encourage their people to encroach upon Tibetan land by providing incentives, and are in effect stealing the Tibetan minerals. Thanks for admitting this, this is all I wanted to hear!

[lombas]

The dalai lamai is a reactionary figure who believes in absolute monarchy and the subjection of all Tibetans to his will and lust. Many Tibetans are brainwashed by militant buddhism.

The Chinese were right to implement social reforms and paving the way towards a religion-neutral, progressive state. Though Tibet is historically a part of Greater China, this should not absolve the PRC from oppressing it. That is to be deplored.

For the working class however many improvements have been made.

[benhur]

I don't have time to respond to all of these silly lies at the moment,

OK, so, Amnesty International is a liar, and you won't trust the reports they release year after year listing the atrocities chinese commit on tibetans. But we must all believe every word you say:rolleyes:, even though you haven't provided any reliable source so far, you've given your opinions which have no evidence, whatsoever. So whom to believe, you or Amnesty International that provides evidence?


Communists support open borders which means that all the inhabitants of China and any other country should be able to move to Tibet and stay there as long as they like

This is similar to someone arguing: communists support open borders, which means all Israelis and people from other countries can settle anywhere in Palestine, and stay there as long as they wish. The same applies to Iraq, perhaps to China as well.;) In other words, you can justify Iraq war on the same basis you justify China's illegal occupation of Tibet.

[Revy]

The difference is, Israelis are trying to displace Palestinians. Han are just moving in. They're not "colonizing" which is absurd. They're just moving there. I find that argument utterly reactionary.

[Dimentio]

The difference is, Israelis are trying to displace Palestinians. Han are just moving in. They're not "colonizing" which is absurd. They're just moving there. I find that argument utterly reactionary.

In most cases of colonialism, the coloniser does'nt attempt to displace the colonised. Just move in.

[Revy]

In most cases of colonialism, the coloniser does'nt attempt to displace the colonised. Just move in.

Actually, in many cases of colonialism, the colonizer often displaces the colonized. From Israel to the Americas to Africa.

When we talk about colonialism, we are not talking about immigration, we're talking about groups acting as a collective entity to displace and/or control an indigenous population.

It makes me wonder if Tibet ever became independent they would act like Israel and try to maintain a Tibetan majority via oppression.

[Matty_UK]

1.2 million Tibetans died as a direct result of Chinese atrocities.

The only "evidence" for this is the Dalai Llama said so. This is not evidence, it just happens that Amnesty is made up on middle class folk who buy wholesale into the Tibetan fetish and aren't interested in politics enough to look at this sort of claim critically, and they usually have a misanthropic worldview where they want to believe anything horrible, and a euro/americocentric worldview where everyone who doesn't live in the west is languishing in unimaginable poverty and suffering, and the west is the only active agent.

In fact, the official 1953 census which was 6 years before the post-uprising crackdown where all these deaths supposedly took place put the Tibetan population at 1,274,000, and higher estimates put it at around 2,000,000. If there were anywhere near this many Tibetans killed there would be a heap of evidence; find some, please. And there was only a few thousand Chinese troops, thinly spread, in Tibet at that time. Even if they spent all their time during the crackdown hunting down and killing Tibetans, they could not have killed 1.2million.




Over 6000 monasteries and institutes of learning have been destroyed.
Precious Tibetan artifacts were vandalized and sold in Hong Kong markets.
Over 6000 Tibetan religious and historical literature have been destroyed.

Yes, during the Cultural Revolution, and by Tibetan Red Guards, not by the Chinese-there was still hardly any Chinese in Tibet at this time. The Red Guards in Tibet were composed mainly of the children of families who were liberated serfs or slaves-under the Lamas most Tibetans were serfs, slaves, or beggars-or by young monks who had been forced into the order from a young age and routinely sexually abused who rejected theocracy as soon as the Communists gave them a chance. They attacked symbols of theocracy in an attempt to seperate themselves from the past.


Tibetans in Tibet are second class citizen without basic Human Rights, such as Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion, Right to Education, etc. (Chinese treatment here no different from treatment given to Jews by Nazi Germany)

What treatment do Tibetans have legally that is different to the rest of China? Give me an example of legislature, not just a general claim.


Tibetan women are subjected to forced abortion and sterilization.

No they aren't, what evidence do you have for this? In fact, Tibetans are exempted from the one child policy.



Tibetan Children are denied their right to education.

Proof? Also, before the revolution, there were NO schools at all. This is just made up.


70% of Tibetans living in Tibet now are illiterate. (so much for some member's claim that chinese actually developed their economy).

Uhm.....no, the revolution raised literacy from 2% to 95% in just 4 decades.
Even the right wing, anti-Chinese christian science moniter says so.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0824/p07s01-woap.html




Arbitrary arrests, torture, intimidation and imprisonment without trial are the order of the day for Tibetans in their country. (very Zionist, indeed)

Same all over China.



Tibet has been divided into different parts and incorporated with Chinese provinces, thereby removing the existing Tibetan identity.

Thousands of Tibetans are still in prisons in China.Tibet’s natural resources and fragile ecology are irreversibly destroyed. (Similar to how Israel paralyzes Palestine economy).
6 Million Tibetans have been outnumbered by 7.5 Million Chinese inducted into Tibet causing demographic disadvantage to Tibetans in their own country. (NOTE: This is identical to how Zionists displaced Palestinians)

Sources:
Amnesty International.
Human Rights Watch.
Freedom House.
Human Rights First.
United Nations.


Yawn.

[Revy]

In fact, here is a quote from the Dalai Lama:



Q: You have called for the repatriation of the Chinese who now line in Tibet. Might there be a place for a Chinese population in a democratic, open Tibet?

A: I think we should differentiate the various groups of Chinese living in Tibet. There are, on the one hand, those who were already there in 1949; then all those who went there or were sent in compliance with official plans; and, finally, those who have been coming since the so-called "liberal economic policy," and who come on their own initiative, as individuals. We should also distinguish the Chinese who speak Tibetan and respect Tibetan culture--for, after all, Buddhist culture is not so foreign to them--from all those who come to Tibet merely in search of material wealth and not spiritual wealth. Those who respect Tibetan spirituality could prove themselves to be very beneficial if they stay. If there are not too many of them I see no reason why we could not work it out so that they can remain in Tibet. But as for all those who think that Tibetans are backward and barbarian, that they are dirty and smell bad (we think in turn that the Chinese smell bad, that they eat too much garlic), it would be better if they went home. Why should they stay in a place if they think it is dirty?


http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes1.html

^ look at that. And he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It's very Zionistic of him. He says "if there are not too many of them". This makes it clear he wants to maintain a Tibetan majority by force.

Another quote:


Thinking from the opposite end, it is not impossible that the situation of the Tibetan people in Tibet will take such a tragic turn that they will become a minority in their own land. In such a situation, if those in Tibet fail to uphold the common aspiration of the Tibetan race, it will be extremely difficult for us in exile to be able to maintain the Tibetan ethnic identity and to carry out things like keeping, defending and spreading the Tibetan religion and culture beyond some generations.
http://www.dalailama.com/page.224.htm

[lombas]

Also, notice "Tibetan spirituality". This guy holds beliefs about militant buddhism the same way the popes did in the middle ages...

[Matty_UK]

It's legitimate, because Tibet is being occupied by China. Else, why would Tibetans complain at all? The historical fact is, China invaded Tibet, are you gonna deny that as well? If you do, you alone are right, and millions of Tibetans as well as non-Tibetans are wrong about this.:rolleyes:

I haven't seen any Tibetans actually calling for independance. The riots a year back didn't have any of these demands; they were attached to the riots only by the western media and by the slave owning exiled ruling class.

And China didn't randomly invade Tibet. Tibet only broke off from China in 1911 after the nationalist revolution, where the entire country was fragmented. The country was reunified in 1949 after 38 years of disunity, and you have to understand bringing Tibet back into it in this context. And there was no violent invasion. The Chinese were largely accepted by the normal Tibetans, even welcomed as liberators by many, and the only violence started in 1959 when there was an uprising; but this was composed only of nobles, Lamas, and semi-nobles, even according to the SS sergeant Heinreich Harrer who was a supporter of the uprising and a mentor to the Dalai Lama.

However, this elite did not object to being reunified under the Guomindang's rule; what they objected to was being reunified under Communists, because they feared their slaves and serfs would be freed.

[Herman]

Amnesty International.
Human Rights Watch.
Freedom House.
Human Rights First.
United Nations.

Haha...

Nice list of sources.

Amnesty? Heh, I visited their office in Amsterdam not too long ago. After listening to their "work" and what they do, I concluded that they're very much entrenched in the capitalist legal system and only do things if it's "legal".

Human Rights Watch is known for their hypocrisy, and they love to criticize any government which doesn't conform to Western "democracies" for any reason, even if it's a blatant lie.

Freedom House? Hahahahahaha! Aren't those the people who make up that "freedom index" crap? Hahaha!

The only source I can take perhaps a bit seriously is the UN, but even then they're pretty much aligned with the capitalist belief of "human rights". Look how quickly none of these organizations condemned the killing of the three Venezuelan syndicalist workers.

[Wanted Man]

Bollocks to this thread. The comparison is absurd. Yeah, the Iraq War is comparable to World War II, because both of them are wars. :rolleyes:

[benhur]

Logic of some self-proclaimed leftists, who do more harm than good to the leftist cause:

*If Israel occupies Palestine, it's imperialism. If China occupies Tibet, it's communism, so justified.

*If Israel displaces Palestinians, it's racist. But if chinese do the same to Tibetans, it's ok.

*If Palestian resistance is made up of Islamic extremists (who're sexist, homophobic), it's ok. But if Tibetan resistance is made of religious people, it's not ok.

*Supporting sexist, homophobic mullahs (all in the name of anti-imperialism resistance) is ok, but Dalai Lama is a bad guy, a reactionary.

*If UN, Amnesty International and various human rights groups provide reports on Israel's human rights violation, these agencies are all objective and can be trusted. If the same agencies produce reports on china's human rights violations, it's biased and cannot be trusted.

*Comparing chinese govt. to nazis is not okay, but comparing zionists to nazis is ok.

*Chinese occupation of Tibet is ok due to (alleged) economic development. But Israel occupation is not ok, even though Israel is the most advanced nation in the ME.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

And we wonder why leftists aren't taken seriously, why even the working class fears us more than they do the bourgeois? It's because we come across as people who defend rogue nations (like china), and religious bigots (like Hamas), all in the name of anti-imperialism, all the while hypocritically commenting on zionists, US invasion etc.

[Wanted Man]

some self-proclaimed leftists, who do more harm than good to the leftist cause
Luckily, we still have benhur to save the left by posting whiny rants on internet message boards, full of lies, half-truths, fallacies and poor comparisons.

[Revy]

Okay now you're just becoming more hysterical. You do know this is RevLeft, and that your blanket attacks on the left might not be appreciated? :closedeyes:

Now, there's a lot of bullshit to sift through, but about your claim that the left supports reactionary mullahs, it is false. But we shouldn't support the Dalai Lama either. Sexism and homophobia? A research of the issue shows that the Dalai Lama opposes abortion (he thinks it's an "act of killing") except when "the unborn child will be retarded" and that he believes homosexuality is not acceptable by Buddhism along with oral and anal sex (either homosexual or heterosexual) and masturbation. Something to think about......

[PRC-UTE]

If Israelis can do all this for Palestinians, would you justify Israeli occupation? If Americans can do this for Iraqis, would you justify American invasion?



yes, if imperialism raised living standards by raising the level of productive forces, we would support it. but in practice, imperialism usually operates by freezing or even retarding existing capital in colonies, and hyper-developing small islands of industry while leaving the rest to rot.

often initial imperialist penetrations of lesser developed colonies does result in this- this happened in Ireland with the Anglo-Norman invasion and even in the beginning of the Zionist colonisation of Palestine. In Ireland productive forces were increased by the introduction of feudelism (some argue by speeding up the native development into feudelism). But over time the initially progressive forces cease developing the conquered nation and often reduce it to barbarism.

Tibet doesn't fit the Marxist definition of imperialism. It's a very telling fact that the Tibetan language for example is not outlawed. They're also the only religious group allowed to join the CP. They're also exempt from the limit on babies.

[Sendo]

it's a mixed bag.

China of late has been shitting on Tibet the same way it's been shitting on China "proper" for the past 28 years.

The Dalai Lama is a POS and a liar and wants to rewrite history. The Red "invasion" of Tibet was a great thing and most of the "atrocities" against batshit crazy Tibetan Buddhism (with its secret rape rituals) were commited by Tibetans who cared more about the goals of the GPCR than about sectarian identities.

But that doesn't mean we should be anti-Tibetan independence IF it meant a secular and a less capitalist state than currently exists under the "P"RC. There are problems right now, but it's certainly not a matter of evil Han Chinese attacking the downtrodden Tibetans. There's a lot of economic disparities because it is not filled with coastal cities. Racism is being used by elites in urban China to keep Tibetans down and working in the shadows...the same way Han elites do with the rural migrants who come to the cities for jobs.

There's shit going down, but don' listen to Dalai Lama or the so-called impartial human rights groups.

[Invincible Summer]

I don't trust anything the Dalai Lama says about China, as he's obviously biased, nor do I trust any Western NGO advocating for Tibet independence and defending the Dalai Lama. Why? Because so many goddamn people in the West who want to feel "spiritual" have formed a personality cult around the Dalai Lama and they think he's the shit and want to protect him and his "peaceful, wise" ways.

It's disgusting.

[Revy]

Tibet was part of China for nearly 1000 years, uninterrupted until imperialism separated it for a few decades in the early 20th century.

The "protests" in Tibet were not protests, political, no, they were race riots against Han and Hui residents. This fact was glossed over by the Free Tibet movement. They weren't fighting against the police or the state they were attacking other workers for simply being Han or Hui. The Hui are a Muslim minority in Tibet. Mosques were burned by the Tibetans as well as buildings with Han and Hui in general.

[ernie]

I recommend benhur read Friendly Feudalism - The Tibet Myth (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html) by Michael Parenti to get a good insight into the kind of place Tibet was before the PRC took it over, as well as what kind of "invasion" it really was.

[Pogue]

Sorry, but how is the Dalai Lhama reactionary?

[Killfacer]

yes, if imperialism raised living standards.

Really? You support imperialism if it brings some benefits?

[Killfacer]

One thing that pisses me off on this site is how everyone accuses everybody elses sources of being capitalist propaganda and then go on to post sources from equally disreputable sources.

[Killfacer]

Tibet was part of China for nearly 1000 years, uninterrupted until imperialism separated it for a few decades in the early 20th century.

The "protests" in Tibet were not protests, political, no, they were race riots against Han and Hui residents. This fact was glossed over by the Free Tibet movement. They weren't fighting against the police or the state they were attacking other workers for simply being Han or Hui. The Hui are a Muslim minority in Tibet. Mosques were burned by the Tibetans as well as buildings with Han and Hui in general.

Yeah and gaul was part of the roman empire for hundreds of years? It's irrelevant.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Yeah and gaul was part of the roman empire for hundreds of years? It's irrelevant.

What is relevant though is that there was a CIA-based mission in Tibet with the idea to undermine the proletarian revolution in China. Thus becoming a direct treath to the Proletariat of China, whereas the occupation of Tibet is justified.
At first it was just that, an occupation. And the Tibetans had full autonomy, but of course this could not hold and the two social systems clashed.

[BobKKKindle$]

Sorry, but how is the Dalai Lhama reactionary?Firstly, the title of the individual you are referring to is the Dalai Lama - if you are going to try and defend the leader of a reactionary movement you should at least make sure you can spell their title correctly before making a one-line remark. Secondly, if you read through the posts which have already been made in this thread as wel as the article by Parenti you will be able to read about the historic role of the Tibetan movement in undermining the sovereignty of the PRC and the support this movement has recieved from the imperialist power. The Parenti article also includes extensive information on the condition of Tibet prior to the overthrow of the feudal regime especially in terms of womens rights and the oppression of the serfs. Finally, consider the following quote as evidence that the Dalai Lama is oppossed to class struggle and so is reactionary from any remotely revolutionary viewpoint:

"It is a good thing to be rich... Those are the fruits for deserving actions, the proof that they have been generous in the past. There is no good reason to become bitter and rebel against those who have property and fortune... It is better to develop a positive attitude.”

Source: These comments are from a book of the Dalai Lama's writings quoted in Nikolai Thyssen, "Oceaner af onkel Tom," Dagbladet Information, 29 December 2003, (translated for me by Julius Wilm). Thyssen's review (in Danish) can be found at http://www.information.dk/Indgang/VisArkiv.dna?pArtNo=20031229154141.txt.


So you admit that chinese are not only illegally occupying Tibet, but like Zionists, they also encourage their people to encroach upon Tibetan land by providing incentives, and are in effect stealing the Tibetan minerals

Firstly, homes owned by Tibetans are not being forcibly taken away and transferred to Han "settlers" - the Chinese government has built new homes to house the large numbers of migrants who have traveled from other areas of China to work in Tibet and improve the local infrastructure, and so once again the parallel you have drawn between Palestine and Tibet is not applicable. Secondly, what do you mean by Tibetan minerals and Tibetan land? Communists are opposed to private property as a general concept but are especially opposed to the notion that a specific ethnic group has an exclusive right to a given area of land or minerals - this is exactly what Zionists and other proponents of far-right ideologies argue to justify military expansionism and racist policies.

[Killfacer]

What is relevant though is that there was a CIA-based mission in Tibet with the idea to undermine the proletarian revolution in China. Thus becoming a direct treath to the Proletariat of China, whereas the occupation of Tibet is justified.
At first it was just that, an occupation. And the Tibetans had full autonomy, but of course this could not hold and the two social systems clashed.

ok its a CIA based mission. Can you show me some evidence for this, evidence perhaps that isn't from some crappy site called www.CIAinvadetibetandhatepoorchinesepeople.com (http://www.CIAinvadetibetandhatepoorchinesepeople.com)

[Wanted Man]

ok its a CIA based mission. Can you show me some evidence for this, evidence perhaps that isn't from some crappy site called www.CIAinvadetibetandhatepoorchinesepeople.com (http://www.CIAinvadetibetandhatepoorchinesepeople.com)
Just from a quick Google search:

CIA's Secret War in Tibet (http://www.historynet.com/cias-secret-war-in-tibet.htm) (HistoryNet)
The CIA's Secret War in Tibet (http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/concia.html) (University Press of Kansas)
Tibet, the 'great game' and the CIA (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8442) (Global Research)
Foreign Relations of the United States 1964-68, Vol. XXX, China (http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xxx/337_343.html) (US State Department)

From the US State Department source:


1. Summary--The CIA Tibetan Activity consists of political action, propaganda, and paramilitary activity. The purpose of the program at this stage is to keep the political concept of an autonomous Tibet alive within Tibet and among foreign nations, principally India, and to build a capability for resistance against possible political developments inside Communist China.

[BobKKKindle$]

One thing that pisses me off on this site is how everyone accuses everybody elses sources of being capitalist propaganda and then go on to post sources from equally disreputable sourcesIf you go back and read my original post in this thread you'll find that my objection was not to the list of organizations as such, as several of these organizations have also condemned the situation in Palestine as well as other instances of imperialism around the world - what I objected to was the fact that the OP had limited his referencing to a list at the end of his post. The OP should have linked us to specific articles and if possibly the relevant sections of these articles so we can examine how the facts were gathered and critique his sources. As an earlier poster pointed out, however, there are also organizations which are blatantly ideological in their objectives and so should not be accepted as legitimate sources - Freedom House has received funds from the US government (as they admit in their reports) and has also argued against the creation of the International Criminal Court because the creation of this body could lead to the US being prosecuted for domestic abuses as well as abuses committed in countries under US occupation. Is this a reliable source?


Really? You support imperialism if it brings some benefits? The member who made this argument may not have phrased it in the right way but was still making a legitimate argument. Marxists do not view imperialism simply as one country taking control of a smaller state by military conquest - if this were the case contemporary instances of imperialism would actually be fairly few in number. Rather, Marxists acknowledge that imperialism is a stage in the development of capitalism characterized by several features including the emergence of monopolies, the export of capital, and the territorial division of the world between the major imperialist powers, and evaluate whether a given country is part of the imperialist bloc by determining the extent to which the country in question exhibits these features. From this perspective, we (i.e. Marxists) understand that imperialism can operate through many channels including those which do not involve military conquest or even overt political control such as the use of espionage (as in the case of US attempts to aid the Tibetan independence movement) and the power of institutions such as the IMF. Lenin recognizes this important point in 'Imperialism' as he argues that Argentina should be seen as part of the British Empire despite the fact that Britain has never taken formal control of Argentina. All countries which have fallen under imperialist control have been economically underdeveloped as a result - in other words, they have not been able to improve the standard of living because all of their most valuable resources have been transferred to imperialist nations, and have generally been relegated to a condition of dependency on agricultural goods and now function primarily as sources of cheap labour. How is this relevant to our discussion? Tibet has not been underdeveloped since 1950 - in fact Tibet has experienced rapid improvement in all social indices but especially the provision of healthcare and education and is now one of the fastest growing regions in the whole of China. What this shows is that the relationship between Tibet and the rest of China is not imperialistic in nature - the integration of Tibet is progressive and so communists should defend the territorial integrity of the PRC against external threats.

[Guerrilla22]

It amazes me that people are actually upset that China replaced a theocracy, that and the whole moving of people thing. Oh no, we can't have different ethnic groups living near each other, that would be awful.

[S.O.I]

If there is anyone who is suffering persecution in Tibet it is the Han Chinese


LOLOLOOOooooL!!!! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

yes, those evil tibetans with theire civil rights movements and buddhism!! :rolleyes:

[S.O.I]

It amazes me that people are actually upset that China replaced a theocracy, that and the whole moving of people thing. Oh no, we can't have different ethnic groups living near each other, that would be awful.

theocracy? you mean buddhism?? :laugh:

you do know why the chinese government is moving theire people to tibet? i can tell you that its not because of theire friendly nabour spirit, they want to totally eradicate tibetan culture, and replace with with the glorious han chinese one because they mean tibetans should be chinese (han chinese to be excact) and not tibetan.

sounds familiar?

[S.O.I]

omg i cant believe the reactionary self-justifying bullshit im reading in this thread

[Revy]

theocracy? you mean buddhism?? :laugh:

you do know why the chinese government is moving theire people to tibet? i can tell you that its not because of theire friendly nabour spirit, they want to totally eradicate tibetan culture, and replace with with the glorious han chinese one because they mean tibetans should be chinese (han chinese to be excact) and not tibetan.

sounds familiar?

Actually they're all Chinese - because Chinese is a nationality, like American, not an ethnicity.

Tibetan in this context is like Alaskan within America.
There is a movement for Alaskan independence, but nobody takes them seriously. They also think that they shouldn't be forced to be part of America and that they are "Alaskan" instead.

[BobKKKindle$]

Go back and read the rest of this thread - myself and several other posters have pointed out that during the disturbances earlier this year the protesters conducted attacks against people they suspected of being Han or members of the Hui ethnic minority, and were also found guilty of burning down houses which were known to belong to non-Tibetan families. This has been confirmed by many observers including western media outlets - consider this (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSPEK296114) report from Reuters as an example. As for the issue of Buddhism, what makes you think that Buddhism is incapable of being used as a reactionary ideology, and why are you so quick to assume that a theocracy based on Buddhism either could never exist or would not be as oppressive as a theocracy based on any other religion? Your reaction is symptomatic of the twisted and widespread perception of Buddhism outside of Asia. It is widely acknowledged that prior to the overthrow of feudalism in 1950 almost all agricultural land was owned by an elite consisting of the upper reaches of the priesthood as well as a small number of secular landowners, and peasants who attempted to escape from the estate on which they had been born were hunted down by the local state administration and forced to return - all of this was supported by extensive religious indoctrination as the poor were taught that their conditions were the result of immoral behavior in a previous life and the only way they could atone for their alleged immorality was to accept the rule of the elite and work on the land. The Parenti article provides full referencing for all of these facts.

Do you have any evidence to show that the PRC (i.e. the government - there are many Tibetans who see themselves as Chinese) is intent on eradicating Tibetan culture? All available evidence suggests that the exact opposite is the case: primary education in the TAR (Tibet Autonomous Region) is taught almost solely in Tibetan (with the exception of regions where Tibetans comprise a minority) and Tibetan is available as a subject in all middle schools. (Source: How Repressive Is the Chinese Government in Tibet? UCLA International Institute (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=2732))

[Killfacer]

Just from a quick Google search:

CIA's Secret War in Tibet (http://www.historynet.com/cias-secret-war-in-tibet.htm) (HistoryNet)
The CIA's Secret War in Tibet (http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/concia.html) (University Press of Kansas)
Tibet, the 'great game' and the CIA (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8442) (Global Research)
Foreign Relations of the United States 1964-68, Vol. XXX, China (http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xxx/337_343.html) (US State Department)

From the US State Department source:

Well thats me sunk.

[S.O.I]

Actually they're all Chinese - because Chinese is a nationality, like American, not an ethnicity.

Tibetan in this context is like Alaskan within America.
There is a movement for Alaskan independence, but nobody takes them seriously. They also think that they shouldn't be forced to be part of America and that they are "Alaskan" instead.

ever heard of inuits? or say... native americans at all?:confused: do you know what happened to them? do you even know what they have been reduced to? or do you simply think they are just a humorous addon to the 'to be taken more seriously people of the new american state'? im surprised every day of how americans are some of the most uneducated ignorant people when it comes to american history....

a peoples revolution should always happen by the will of the people, or else it will go incredibly devastatingly massively failingly wrong.

("alaskan" :rolleyes:)

[BobKKKindle$]

ever heard of inuits? or say... native americans at all?At the beginning of this thread someone suggested that the situation in Palestine is the same as what is happening in Tibet, and you are just making yet another comparison which bears no relation to empirical reality. Tibetans are not being forced to leave their homes and a genocide has not taken place - neither you nor anyone else who supports the Tibetan movement has been able to provide us with a single example to support these assertions and you have repeatedly failed to respond to the arguments which have been put forward by myself and others, as we have shown that Tibet has benefited from the overthrow of feudalism (an event which involved the serf population of Tibet as well as external support from the PLA) and have also pointed out that the Tibetan movement has historically received the support of imperialist powers, something you have also ignored. You are right to suggest that the liberation of any oppressed group can only occur through the struggles of that oppressed group and not the intrigues of an isolated cell which seeks to impose its own vision of how liberation should take place - and this is exactly what happened in Tibet, as several memoirs record that oppressed Tibetans welcomed the intervention of the PLA (consider, for example, Strong, Tibetan Interviews, or the account of Tsereh Wang Tuei in Gelder and Gelder, The Timely Rain) and Tibetan youths actively participated in the GPCR, during which youths throughout China struggled against old ideas and outdated traditions.

[S.O.I]

At the beginning of this thread someone suggested that the situation in Palestine is the same as what is happening in Tibet, and you are just making yet another comparison which bears no relation to empirical reality.

ok.

[FreeFocus]

China is a disgusting imperialist state just as all of the others. Granted, I would not put the occupation of Tibet and its associated violations of human rights on the level of Israel's occupation of Palestine, but just because it is not as horrific comparatively does not mean it deserves praise or should be excused. Whether or not China "raised living standards" in Tibet does not really matter. All imperialists make the argument that "we're helping those poor people who don't know their head from their ass." The British made it in Africa, since they were building roads and infrastructure. The US makes the argument everywhere it occupies. In all cases, it is bullshit. No real good can come out of invasions and occupations. And even if roads and infrastructure are built, you have to ask the question, "why?" What are they being built for? Do the people of the country want it? Why is it acceptable for another state for forcefully invade and impose its will as opposed to providing the materials necessary for those in the other country to build it up themselves, if you want to agree with such "humanitarian interventions?"

China sends in Han settlers. Tibetans are discriminated against and are culturally attacked. I am not defending a feudal Tibet, or the Dalai Lama. What this is fundamentally about is human rights and self-determination. I will not defend China, whether you call it capitalist, socialist, or whatever. Wrong is wrong. Whether or not other imperialist powers, like the US, support Tibetan independence as a check on the Chinese state, another imperialist, does not mean Tibetans support imperialism. Unfortunately such groups and movements sometimes unwittingly become pawns in an imperialist game. That doesn't mean that their cause is inherently imperialist, reactionary, or immoral.

Even if there were excesses during the Lhasa riots earlier this year, the utter and complete frustration of Tibetans is understandable. That is not to excuse racially-motivated killings of course, but if non-Tibetans are entering Tibet, exploiting natural resources, getting rich with their stores on stolen land and bragging about, I shed no tears for the foreigners whose shops were vandalized or burned down.

[Guerrilla22]

theocracy? you mean buddhism?? :laugh:
No I mean theocracy. The Dali Lama was the head of state under the old Tibetan government structure.


you do know why the chinese government is moving theire people to tibet?

So the presence of Han is going to eradicate Tibetan culture? Two different ethnic groups cannot coexist in relative proximity to each other?

[Wanted Man]

Even if there were excesses during the Lhasa riots earlier this year, the utter and complete frustration of Tibetans is understandable. That is not to excuse racially-motivated killings of course, but if non-Tibetans are entering Tibet, exploiting natural resources, getting rich with their stores on stolen land and bragging about, I shed no tears for the foreigners whose shops were vandalized or burned down.
Wow. That's fucked up. Well, at least the deeply reactionary undertones of the "Free Tibet" movement are out in the open now.

[scarletghoul]

The invasion and occupation of Tibet was bad, but people should just accept it as part of China now.

[S.O.I]

The invasion and occupation of Tibet was bad, but people should just accept it as part of China now.

then we agree. i havent said, tibet will be free in 2-3 years, but i still want tibet to be in one piece when states no longer exist... and i dont mean ethnically pure with just tibetans, but i ceirtanly do not want tibetans irradicated by the chinese either...

[FreeFocus]

Wow. That's fucked up. Well, at least the deeply reactionary undertones of the "Free Tibet" movement are out in the open now.

It's the same with Islamic extremists. Most of us condemn terrorism, while understanding its origins. Perhaps you harbor right-wing views on that subject though, thinking that Islamic extremism exists in a vacuum and is completely irrational from any perspective.

[Herman]

*If UN, Amnesty International and various human rights groups provide reports on Israel's human rights violation, these agencies are all objective and can be trusted. If the same agencies produce reports on china's human rights violations, it's biased and cannot be trusted.Not at all. I never trust a "Human Rights" NGO which has branches in many countries. They tend to become bureaucratic and competitive, like companies. They need media attention, donations and support, so they'll do anything to get those.


*Supporting sexist, homophobic mullahsNo one here supports islamic states.


*If Palestian resistance is made up of Islamic extremistsNo one here supports islamic extremists either.


*Chinese occupation of Tibet is ok due to (alleged) economic development.Your claims are "alleged". Economic development in Tibet isn't. There has been real progress. Or would you claim that Tibet was a paradise on Earth when it was "independent", knowing that it had a feudalist/religious dictatorial system where serfdom existed and peasants where forced to work for their lords, and obey everything the priests said? They also purposely never technologically progressed, seeing as a "corruption" of their culture.

[Wanted Man]

It's the same with Islamic extremists. Most of us condemn terrorism, while understanding its origins. Perhaps you harbor right-wing views on that subject though, thinking that Islamic extremism exists in a vacuum and is completely irrational from any perspective.
Umm, no, but nice try. If you want to suggest that the Palestinian resistance against zionism and imperialism is one monolithic, reactionary Islamic extremism, and is therefore comparable to the reactionary theocratic old Tibetan elite that is fighting against China with CIA aid, which supports the idea of ethnically cleansing all the Chinese, over the backs of the ordinary Tibetans, then that's up to you. Don't project your ignorance and reactionary baggage on others.

[PRC-UTE]

Really? You support imperialism if it brings some benefits?

When/if colonialism played a role in developing productive forces it was progressive. So too is the resistance to its brutalities. However it's not capable of doing that anymore- the imperialists won't colonise a nation and then build it up. Look at Iraq for a good example, the country's been set back hundreds of years.

That's why it's evident that Tibet is not an example of imperialism. China has built it up, not reduced its population. It built roads, schools and infrastructure where there was none.

[FreeFocus]

Umm, no, but nice try. If you want to suggest that the Palestinian resistance against zionism and imperialism is one monolithic, reactionary Islamic extremism, and is therefore comparable to the reactionary theocratic old Tibetan elite that is fighting against China with CIA aid, which supports the idea of ethnically cleansing all the Chinese, over the backs of the ordinary Tibetans, then that's up to you. Don't project your ignorance and reactionary baggage on others.

I wasn't even classifying Palestinian resistance groups as "Islamic extremists" in that instance, although there are strains of it that fall in line with groups such as al-Qaeda. Young Tibetans, who were the main ones rioting, are not "old Tibetan elites," they are everyday Tibetans who are frustrated about the theft of Tibet and the disrespect toward their culture.

You're excused for that tone at the end as well.

[Wanted Man]

Thanks. :rolleyes: Then what's the point of the comparison? "Everyday Tibetans", yup, because most Tibetans are monks who want to ethnically cleanse their country, amirite? It's bullshit, your "everyday Tibetan" is reaping the benefits of being able to advance himself without being held back by reactionary groups who would rather have him as a peasant or slave (sources on old Tibet were already posted in this thread, have fun reading about the Shangri La that existed before teh evil Chinese came in). Only the representatives of that old regime are crying about the evil foreigners entering their country, or talking primitivist and nationalist shit about the railway line from Beijing that makes this even easier.

As it stands, you're still using "blood and soil"-style anti-immigrant nationalist rhetoric to argue your point. Which is pretty disgusting. I don't agree with people who make claims of Chinese imperialism, but at least they have a better point than people like you who just attack the presence of "non-Tibetans" as a whole. There is no essential difference with American racists going on about Mexicans "speaking Spanish and taking our jobs".

I thought anarchists didn't believe in nations and borders. But apparently the influx of "foreigners" in Tibet is a problem, and there should be no tears shed for racist attacks on them... :rolleyes:

[FreeFocus]

Thanks. :rolleyes: Then what's the point of the comparison? "Everyday Tibetans", yup, because most Tibetans are monks who want to ethnically cleanse their country, amirite? As it stands, you're still using "blood and soil"-style anti-immigrant nationalist rhetoric to argue your point. Which is pretty disgusting.

I don't agree with people who make claims of Chinese imperialism, but at least they have a better point than people like you who just attack the presence of "non-Tibetans" as a whole. There is no essential difference with American racists going on about Mexicans "speaking Spanish and taking our jobs".

I thought anarchists didn't believe in nations and borders. But apparently the influx of "foreigners" in Tibet is a problem, and there should be no tears shed for racist attacks on them... :rolleyes:

You put the mention of Palestinians into my mouth. I hadn't mentioned them in that context before and would not have classified Palestinian resistance to Israeli imperialism as Islamic terrorism, which al-Qaeda would fall under. You were talking about the riots but criticizing the Tibetan elite, who I also criticize, but did so as if Tibetan elites were the ones rioting. They weren't. It was frustrated young Tibetans who took to the streets.

I'm not complaining about the presence of non-Tibetans, I'm complaining about the mistreatment of Tibetans by non-Tibetans, mainly state-subsidized settlers. I'm not supporting settler imperialism and I don't support the expansion of the Chinese bourgeoisie. Show me that everyday, working Chinese are forced to move to Tibet and do not harbor negative, arrogant attitudes toward Tibetans.

I don't believe in borders and states but nations are little more than groups of people who share a culture - language, customs, etc. I don't have a problem with nations as defined above because I want diversity preserved. I like cross-cultural exchanges and learning. Still, when the nation is used as a staging ground by the bourgeoisie to drum up support for their interests by using shared characteristics like language and geography, it needs to be challenged and reclaimed. I do not support a parochial view of nations and I really only support them within the context of internationalism, when each nation understands that no nation is better than another, that diversity is important, and that all nations should bond and engage in cultural exchanges. It builds solidarity.

[PRC-UTE]

you've got a point that there is some chauvinism amongst Han attitudes and they do seem to discriminate against the Tibetans. as China is a capitalist state, it will be less able to unite the various ethnic/religious groups and will have to lean on ethnic nationalism.

[BobKKKindle$]

I'm not complaining about the presence of non-Tibetans, I'm complaining about the mistreatment of Tibetans by non-Tibetans, mainly state-subsidized settlers

Your use of the term "settler" has a direct negative connotation (not least because the term has also been used in the context of the Israel-Palestinian conflict in reference to Israeli land seizures) and is not appropriate for the situation. The PRC does issue financial incentives such as lower tax rates as a way to encourage people to move to Tibet which, as noted above, is underpopulated - but you have not explained why these migrants deserve to be described as "settlers" given that they are not taking anything away from Tibetans but are actually contributing towards the regional economy by developing infrastructure and commerce, as can be seen from Tibet's high rate of growth. Encouraging migration through financial incentives has many precedents - immediately after WW2 many European states created government offices for the sole purpose of encouraging migration from Southern European states such as Italy and Turkey, and in some cases even covered part of the cost of transportation and provided basic services once the migrants had arrived in their destination countries.

[DesertShark]

I'd first like to say that I'm shocked and appalled that any "revolutionary" on this board would argue support for a country that not only oppresses its own people: limits their freedom and access to information through controlling the media and internet (yea, even through the internet - remember google made a whole special and separate site so that the Chinese government could control the search results of specific topics?: the most common example is the one of Tiananmen Square, when searched here provides information about the massacre that happened but when searched in China does not), but also invaded a free and sovereign nation and continually provides support to oppressive military regimes in other countries: the military government in Burma and the Janjaweed in Darfur/Sudan (an ethnic cleansing war none the less). Just because they're claiming to be communist does not mean that we need to support them as leftists. I do not support any one (government, state, nation, whatever) that limits people's access to information because in my mind fascists do such things. Also, I forgot to mention that the Chinese government has the youngest political prisoner ever - the Panchen Lama, who was kidnapped at age 6 in 1995. The Chinese government is keeping him and his family prisoner and put their own person in his place. That's not a form of ethinic cleansing? The Panchen Lama and the Dalai Lama continually find each other in the birth-death-birth cycle, and the Chinese government is holding that child hostage until this Dalai Lama dies so that they will be the only ones to know who the next Dalai Lama is and can either kill the child or hold him hostage as well and place their own person in that seat. How is that not a form of ethinc cleansing?

This support actually left me speechless for a bit.

[DesertShark]

In your first post you asserted that the treatment of Tibet is the same as what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. You have now acknowledged that this is not the case, as whereas Palestine as one of the highest unemployment rates in the world and is bankrupt, Tibet has experienced rapid economic growth. In other words, you have contradicted yourself, and negated the assertion you set out to prove.

******

What does "demographic disadvantage" mean? The PRC has been providing financial incentives for people from other parts of China to move to Tibet because Tibet is one of the most underpopulated provinces and also contains a range of valuable minerals and resources which have not yet been exploited due to the lack of available personnel. Israel is removing Palestinians from their homes by force but there is not a single case of this happening in China and Tibetans are not being made to live in refugee camps, as mentioned in my first post. Communists support open borders which means that all the inhabitants of China and any other country should be able to move to Tibet and stay there as long as they like - the arguments put forward by "Free Tibet" activists in opposition to inwards migration are strongly reminiscent of far-right groups in Europe which protest against immigration on the mistaken grounds that the "influx" of migrants from Eastern Europe and Africa is damaging the cultural traditions of European countries - we can only assume that you see these arguments as legitimate and believe that migration should be stopped so as to allow the "original" inhabitants of these countries to remain free of nasty foreign cultures.

The PRC is not preventing countries from trading with Tibet, and the PRC does not use blockades to obstruct trade between different areas of Tibet. As mentioned above, and as admitted by you in your second post, Tibet is receiving aid from the central government, and has benefited economically as a result.
Fuck economics and your belief that that is a measure of how well a group of people are doing. How can you stand there and preach such bullshit and still call yourself a revolutionary? We stopped using economics as a measure of how well people were doing when we realized it wasn't accurate - Amartya Sen did most of this work and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1998, so that way of thinking (that economics is the sole measure of how well people are doing) has been outdated for at least 10 years now. In fact, the Human Development Index was created in 1980, from Amartya Sen's ideas so if you look at that economics as a sole measure for well-being has been outdated almost 20 years now. Also, if you want to talk about economics get your shit straight, Tibet is China's poorest province. http://www.newsobserver.com/front/story/1004109.html

No one claimed that the autoricities the Palestinians are facing are good or should be happening. And comparing them to what is going on in Tibet doesn't degrade their significance. Perhaps the comparison was an attempt to raise some light on issue that has been going on for just as long (both started right after WWII) but does not receive as much support or media attention.

The Chinese do not support open borders with Tibet, if they did they wouldn't be killing Tibetans who are fleeing Tibet to Northern Indian where the Tibetan Government in Exile is located.

You want some news articles so you'll believe this stuff is going on? Here you go, all I did was search "China and Tibet":
http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/14457/93/
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/12/17/2003431317 - why would his parents flee if everything was cool?
http://www.casavaria.com/cafesentido/2008/12/16/869/china-blocking-websites-in-effort-to-crack-down-on-press-freedom/ - just one article about China blocking websites from its people incase none of you believed it
http://www.reuters.com/article/naturalResources/idUSPEK15027020081216
http://www.praguepost.com/articles/2008/12/03/dignitary-details-tibetan-objectives.php
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/17/415467.aspx
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/fear-on-the-roof-of-the-world-how-china-haunts-tibet-501902.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/10/asia/AS-GEN-China-Tibetan-Crackdown.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/tibet/1497405/China-isolates-Tibet-from-outside-world-for-%27celebrations%27.html
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00616F73B59117B93C7A9178CD85F42 8685F9
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A10FC3E5F1A7B93C2AA1783D85F4D 8585F9
http://newsblaze.com/story/20061005184313nnnn.nb/topstory.html
http://www.phayul.com/News/tools/print.aspx?id=5557&t=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032501665_pf.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/international/asia/15TIBE.html?ei=5007&en=fed58838a06358b8&ex=1378958400&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all&position=
http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/1997/11/thurman.html?welcome=true
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/dalailama/

I do not understand how you can support one group trying to regain their land, but not other. An ethnic cleasning is happening in Tibet. Hearing from people who have been there before and after Chinese ocupation, you rarely see any of the Tibetan culture present in Tibet. Also, you get looked down upon, ignored, and not let into some establishments if you are speaking Tibetan. If you want to travel to Tibet, you have to do through the Chinese government appointed tourist programs, you can't go there on your own any more - especially since the opening of the railway. Just because the area has a low number of inhabitants its ok to bus people in to 'fill up the space'?


The dalai lamai is a reactionary figure who believes in absolute monarchy and the subjection of all Tibetans to his will and lust. Many Tibetans are brainwashed by militant buddhism.

The Chinese were right to implement social reforms and paving the way towards a religion-neutral, progressive state. Though
Tibet is historically a part of Greater China, this should not absolve the PRC from oppressing it. That is to be deplored.

For the working class however many improvements have been made.
Since when has the oppression of a group that harmed no one been ok? I can't believe you said that, shouldn't you be banned for such a fascist remark? Tibet has not historically been a part of China, its been free for about 2,000 years.


[/i][/color][/size]


The only "evidence" for this is the Dalai Llama said so. This is not evidence, it just happens that Amnesty is made up on middle class folk who buy wholesale into the Tibetan fetish and aren't interested in politics enough to look at this sort of claim critically, and they usually have a misanthropic worldview where they want to believe anything horrible, and a euro/americocentric worldview where everyone who doesn't live in the west is languishing in unimaginable poverty and suffering, and the west is the only active agent.

In fact, the official 1953 census which was 6 years before the post-uprising crackdown where all these deaths supposedly took place put the Tibetan population at 1,274,000, and higher estimates put it at around 2,000,000. If there were anywhere near this many Tibetans killed there would be a heap of evidence; find some, please. And there was only a few thousand Chinese troops, thinly spread, in [/font]Tibet at that time. Even if they spent all their time during the crackdown hunting down and killing Tibetans, they could not have killed 1.2million.
I posted evidence above, read up. Also, Tibet had 6 million people in it.


[/i][/color][/size]
[/font]Yes, during the Cultural Revolution, and by Tibetan Red Guards, not by the Chinese-there was still hardly any Chinese in Tibet at this time. The Red Guards in Tibet were composed mainly of the children of families who were liberated serfs or slaves-under the Lamas most Tibetans were serfs, slaves, or beggars-or by young monks who had been forced into the order from a young age and routinely sexually abused who rejected theocracy as soon as the Communists gave them a chance. They attacked symbols of theocracy in an attempt to seperate themselves from the past.
Where's your proof that these people were unhappy and ensalved?


[/i][/color][/size]
[/font]What treatment do Tibetans have legally that is different to the rest of China? Give me an example of legislature, not just a general claim.

Same all over China.
So that makes it ok? Far from it comrade, far from it. As a revolutionary, shouldn't you be upset that Chinese are doing such things to their own people?

[DesertShark]

I haven't seen any Tibetans actually calling for independance. The riots a year back didn't have any of these demands; they were attached to the riots only by the western media and by the slave owning exiled ruling class.

And China didn't randomly invade Tibet. Tibet only broke off from China in 1911 after the nationalist revolution, where the entire country was fragmented. The country was reunified in 1949 after 38 years of disunity, and you have to understand bringing Tibet back into it in this context. And there was no violent invasion. The Chinese were largely accepted by the normal Tibetans, even welcomed as liberators by many, and the only violence started in 1959 when there was an uprising; but this was composed only of nobles, Lamas, and semi-nobles, even according to the SS sergeant Heinreich Harrer who was a supporter of the uprising and a mentor to the Dalai Lama.

However, this elite did not object to being reunified under the Guomindang's rule; what they objected to was being reunified under Communists, because they feared their slaves and serfs would be freed.
Acutally they have, read - especially information coming out of Northern Indian where the Tibetan government in exile is and large number of Tibetan refugees.

Where's your evidence that there were enslaved people's there?

No it do not "randomly invade", it was a strategic maneuver. Before 'it broke free from China in 1911,' it was a free nation. Tibet has been its own nation way back in the first century and it split from Chinese culture before 4000BC and from Burmese culture about 500BC (van Driem, George (2002). "Tibeto-Burman Phylogeny and Prehistory: Languages, Material Culture and Genes". in Bellwood, Peter & Renfrew, Colin. Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. pp. 233–49.) Records show Tibet starting around 126BCE or 400BCE ( Norbu, N. (1995). Drung, Deu and Bon: Narrations, Symbolic Languages and the Bon Tradition of Ancient Tibet. Library of Tibetan Works and Archives. pp. 220.) China's occupation in Tibet is not a "reunification", its an occupation.


Okay now you're just becoming more hysterical. You do know this is RevLeft, and that your blanket attacks on the left might not be appreciated? :closedeyes:

Now, there's a lot of bullshit to sift through, but about your claim that the left supports reactionary mullahs, it is false. But we shouldn't support the Dalai Lama either. Sexism and homophobia? A research of the issue shows that the Dalai Lama opposes abortion (he thinks it's an "act of killing") except when "the unborn child will be retarded" and that he believes homosexuality is not acceptable by Buddhism along with oral and anal sex (either homosexual or heterosexual) and masturbation. Something to think about......
Even if he does oppose it, he would never support the restriction of someone's freedom...something to think about.


yes, if imperialism raised living standards by raising the level of productive forces, we would support it. but in practice, imperialism usually operates by freezing or even retarding existing capital in colonies, and hyper-developing small islands of industry while leaving the rest to rot.
No, we should never support imperialism because it destroys cultures.


often initial imperialist penetrations of lesser developed colonies does result in this- this happened in Ireland with the Anglo-Norman invasion and even in the beginning of the Zionist colonisation of Palestine. In Ireland productive forces were increased by the introduction of feudelism (some argue by speeding up the native development into feudelism). But over time the initially progressive forces cease developing the conquered nation and often reduce it to barbarism.
What right do you or anyone else have to claim that someone else's culture is barbaric? Reduction of "barbarism" through murder, rape, and ethinc cleasning, isn't barbaric? Get off your high horse.


Tibet doesn't fit the Marxist definition of imperialism. It's a very telling fact that the Tibetan language for example is not outlawed. They're also the only religious group allowed to join the CP. They're also exempt from the limit on babies.
Not outlawed but shunned. Just because there's no law against it, doesn't mean people who speak the language aren't restricted from entering certain establishments or ignored completely. Why even bring up the baby thing? Its irrelevent.


I don't trust anything the Dalai Lama says about China, as he's obviously biased, nor do I trust any Western NGO advocating for Tibet independence and defending the Dalai Lama. Why? Because so many goddamn people in the West who want to feel "spiritual" have formed a personality cult around the Dalai Lama and they think he's the shit and want to protect him and his "peaceful, wise" ways.

It's disgusting.
And I don't trust anything the Chinese government says because they've been known to manipulate the media and resources to keep information from their people. Also, what's wrong with peace?


Tibet was part of China for nearly 1000 years, uninterrupted until imperialism separated it for a few decades in the early 20th century.
This is not true, see earlier in post.


The "protests" in Tibet were not protests, political, no, they were race riots against Han and Hui residents. This fact was glossed over by the Free Tibet movement. They weren't fighting against the police or the state they were attacking other workers for simply being Han or Hui. The Hui are a Muslim minority in Tibet. Mosques were burned by the Tibetans as well as buildings with Han and Hui in general.
Citizans protesting the occupation of their land is a race riot? Would you say the same thing about native americans or palestinians?

[Cheung Mo]

No socialist would do what Beijing did in Chile and in Afghanistan.

[DesertShark]

It amazes me that people are actually upset that China replaced a theocracy, that and the whole moving of people thing. Oh no, we can't have different ethnic groups living near each other, that would be awful.
Its not about "different ethnic groups living near each other," its about a cultural cleansing that's happening in Tibet (read posts before this one).


Actually they're all Chinese - because Chinese is a nationality, like American, not an ethnicity.

Tibetan in this context is like Alaskan within America.
There is a movement for Alaskan independence, but nobody takes them seriously. They also think that they shouldn't be forced to be part of America and that they are "Alaskan" instead.
Actually, you're wrong. Tibetans are not Chinese in any way (see prior posts).


The invasion and occupation of Tibet was bad, but people should just accept it as part of China now.
Should we say the same about Palestine? Native Americans? Puerto Ricans? Would you say the same thing about the countries Hitler took over? Russia? Fuck that. If people want to be free they should allowed to be free, isn't that the essence of the revolution...freedom from oppression?


When/if colonialism played a role in developing productive forces it was progressive. So too is the resistance to its brutalities. However it's not capable of doing that anymore- the imperialists won't colonise a nation and then build it up. Look at Iraq for a good example, the country's been set back hundreds of years.

That's why it's evident that Tibet is not an example of imperialism. China has built it up, not reduced its population. It built roads, schools and infrastructure where there was none.
We gave Iraq socialized medicine, so your analogy is crap. Who ever said infrastructure was good thing? Don't you think that if Tibetans wanted to be westernized with such infrastructure they would have? China is illegally occupying Tibet and attempting to destroy the culture that had been there thousands of years.

[DesertShark]

Tibetans are not being forced to leave their homes and a genocide has not taken place - neither you nor anyone else who supports the Tibetan movement has been able to provide us with a single example to support these assertions and you have repeatedly failed to respond to the arguments which have been put forward by myself and others, as we have shown that Tibet has benefited from the overthrow of feudalism (an event which involved the serf population of Tibet as well as external support from the PLA) and have also pointed out that the Tibetan movement has historically received the support of imperialist powers, something you have also ignored. You are right to suggest that the liberation of any oppressed group can only occur through the struggles of that oppressed group and not the intrigues of an isolated cell which seeks to impose its own vision of how liberation should take place - and this is exactly what happened in Tibet, as several memoirs record that oppressed Tibetans welcomed the intervention of the PLA (consider, for example, Strong, Tibetan Interviews, or the account of Tsereh Wang Tuei in Gelder and Gelder, The Timely Rain) and Tibetan youths actively participated in the GPCR, during which youths throughout China struggled against old ideas and outdated traditions.
Acutally I did all of those things in posts just before this, I hope you take the time to at least look at the articles/evidence you claim don't exist. Everything I've been able to find has claimed that the "feudlism" that was going on was a myth. If there were Tibetans who wanted to leave, why didn't they? It wasn't like Tibet had a military that killed anyone trying to leave, unlike China... Also, like I've said prior to this economics does not equate to how well a people are doing and westernized infrastructure isn't for everyone and shouldn't be forced on anyone who doesn't want it.


Your use of the term "settler" has a direct negative connotation (not least because the term has also been used in the context of the Israel-Palestinian conflict in reference to Israeli land seizures) and is not appropriate for the situation. The PRC does issue financial incentives such as lower tax rates as a way to encourage people to move to Tibet which, as noted above, is underpopulated - but you have not explained why these migrants deserve to be described as "settlers" given that they are not taking anything away from Tibetans but are actually contributing towards the regional economy by developing infrastructure and commerce, as can be seen from Tibet's high rate of growth. Encouraging migration through financial incentives has many precedents - immediately after WW2 many European states created government offices for the sole purpose of encouraging migration from Southern European states such as Italy and Turkey, and in some cases even covered part of the cost of transportation and provided basic services once the migrants had arrived in their destination countries.
It is appropriate because China is illegally occupying Tibet and just because its used in other contexts doesn't make it less valid, that's a stupid argument. Why would you want to overpopulate an area? Don't you think the Chinese government is offering these incentives as way to diminish the number of or percentage of Tibetans living in their home land? Again, get over the economic bullshit because its not an accurate measure of how well a people are doing.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The PRC is not preventing countries from trading with Tibet, and the PRC does not use blockades to obstruct trade between different areas of Tibet. As mentioned above, and as admitted by you in your second post, Tibet is receiving aid from the central government, and has benefited economically as a result.It once benefited from the immense national assets created by the high rates of investment in heavy industry. There was once a marked increase in the yuan value of it's many items, but that's not really the 'norm' anymore. It's capital goods, steel, and coal industrial output have dramatically declined as a result of the partial privatization of it's state companies. It had operative independence to meet state-plan targets, but the organizing and management of production is outside of hands of the worker's and farmer's of Tibet at this point. As so, it's 'aid' is not based on realizing an economic plan that would encourage socialist construction for Tibet, but on the creation of transport outlets that will allow Bejing to tap off it's rich minerals.

It's discernible to see this apeasement of Han chauvinism. No doubt, the Lhama was a member of the reactionary Tibetan gentry, and 'Free Tibet' has nothing to with freeing anybody. But it is a nation. And as the old Maoist adage goes, "countries want independence, nations want liberation, and people want revolution." The line that the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) and Socialism and Liberation Party takes rules out the possibility of a national liberation movement developing outside of the political alliances of the lamaists and U.S. imperialism.

[ashaman1324]

i'm siding with benhur on this one.
china invaded tibet, its beyond me why your calling it incorporating, the nazis called invading rhineland and poland annexing. its like calling the same plant different names. if no other reason justifies chinese reforms regarding the region, that one initial act does.

[Brother No. 1]

Dalai lama just wants the Monarchy back. I support bobkindles about China and the Reforms in Tibet. You rock bobkindles!

[Merces]

To support chinese imperialism over tibet as a leftist? Kinda makes one sound like a hipocrite don't you agree.

[Brother No. 1]

so I am a hipocrite for I just support the PRC and not tibet and Dalai lama.

[redguard2009]

We gave Iraq socialized medicine, so your analogy is crap.

Actually Iraq had socialized medicine before "you" bombed the bejesus out of it, and then invaded it, and started rebuilding it back to its former state (which'll probably take another 20 years). So the analogy holds.

[Merces]

so I am a hipocrite for I just support the PRC and not tibet and Dalai lama.

Well think about it.

Imperialism: the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

Most leftists here support palestianian indepenedence and independence from all "evil capitalist imperial fascist states" right?


During Mao's reign in China his Great Leap Forward (and we all know how successful that was) led to famine in Tibet. Each year it is reported by the U.N and various foreign countries that 3000 tibetians flee due to persecution. Choekyi Nyima was named by ethnic tibetians to be the next dalai lama. HOwever the PRc doesn't agree with this claim, and later named Gyancain Norbu (who was raised in beijing and appeared in chinese media) to be the next daila lama. There were protests against the chinese governemnt and native tibetians refuse to believe that Gyancain Norbu is the next daila lama.Choekyi Nyima and his family has since gone missing and reported to be inprisoned in China. The Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy claims that more than 11,000 monks and nuns have been expelled from Tibet since 1996 for opposing "patriotic re-education" sessions conducted at monasteries and nunneries under the "Strike Hard" campaign. The Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy claims that unemployment among Tibetans is high. An unequal taxation system further exacerbates the conditions of poverty for Tibetans in rural areas. Many basic rights, such as the right to housing, education and health, remain unfulfilled.

The reason why most if not all leftist here support this rule is because the PRC is communist and falls under their beleifs, despite the actuality of the sitation which is not "revolutionary" but rather oppressive. How this rule is different from any other oppressive rule, I don't know maybe cuss its leftist that gives them the justification to have the upper hand in achiwving those goals by whatever means neccesary. Even if everyone is "un patriotic".

[Brother No. 1]

I would say the Peoples Republic is Socialist and heres a Question for you what would Dalai lama do when he has tibet.

[Merces]

From current interviews and his remarkable ghandian approach to situations I would hope his appraoch would be a peaceful return to tibetian society. Although I can't fortell the future. He is a marxist and rightly criticised the USSR China and Vietnam for being "false" marxist societies. In part I agree because lets face it they in no way were or are successful. Except China who recently began experimenting with right economics (something to think about). His quote

“Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is, the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism(though dissaproving of it on the whole). As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.
I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is not much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.
The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.

All I know is that the current dire system is only worsening the situation in Tipet and destroying its history year by year. However Communism and socialism is dying now in china, so we'll see what happens.

[Brother No. 1]

Really chinas leaders cant even tell where China will go but they would more likey give up Taiwan then try to make tibet free.

[Merces]

Well we'll see what happens. And thank you I forgot about china's conquest over taiwan LoL. All I hope for is peace and the restoration of Tibets independence in the hands of tibetians. As far as I'am concerend if you ever have the chance to go to china, ask a youth who is adorned with the latest guicci shoes tommy hilfiger jackets and Iphones what they think of the revolution.

And in respone to the use of Che in our capitalist society.

"Capitalism devours everything- even it's worst enemies".

[Brother No. 1]

isnt that the truth and Capitalism even devours its self sometimes.

[Merces]

Sometimes your right. But lets face it how many socialist states are out there, or rather who use to be socialist? Anyways back on topic.

[Brother No. 1]

well Dalai lama I still dont know about him but for Now I will trust your word hes marxist.

[DesertShark]

When/if colonialism played a role in developing productive forces it was progressive. So too is the resistance to its brutalities. However it's not capable of doing that anymore- the imperialists won't colonise a nation and then build it up. Look at Iraq for a good example, the country's been set back hundreds of years.

That's why it's evident that Tibet is not an example of imperialism. China has built it up, not reduced its population. It built roads, schools and infrastructure where there was none.



We gave Iraq socialized medicine, so your analogy is crap. Who ever said infrastructure was good thing? Don't you think that if Tibetans wanted to be westernized with such infrastructure they would have? China is illegally occupying Tibet and attempting to destroy the culture that had been there thousands of years.


Actually Iraq had socialized medicine before "you" bombed the bejesus out of it, and then invaded it, and started rebuilding it back to its former state (which'll probably take another 20 years). So the analogy holds.

You missed the point. PRC-UTE was claiming that its not Imperialism if you give them stuff and make them better - "infrastructure". I made the claim that that's not the case. The point was that invading any sovereign nation isn't acceptable, regardless of what the invaders feel they are doing for the natives.

[PRC-UTE]

You missed the point. PRC-UTE was claiming that its not Imperialism if you give them stuff and make them better - "infrastructure". I made the claim that that's not the case. The point was that invading any sovereign nation isn't acceptable, regardless of what the invaders feel they are doing for the natives.

I was claiming how imperialism works is not how China operates in Tibet. It has accelerated productive forces and has largely been a force for modernisation. Imperialism is a stage of development that China was not anywhere close to when it took over in Tibet.

[Merces]

Then how do they operate. Hows is there conquering any different than any other imperialistic action. I know they're communist but there must be a better reason than that.

[Panda Tse Tung]

There was a CIA-based operation there.
The area had historically belonged to China.
It was a strategic area, militarily speaking &
the Tibet regime just sucked in general.

[Charles Xavier]

China subsidizes living in Tibet, I fail to see how this is imperialism, imperialism would be the opposite.

China's policy concerning national rights is almost non-existent which leaves much to be desired. The Communist Party of China and their founders were Big China nationalists.

China however has thousands of nations within its borders I don't know why there isn't talk about the other nations only Tibet.

[Killfacer]

China subsidizes living in Tibet, I fail to see how this is imperialism, imperialism would be the opposite.

China's policy concerning national rights is almost non-existent which leaves much to be desired. The Communist Party of China and their founders were Big China nationalists.

China however has thousands of nations within its borders I don't know why there isn't talk about the other nations only Tibet.

American's give out money for reconstruction in Iraq, yet it is still imperialism.

Now you're suggesting all the other countries deserve freedom aswell?

[Killfacer]

The area had historically belonged to China.


Don't use that argument it doesn't hold. Loads of areas have historically belonged to countries, this doesn't mean that those countries shouldn't have independance.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Michael Parenti talks about Tibet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWGGjpJJCKE

[Blackscare]

It seems to me what China is doing to Tibet is similar to what England did to Ireland back in the day. Just like the English moved in protestant Englishmen to cement their stake in Ireland, it seems to me that the Chinese are moving in Hans to cement claims they have to the region and undermine the political will of the native inhabitants by outnumbering them.

I think referencing ancient history is pointless, because you can point out a long period of occupation by the Chinese government say... a thousand years ago, and I can point back farther and show when the Tibetans asserted their right to sovereignty, then you could go back farther still, as could I. It goes on, except that it does show that Tibet is a historically weaker, smaller neighbor to a country that has always been powerful and significant, and has thus been invaded and liberated countless times. The only thing historical references show is that China has always struggled to assert it's dominance over Tibet, and that modern day China is doing the same (except, it's communist so it's ok to force on people who don't want it).

Revolution has to come from within, people will never be happy while they are having they're lives dictated by an outside entity. No nation on earth has the right to force another nation to submit to it.

[Charles Xavier]

It seems to me what China is doing to Tibet is similar to what England did to Ireland back in the day. Just like the English moved in protestant Englishmen to cement their stake in Ireland, it seems to me that the Chinese are moving in Hans to cement claims they have to the region and undermine the political will of the native inhabitants by outnumbering them.

I think referencing ancient history is pointless, because you can point out a long period of occupation by the Chinese government say... a thousand years ago, and I can point back farther and show when the Tibetans asserted their right to sovereignty, then you could go back farther still, as could I. It goes on, except that it does show that Tibet is a historically weaker, smaller neighbor to a country that has always been powerful and significant, and has thus been invaded and liberated countless times. The only thing historical references show is that China has always struggled to assert it's dominance over Tibet, and that modern day China is doing the same (except, it's communist so it's ok to force on people who don't want it).

Revolution has to come from within, people will never be happy while they are having they're lives dictated by an outside entity. No nation on earth has the right to force another nation to submit to it.

No its more like what England is currently doing to Wales.

The imperialists are meddling in the China issue. Tibet already does have a degree of autonomy from China.

[Blackscare]

Tibet already does have a degree of autonomy from China.

And they should be thankful for the benevolence of the Chinese for such a gift. :D

[RedStarOverChina]

Show me that everyday, working Chinese are forced to move to Tibet and do not harbor negative, arrogant attitudes toward Tibetans.


What the fuck?

Whoever told you Chinese immigrants are "forced" or "subsidized"?

I'm also Chinese, and I live in Canada. Am I send here by the government to strengthen Chinese domination too? Or to "spread communism"? Typical racist bullshit.

Most Chinese immigrants to Tibet are from the neighbouring Sichuan province, and are only there for the job opportunities. There is no tax in Tibet. Most just want to make some money and go back because few people from outside Tibet feel comfortable in Tibet's harsh environment.

[Panda Tse Tung]

American's give out money for reconstruction in Iraq, yet it is still imperialism.

Now you're suggesting all the other countries deserve freedom aswell?
Except Iraq = oil = very important &
Tibet = mountains = useless.
There's no natural resources to exploit or anything.

[FreeFocus]

Actually, Georgi, there's a lot of talk about other nations being oppressed within China, most notably Xinjiang, the homeland of the Uighurs. Xinjiang and Tibet are coveted for geopolitical reasons: China historically has been invaded when it lacks a good buffer zone, and Xinjiang and Tibet offer the ultimate buffer of mountainous areas difficult to traverse. This provides protection from powers coming from the west of China, e.g. India and Russia.

It is imperialism. Sure, there's a Tibetan bourgeoisie, but Tibetan independence is supported by a lot of poor Tibetans as well. National liberation often involves a bourgeoisie element, but many national liberation movements that opposed capitalism and embraced some form of socialism attacked their own bourgeoisie as collaborators.

[RedStarOverChina]

One can make a much stronger argument for Uyghur independence than Tibetan independence--Though both creates more problems than it attempts to resolve.



but Tibetan independence is supported by a lot of poor Tibetans as well.


Evidence?

I've been to Tibet, and I disagree.




National liberation often involves a bourgeoisie element, but many national liberation movements that opposed capitalism and embraced some form of socialism attacked their own bourgeoisie as collaborators.


I think you are bullshiting.

For one thing, Tibetan separatists don't talk like that. Talking about class struggle is not exactly characteristic of these people. Most, if not all of them tend to be pro-Lama Buddhists.

[RedStarOverChina]

I recommand the book The Struggle for Modern Tibet: The Autobiography of Tashi Tsering to those who wish to learn more about life in pre-1959 Tibet, Tibetan nationalism; early exile politics, Culture Revolution in Tibet and even a little lesson on class struggle.

[Yazman]

The idea of an independent tibet is nice and romantic but I refuse to support it so long as there is any sort of chance the Buddhists could return to power.

There is no fucking way in hell I would ever support that, especially given their established record as despotic slave-owners.