Doing a school debate against "Free Tibet"

[Leftsolidarity]

Honestly, I don't know all that much about this topic. I just chose it because I figured it would be a challenge to win. I need to argue that Tibet should stay the way it is.

I wanted to talk about how the rule of the Dalai Lama was bad, China helped progress Tibet, something about the geography, and idk I kind of need help.

Anyone have any thoughts on this subject?

Yesterday I read "Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth" by Michael Parenti and that helped. Anyone else have anything moderately short that would be good for me to use?

[manic expression]

Parenti's work is a good start. Definitely research about the institution of serfdom in Tibet and how the PRC abolished it. Just as importantly, point to CIA activities in Tibet and how the US was trying to use it as a pawn in the Cold War. Bring up the experience of Sitar, a former serf under the Dalai Lama's rule who is now a high-ranking member of the PRC government. Bring up how Tibetan families are exempt from the "One Child Rule". You also need to remind your audience that China is not a single-nation country, it's made up of dozens of nations that all have distinct cultures, identities and histories, and that the PRC is set up in a way to respect all of them.

[tfb]

Theocracy, slavery, one of the worst literacy rates in the world, Dalai Lama chosen in a ridiculous way, bad re women's rights, anti-gay.

[Desperado]

Those are good, but ultimately strawman arguments. Your opponent can basically claim that they are not for the old feudal Tibet, simply an independent one. If they're crafty they'll even recognise and praise China's progressive influences (though still emphasise the negative ones), but say they want to go further (just as Marxians, despite criticising capitalism, see it as a step forwards from feudalism).

I'd keep those, but to strengthen and outmanoeuvre the fact that they're really strawmen perhaps bring in the fact that an independent Tibet would hardly be different to it's situation, or question how it concretely would be. That is, the sane socialist argument that national liberation struggles are an energy-sapping distraction, when for the same expenditure we could focus on more productive clear-cut issues and stop wasting our time. As it's a school debate, don't say good ol' class struggle - instead make these "productive issues" fighting human rights abuses and poverty in China generally. Opposition might say that a free Tibet is part of this - but how? Not necessarily, especially if it's not in the definition of the debate. If they've claimed that an independent Tibet wont be feudal as before, but instead progressive and beautiful, accuse them of having they're cake and eating it - being utopian by saying that you're prejudging the shape of a future Tibet (saying it'll be feudal) before prejudging it themselves (saying it'll be more progressive). By doing that you're proving the opposition to be logically inconsistent, and coming across as still anti-Chinese authoritarianism (the moral, popular argument) despite your position.

[manic expression]

Yeah, excellent points Desperado. It's possible that your opponents will try to disconnect their position with the monarchy-in-exile. If they do, then you should press them on what their independent Tibet would actually look like, any vague description should be questioned and challenged...and if it is a vague vision ("oh, well that's for Tibetans to decide" or whatever) then you can easily charge that they know not what their "independence" means, and that they are promoting something they themselves do not understand.

Then I'd point out that "independence" in the present circumstances would inevitably mean subjugation through financial and/or military domination. Point to Yugoslavia as a cautionary tale: "independence" meant genocide, suffering and hegemony of US and NATO (who bombed the region). Claim that your opponents are opening this same door to ethnic violence and strife out of their own naivete: the multi-national PRC represents a peaceful, prosperous future for Tibet, one that respects the traditions and identity of the Tibetan people; your opponents, however, are unwittingly promoting inhumane division and conflict.

I think that if your opponent tries to say simply that "independent Tibet isn't the same as feudal Tibet", you should also press him/her on the fact that the most consistent voices for "independence" have been tied to the Dalai Lama, who does represent the feudal past and not a free and prosperous future. Tibetans who don't support the Dalai Lama support the PRC (check here), and you can justly criticize them for ignoring the voices of actual Tibetans in favor of their own distant judgments.

Some good stuff to read here, here and here.

[Leftsolidarity]

Thanks, those are some great points. I know so little about the topic I wouldn't have come up with those counter-arguments.

[Zealot]

The Tibetan seperatists not only want an "independent Tibet" they want a "Greater Tibet". The area covering Greater Tibet can sometimes differ and isn't written in stone but according to the BBC it "covers the TAR (Tibetan Autonomous region), the whole of Qinghai province, western parts of Sichuan, areas of Yunnan and a corner of Gansu."

They go on to admit that Tibetans only "make up about 25% of the total population of Qinghai". Sichuan has a 1.5% Tibetan ethnic composition, Yunnan 0.3% and Gansu 2%. This would eventually carve out 1/4 of China. It's basically an impossibility and they're completely insane to think that making such a country will go smoothly. There was one other famous person in history who tried to do something like this but I'm not giving out any names (hint: Adolf Hitler).

My second problem with this is that it would just become a western military base to carry out more imperialism in Asia and stir up trouble in China. And of course all the problems listed by other users above make me more than a little uneasy to let the Dalai Lama back in.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7304825.stm

[Leftsolidarity]

I just wrote up my opening speech. Here is it. The time is supposed to be 5 minutes but even time I've read through it myself I get around 5:30. My teacher likes me though so hopefully he won't cut me off or anything.

Comments?

[FONT=Calibri]The arguments for the side of a “Free” Tibet are ones that come from a utopian and idealized version of a past feudal society. They inadvertently support a past brutal theocratic regime that has been displaced since Tibet’s liberation in 1950. While some criticisms of the Peoples’ Republic of China may or may not be correct, we should look at the real life changes and advances that have been made in Tibet since its incorporation into the PRC.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]A false version of history has been promoted by Western media. They spin it as if Tibet’s history pre-liberation is one of a peaceful society free from war, oppression, violence, and atrocities. If one looks into the actual history of Tibet under its old order, they would see that that is far from the truth. Tibet’s history is riddled with religious war, torture, tyranny, and oppression. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]Historian and author Erik Curren said, “History belies the Shangri-La image of Tibetan lamas and their followers living together in mutual tolerance and nonviolent goodwill. Indeed, the situation was quite different. Old Tibet was much more like Europe during the religious wars of the Counterreformation.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]The ruling class was the religious leaders and large land owners. Under them there was the general population of serfs, slaves, and a small class of merchants. The under-classes were brutal oppressed by the ruling class and kept in extreme poverty. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]In "Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth" by Michael Parenti it says, “The majority of the rural population was made up of serfs. Treated little better than slaves, the serfs went without schooling or medical care, They were under a lifetime bond to work the lord's land--or the monastery’s land--without pay, to repair the lord's houses, transport his crops, and collect his firewood. They were also expected to provide carrying animals and transportation on demand.[/FONT][FONT=Calibri]16[/FONT][FONT=Calibri] Their masters told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. And they might easily be separated from their families should their owners lease them out to work in a distant location. [/FONT][FONT=Calibri]17[/FONT][FONT=Calibri]”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Calibri]Some punishments that the past ruling class inflicted upon the serfs were to "have their eyes gouged out, legs hamstrung, tongue cut out, or hands severed, or have them hurled from a cliff, drowned or otherwise killed…” That quote is from “50 years of democratic reform in Tibet”[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]In an interview, a 24-year old runaway [serf] welcomed the Chinese intervention as a “liberation.” He testified that under serfdom he was subjected to incessant toil, hunger, and cold. After his third failed escape, he was merciless beaten by the landlord’s men until blood poured from his nose and mouth. They then poured alcohol and caustic soda on his wounds to increase the pain, he claimed.[/FONT][FONT=Calibri]19[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]Another part of [/FONT][FONT=Calibri]"Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth" says, [FONT=Calibri]“T[/FONT]he Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation--including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation--were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]This was all done under the rule of the Dalia Lama and the other members of the ruling class. Since the movement for what they call a “Free” Tibet is based around putting this ruling class back into power, it is the humanitarian position to oppose it.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]Even though the reasoning as to why we shouldn’t support a brutal theocratic regime coming back into power should be rather evident, we can also look to Tibet when incorporated into the PRC as to justification as to why things should remain as they are.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]When Tibet first was incorporated into the People’s Republic of China the PRC took careful steps to protect Tibet’s autonomy and culture. The official name for the area is the Tibet Autonomous Region.[/FONT][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Arial]Tibet being an autonomous region of China means that it is an integral part of China and is under the ultimate authority of the Beijing government, but enjoys wide self-governing powers. One example of its autonomy would be how Tibetan families are exempt from the “One Child Policy”.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]During the being of its incorporation the PRC allowed the past ruling class to remain in power hoping that it would peacefully reform over time to liberate the people of Tibet. Unfortunately though, that wasn’t in their interests so members of the old ruling class staged a violent rebellion to uphold their oppressive rule.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]Following this, the PRC exiled the old ruling class and instituted the reforms to liberate the people of Tibet. The PRC abolished slavery and serfdom, got rid of feudal privilege and oppression, abolished the extremely high-rate loans which subject Tibetan people to economic slavery, and established the freedom of religion.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]The PRC went on to implement land reform which redistributed the land from the past wealthy ruling class and gave the ex serfs and slaves their own land. Due to the land reform, the grain production in 1960 was 17.5% higher than in 1958, which was the year before the reforms. [/FONT][FONT=Calibri]During the democratic reform, Tibet's first supply and marketing cooperative, first rural credit cooperative, first community primary school, first night school, first literacy class, first film projection team and first medical organization were established. By the end of 1959, 28 neighborhood committees had been set up in Lhasa, offering jobs to over 8,700 vagrants and beggars, providing relief to more than 8,500 poor people, and taking in over 120 childless, aged, sick and disabled people. In 1960, Ngachen Hydroelectric Station was completed and put into use, bringing electric lighting for the first time to the citizens of Lhasa. In 1959 and 1960, dozens of small-scale modern factories were set up in Tibet, employing over 20,000 Tibetan workers. Tibet's roads built in those two years totaled 12,500 km, and reached over 90 percent of the counties in the region. Those statistics come from “50 years of democratic reform in Tibet”.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Calibri]Gross domestic production grew by a factor of 30 between 1951 and 2000. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Calibri]In pre-revolution Tibet, there were no schools at all. Education was monopolized by the monasteries. By 2000, 86 percent of school-age children were enrolled in schools. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Calibri]Even relative to the rest of China, conditions in Tibet are becoming comparable. In 2000, the number of hospital beds and doctors per thousand population is higher than for China overall. Those numbers come from “China: Revolution and Counterrevolution”[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]Tibet faces losing a lot to this so called “independence”. They would find themselves in the same situation as other countries such as Yugoslavia, who’s phony independence meant genocide, war, and hegemony to the US and NATO.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]From all this, we can see that Tibet’s past is one of brutality and theocracy, the People’s Republic of China liberated the oppressed people of Tibet and progressed the country, and that the independence movement is actually a movement for a restoration of the old ruling class and feudal society.[/FONT]

Edit: No idea why the text in certain areas copied over differently. haha It printed correctly though.

[Leftsolidarity]

Well I did my debate today. I didn't know I was going to go today so I wrote it right before class and never got to practice it much.

It went awesome though. The speech was really good. One problem though. It was supposed to be 5 or less, it turned out being around 8. hahaha

Other than that, I completely destroyed the other side and they hardly brought any arguments to the table. Won unanimously I was told.

[Zealot]

Haha, Expoooosed. What were their arguments if you don't mind me asking?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Many of these arguments are really naive and one-sided. It irritates me that

(1) What evidence, if any, is there that the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Independence folks want to restore a feudal or theocratic monarchy? Please provide some, I've asked before and nobody has shown it.

(2) What evidence, if any, is there that an independent Tibet would be more exploitative than modern-day Capitalist China, aside from the racist conclusion that Tibetans are too incompetent to not exploit themselves based on the fact that 60 years ago they lived under a feudal system?

(3) It more or less ignores State violence towards Tibetans who disagree with Chinese policies. So Tibet was a feudal state, that doesn't make post-feudal Tibet any *less* violent.

(4) It also ignores WHY Tibet was feudal to begin with, which has nothing to do with the Lamas or Tibetan Buddhism as such but has to do with how economic production and property is organized.

(5) Most of the "Tibetan Independence" movement long ago abandoned the calls for actual political independence and replaced it with calls for more autonomy and more rights for Tibetans outside of the TAR, as well as the right of Tibetan exiles to return home without facing state violence.

To go from (2) and (4), because of the fact that the MATERIAL CONDITIONS in Tibet are currently CAPITALIST and not socialist, there will not be a restoration of the old feudal order, any more than the British leaving India and Africa meant that the exceedingly brutal feudal lords in those two places were restored to power.

The reason Tibet was poor and feudal was not because its ruling classes were exceptionally malicious and evil, but because Tibet is an exceptionally remote and isolated area with incredibly difficult living conditions. There was barely any trade with the outside world until only a few decades before its annexation in the 50s. This is why, despite being so huge, it has such a small population. Come on, you guys say you're Marxist, what ever happened to trying to read the material conditions of a society instead of relying on laying moral blame everywhere?

However, because of that, it means that there will not be a restoration of feudalism. The Tibetan bourgeoisie and Chinese bourgeoisie would not allow it, nor would the working class. The Tibetan monastic class is comprised of people stemming from both of those classes, and to maintain its own spiritual and cultural relevance would not support such a reactionary position, any more than American Imams who disagree with the government are necessarily terrorists. This assumption that all Tibetan monks who disagree with PRC state policies do so because they are feudalists is no less rascist than the belief that all Muslims who disagree with the US government support Shariah law.


I don't mean to underplay the positive reforms which the PRC brought to Tibet. Even the Dalai Lama himself was supportive of many of the reforms. But the pro-PRC position is no more naive and foolish than the Shangri-La position. There are Tibetans who have seriously legitimate complaints about their treatment by the Chinese government, and the refugees in India are not all the descendents of nasty feudal overlords. Leftists overlook that because they are so desperate to defend an undefendable state. Was Tibetan Feudalism bad? Duh, feudalism is always bad. But who ever said that the debate was still over feudalism? The Tibetans, or the Chinese government which seeks to justify their policies?

[manic expression]

1.) The Dalai Lama's title itself is theocratic. His existence in the political arena is theocratic. The fact that anyone cares what this monk-king has to say is based on his feudal, theocratic position.

2.) An "independent Tibet" would see a capitalist protectorate of imperialism. Do I need to show you links of Coca-Cola factories killing villagers in India to explain why this would be more exploitative?

3.) It ignores nothing because this doesn't happen. Recent violence was initiated by separatists and consisted of attacking Han Chinese.

4.) Tibet isn't feudal anymore because of the policies of the PRC. Tibetan Buddhism is practiced widely and openly, by the way.

5.) Well, at least they're sounding somewhat sane for the time being, the only problem is that I don't believe them for a second...the first chance they'll get they'll do their best Tudman impression and then imperialism will make China party like it's 1839. As far as rights for Tibetans outside of the TAR, they should talk to India and other countries that see Tibetan populations mistreated, when in the PRC the government goes out of its way to give concessions and progressive treatment to its Tibetan sisters and brothers, along with dozens of other minority nationalities within the PRC.

The Tibetan bourgeoisie and Chinese bourgeoisie would not allow it, nor would the working class.

Sorry, but this is mind-numbingly misled. Feudalism in Tibet wouldn't look at all like it did in the early 20th Century, but it would compose many of those same elements, probably incorporating it into something like a "Constitutional Monarchy" that the capitalists love so much right now. So feudalism could indeed make a comeback.

This assumption that all Tibetan monks who disagree with PRC state policies do so because they are feudalists is no less rascist than the belief that all Muslims who disagree with the US government support Shariah law.

No, it's more like the "belief" that anti-Republic priests in Revolutionary France did so because they were monarchists.

But who ever said that the debate was still over feudalism? The Tibetans, or the Chinese government which seeks to justify their policies?

If it isn't about feudalism, then why do you care what the Dalai Lama says?

[pluckedflowers]

To go from (2) and (4), because of the fact that the MATERIAL CONDITIONS in Tibet are currently CAPITALIST and not socialist, there will not be a restoration of the old feudal order, any more than the British leaving India and Africa meant that the exceedingly brutal feudal lords in those two places were restored to power.

The reason Tibet was poor and feudal was not because its ruling classes were exceptionally malicious and evil, but because Tibet is an exceptionally remote and isolated area with incredibly difficult living conditions.

Now, now, historical materialism has no place in a discussion like this. What are you, some kind of Marxist?

[Zealot]

A new Tibet with the Dalai Lama in charge will most likely be semi-theocratic, maybe even semi-feudal, with a few democratic reforms. From the Dalai Lama's comments, we can see that he:

- Has nostalgia for feudal Tibet.
- Has an affinity for the 13th Dalai Lama, not because of any merit, but because he improved monastic colleges and admires his government.
- Claims the "Dalai Lama's institution is useful to the Tibetan culture and the Tibetan people." all the while cleverly saying it's "up to the Tibetan people".
- Will personally appoint the future president of Tibet.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if the Dalai Lama got his way, he would make Tibet "democratic" with himself and his appointed lackeys pulling all the strings in the background.

Furthermore, since he has come out in support of basically every imperialist intervention made by the USA, we can positively assert he will just become another imperialist ally.

I'm surprised that you, as a Marxist, are trying to deny the role that religion played in feudal Tibet. And yes, I'm sure the reason that it was so brutal and feudal was because Tibet was so isolated there in the middle of India and China Not even isolated tribes on remote islands were as brutal as the ruling classes of Tibet.

I don't really see any difference between what the Dalai Lama is calling for and what they already have. Unless, of course, he has an ulterior motive.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

1.) The Dalai Lama's title itself is theocratic. His existence in the political arena is theocratic. The fact that anyone cares what this monk-king has to say is based on his feudal, theocratic position.

He is no longer a "monk-king" (he was never a "king" any more than Ayatollah Khomeni was a "king", theocracy is distinct from monarchy), he surrendered his political power. Nor was the current Dalai Lama ever in full control of the state, as they were nominated as children and surrounded by advisors, ministers etc, and Mao's army marched into Tibet when he was still fifteen years of age!

Yes, it was a violently repressive Feudal system, but there's no truth to the idea that the Dalai Lama was somehow personally responsible for the state of that country in 1950.

2.) An "independent Tibet" would see a capitalist protectorate of imperialism. Do I need to show you links of Coca-Cola factories killing villagers in India to explain why this would be more exploitative?

As opposed to poisoned formula killing babies in China or silicosis destroying the lungs of millions of Chinese unfortunate to live next to their massive, polluting factories built on land stolen from the working class? All Capitalism in the third world has this feature, there's no reason an independent Tibet would necessarily be any worse. Unless, that is, you think that Tibetans are somehow culturally or genetically unable to run a Capitalist society or to have their own Socialist revolution.

3.) It ignores nothing because this doesn't happen. Recent violence was initiated by separatists and consisted of attacking Han Chinese.

Just like with the violence by blacks to Koreans in LA during the 90s, racial riots do not necessarily expose an organized political agenda as much as they are a spontaneous way in which disorganized and ignorant people express legitimate complaints about real or perceived ethnic inequality. The point is that even though the PRC correctly claims that the Tibetan living standards have improved since 1950, they consistently ignore the fact that Han Chinese in Tibet usually have higher living standards and other privileges which led to the riots, especially in Lhasa. Obviously this does not justify that racism whatsoever, but it was not organized by "separatists" and was not without a context, either.

The truth is that similar violence has broken out in Mongolia and Xinjiang, so this violence is not exclusive to Tibetans but is instead a response to the predominance of Han chauvinism in the PRC. Mao criticized Han Chauvinism and saw that it was a substantial problem in the CCP, why think that the problem evaporated after his death?

4.) Tibet isn't feudal anymore because of the policies of the PRC. Tibetan Buddhism is practiced widely and openly, by the way.

And India isn't feudal any more because of the policies of the British Empire. The local religion was practiced openly there under the Empire as well. I would not, however, recommend that India return under the watchful eye of that atrocious institution. Now, perhaps the PRC is better than the British Empire, but we still see cases of state violence, exploitation, and abuse of ethnic minority interests.

Yes, Tibetan Buddhism is practiced, but there are more cultural rights at stake than just that, and there are questions as to how free the expression is.

5.) Well, at least they're sounding somewhat sane for the time being, the only problem is that I don't believe them for a second...the first chance they'll get they'll do their best Tudman impression and then imperialism will make China party like it's 1839. As far as rights for Tibetans outside of the TAR, they should talk to India and other countries that see Tibetan populations mistreated, when in the PRC the government goes out of its way to give concessions and progressive treatment to its Tibetan sisters and brothers, along with dozens of other minority nationalities within the PRC.

In India, the Tibetans are not treated so badly (I have talked to my fair share when I went there). They are treated horribly in Nepal, however, out of "respect" for the state interest of the PRC. The only "perk" Tibetans have is the "right" to have more than one kid, which is not a "perk" but something the Tibetans deserve considering women everywhere should have the right to their own damn reproductive organs ...

Sorry, but this is mind-numbingly misled. Feudalism in Tibet wouldn't look at all like it did in the early 20th Century, but it would compose many of those same elements, probably incorporating it into something like a "Constitutional Monarchy" that the capitalists love so much right now. So feudalism could indeed make a comeback.

Constitutional monarchy is not real feudalism, however. It illusory feudalism designed to create a sense of national identity as it creates a stronger sense of idealistic unity than capitalism. At essence, however, constitutional monarchy is a capitalist state with no more or less exploitation than any other. At best, the Queen gets the benefit of some fancy houses and estates, but unlike the Queens from 500 years ago she does not get to behead peasants for fun or have people drawn and quartered for saying she has icky teeth.

Yet constitutional monarchy is not what they are fighting for-Tibetan exiles are *not* demanding a return of exclusive political rights for the Lamas and so their return would not lead to feudalism. What it would lead to, if the current leadership is taken seriously, is the right for more democratic openness in Tibet as well as freedom for the exiles to return home. In fact, the Dalai Lama no longer has any "de jure" political authority within the exile community (de jure in quotes, of course, since the exile community is not a state in itself).

No, it's more like the "belief" that anti-Republic priests in Revolutionary France did so because they were monarchists.

That may have been a fair example 50 years ago, but this is long after. The material conditions in Tibet are well beyond post-feudal at this point.

If it isn't about feudalism, then why do you care what the Dalai Lama says?

Because he is a spiritual leader who still commands a lot of respect inside Tibet and in the exile community, as well as in Mongolia and other areas. He had significance aside from being the head of state. He is the equivalent of Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq, or the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, or the Patriarchs in Moscow and Athens. Not all sects of Tibetan Buddhism support the Lamas, but many do, both inside and outside Tibet proper.

I'm surprised that you, as a Marxist, are trying to deny the role that religion played in feudal Tibet. And yes, I'm sure the reason that it was so brutal and feudal was because Tibet was so isolated there in the middle of India and China Not even isolated tribes on remote islands were as brutal as the ruling classes of Tibet.

Yeah, it's not like Tibet isn't the world's highest plateau, surrounded by the world's tallest mountains on the south, deserts on the east and north, and jungles on the southeast ... and no all feudal classes were that brutal. Feudalism is not a pretty political system in any nation. India, China, England, France, Africa, Japan ... feudalism relies on state violence because it is the only way to ensure the production of enough goods to maintain itself. We can take moral stances within the system against violence but it's silly to pretend that Tibet was some kind of special case. The main disadvantage Tibet was facing was that, by the time the 1950s rolled around, it seemed that much worse when compared to its Capitalist contemporaries.

I'm not downplaying the role religion played in the abstract, I'm downplaying the role which that particular religious institution, i.e the native Lamas, played in the role of the state. A feudal system relies on religion ... of course ... but once that economic system disintegrates there's not necessarily anything tying that religious institution to the old order unless it is an explicit part of the theology.


Nobody in the echelons of the Tibetan exile community believe they will get independence. There's no reason the problem can't be solved with dialogue. The PRC has the world's biggest army and knows that many in the area support it, but at the same time many support the Dalai Lama too-and people of all classes. The feudal order is dead and long gone. How would it even be enforced?

[Krano]

What is there to debate about? Tibet is already free from Dalai Lamas Feudal order.

[red1936]

Read Michael Parentti's "the myth of friendly fuedalism"

[Leftsolidarity]

Read Michael Parentti's "the myth of friendly fuedalism"

It is a very good read and brings up things I never knew about

[manic expression]

He is no longer a "monk-king" (he was never a "king" any more than Ayatollah Khomeni was a "king", theocracy is distinct from monarchy), he surrendered his political power. Nor was the current Dalai Lama ever in full control of the state, as they were nominated as children and surrounded by advisors, ministers etc, and Mao's army marched into Tibet when he was still fifteen years of age!

If he wants to surrender his political power, he can stop talking about political issues from behind his title and retire to private life. Somehow I don't think I'm going to bet the farm on it.

Why wasn't he king? Because he never had a western-style crown? Louis XVI didn't have full control over the state, so what? All sorts of monarchs have advisors, ministers, courtiers, etc...and they very frequently ascend to the throne at a young age. All the more reason to abolish it.

Yes, it was a violently repressive Feudal system, but there's no truth to the idea that the Dalai Lama was somehow personally responsible for the state of that country in 1950.

The system he presided over was responsible for it, which is why no progressive should take him or his fawning adorers seriously.

As opposed to poisoned formula killing babies in China or silicosis destroying the lungs of millions of Chinese unfortunate to live next to their massive, polluting factories built on land stolen from the working class?

So imperialism murdering people is the same as tainted formula?

Just like with the violence by blacks to Koreans in LA during the 90s, racial riots do not necessarily expose an organized political agenda as much as they are a spontaneous way in which disorganized and ignorant people express legitimate complaints about real or perceived ethnic inequality. The point is that even though the PRC correctly claims that the Tibetan living standards have improved since 1950, they consistently ignore the fact that Han Chinese in Tibet usually have higher living standards and other privileges which led to the riots, especially in Lhasa. Obviously this does not justify that racism whatsoever, but it was not organized by "separatists" and was not without a context, either.

Han Chinese usually have higher living standards because they're a self-selecting group, more likely to have higher education, higher-skilled-jobs and the like.

Anti-Korean violence in LA was because Blacks are treated like garbage by the US government and racism forms the background for all social interactions. Anti-Han violence in Tibet was because separatists and anti-PRC agents hold as their principal goal division and hatred among the nations of the PRC.

The truth is that similar violence has broken out in Mongolia and Xinjiang, so this violence is not exclusive to Tibetans but is instead a response to the predominance of Han chauvinism in the PRC. Mao criticized Han Chauvinism and saw that it was a substantial problem in the CCP, why think that the problem evaporated after his death?

I never said it was "exclusive" to Tibet, it's something shared by all the voices of reaction and division throughout the PRC.

And India isn't feudal any more because of the policies of the British Empire.

Not really. The British Raj was essentially a network of principalities under the authority of the British crown. It took independence to get rid of feudal political structures.

Yes, Tibetan Buddhism is practiced, but there are more cultural rights at stake than just that, and there are questions as to how free the expression is.

What cultural rights at stake? The one all the "Free Tibet" crowd was pissed about was that they wanted kids to be able to be sent to monasteries.

In India, the Tibetans are not treated so badly (I have talked to my fair share when I went there). They are treated horribly in Nepal, however, out of "respect" for the state interest of the PRC. The only "perk" Tibetans have is the "right" to have more than one kid, which is not a "perk" but something the Tibetans deserve considering women everywhere should have the right to their own damn reproductive organs ...

As well as autonomy and representation at the highest stages of government, something they don't have in India or Nepal.

Constitutional monarchy is not real feudalism, however.

It's not progressive, that's for sure.

Yet constitutional monarchy is not what they are fighting for-Tibetan exiles are *not* demanding a return of exclusive political rights for the Lamas and so their return would not lead to feudalism. What it would lead to, if the current leadership is taken seriously,

Which they shouldn't be.

That may have been a fair example 50 years ago, but this is long after. The material conditions in Tibet are well beyond post-feudal at this point.

Thanks to the internationalist policies of the PRC. That's precisely why we should stick with them.

Because he is a spiritual leader who still commands a lot of respect inside Tibet and in the exile community, as well as in Mongolia and other areas.

Then he should stick to spiritual subjects and leave the politics to progressives.

[Seth]

Tibet deserves to be free from Chinese orthodox stalinism. End of story.