The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I'm strongly suspecting it would have looked a lot like neighboring Bhutan; just now creeping out of the middle ages, a feudal kingdom, social relations largely in the same place they were hundreds of years ago. (Note taken of recent moves, tops down of course, in Bhutan to bring it to the modern world...) Or perhaps neighboring Nepal, where a similar kingdom held sway until quite recently, suffering from severe unrest which makes Tibet's recent troubles look pretty tame in comparison; funny thing is, Nepal's troubles are never pitched, in the Western press, in quite the same politicized way as Tibet's minor troubles. I wonder why that might be ;-)
I also note that Tibet, unlike Bhutan or Nepal, doesn't have a heritary king, but rather, a spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, quite popular in many parts of the West and in south asia as well. It is hard not to avoid wondering, at least for me, why it is that theocracy is somehow not okay when it involves mullahs in Iran, but is perfectly acceptable when it involves a Buddhist who competes with one of our rivals on the world stage. I suppose it helps to be popular with Richard Gere as well...
One final note - the exile community is India is not all on board with the Dalai Lama's scaled back autonomy plans. I wonder if the folks doing the rioting in Lhasa are associated with the more hardline elements in Dharamsala and not the Dalai Lama himself. That would explain a lot. Any thoughts? The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
China Matters: Black Days for the Dalai Lama
Black Days for the Dalai Lama ...courtesy of the Tibetan People's Uprising MovementAmidst the horrific violence of the last few days, somebody's been working overtime to marginalize the Dalai Lama and undercut him as the leader of the worldwide Tibetan movement.Not just the Chinese.I'm talking to you, Tsewang Rigzin.Tibetan unrest in China is not just a problem for the PRC. It's a major problem for the Tibetan emigre movement, which is threatening to fissure because of conflicts between moderates and militants.
And from it (as I understood it) the short answer would be that the protests on the ground is local and not that associated with either part of the exile movements. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
Did you notice something in the first photo? The "English Wine" sign?
Hilarious... The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
I would say that Saudia Araia is also liked in Europe and the US (while is worst than Iran). But still, that was not the point of my comment. I wanted to point out that Sauid Arabia and Buthan are not, even remotely, similar stuff..(neither Iran -Nepal) it is like comparing eggs and a pineapple. You name it, political, social, structural, symbolic (and so on), almost nothing in common.
So I put fault on your basic structural reasoning, sorry :) Saying that Nepal without comunism would be something as distateful as Saudi Arabia is completely incorrect (by comparing it with Buthan, which I alsto think is not quite like Nepal but I have no background on it since never read anything about it). A basic symbolic analysis of the works of the anthropologists in the field explains it in detail. Clearly Nepal is not like the australian aborigens (which also have a non-democratic structure but frankly they are more democratic that anything one can reproduce in the west) but it is not Saudi Arabia either.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
As for theocracy selection, I formed an opinion that it is chiefly Abrahamic theocracies (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) that are running the problems of the world since ages. They militant resolution for "one God" is not necessarily the norm in spiritual traditions. Yeah, you have the example of purely non-Abrahamic conflict in Sri Lanka, and more demanding Buddhists in Thailand - but that idea of fighting specifically for your faith might had come there fairly recently. For what I know about spread of Buddhism, it does not fit into the frame of fervent persuasion and even political abuse. Say, in Japan two religions - Buddhism and 'pagan' Shintoism - coexist for more than a millennium without visible tension. Persons profess both traditions, as if religion is not about specifically about believing something but knowing how to live. Buddhist theocracies might not be very attractive political forms, but are modern hyped democracies unquestionably better?
Maybe someone else remembers that text and can give a link? Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
That part may be interesting too.
Just had to remember some key words and then it became googlable.
It is not very long, and worth reading in full, but here is some paragraphs:
Swans Commentary: Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth, by Michael Parenti - mparen01
Throughout the ages there has prevailed a distressing symbiosis between religion and violence. The histories of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam are heavily laced with internecine vendettas, inquisitions, and wars. Again and again, religionists have claimed a divine mandate to terrorize and massacre heretics, infidels, and other sinners. ... In 1953, the greater part of the rural population -- some 700,000 of an estimated total population of 1,250,000 -- were serfs. Tied to the land, they were allotted only a small parcel to grow their own food. Serfs and other peasants generally went without schooling or medical care. They spent most of their time laboring for the monasteries and individual high-ranking lamas, or for a secular aristocracy that numbered not more than 200 wealthy families. In effect, they were owned by their masters who told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. A serf might easily be separated from his family should the owner send him to work in a distant location. Serfs could be sold by their masters, or subjected to torture and death. ... The Chinese Communists occupied Tibet in 1951, claiming suzerainty over that country. The 1951 treaty provided for ostensible self-government under the Dalai Lama's rule but gave China military control and exclusive right to conduct foreign relations. The Chinese were also granted a direct role in internal administration "to promote social reforms." At first, they moved slowly, relying mostly on persuasion in an attempt to effect change. Among the earliest reforms they wrought was to reduce usurious interest rates, and build some hospitals and roads. ... Many of the Tibetan commandos and agents whom the CIA dropped into the country were chiefs of aristocratic clans or the sons of chiefs. Ninety percent of them were never heard from again, according to a report from the CIA itself. (30) The small and thinly spread PLA garrisons in Tibet could not have captured them all. The PLA must have received support from Tibetans who did not sympathize with the uprising. This suggests that the resistance had a rather narrow base within Tibet. "Many lamas and lay members of the elite and much of the Tibetan army joined the uprising, but in the main the populace did not, assuring its failure," writes Hugh Deane. (31) In their book on Tibet, Ginsburg and Mathos reach a similar conclusion: "The Tibetan insurgents never succeeded in mustering into their ranks even a large fraction of the population at hand, to say nothing of a majority. As far as can be ascertained, the great bulk of the common people of Lhasa and of the adjoining countryside failed to join in the fighting against the Chinese both when it first began and as it progressed." (32) Eventually the resistance crumbled. ... The émigrés' plight received fulsome play in the West and substantial support from U.S. agencies dedicated to making the world safe for economic inequality. Throughout the 1960s the Tibetan exile community secretly received $1.7 million a year from the CIA, according to documents released by the State Department in 1998. Once this fact was publicized, the Dalai Lama's organization itself issued a statement admitting that it had received millions of dollars from the CIA during the 1960s to send armed squads of exiles into Tibet to undermine the Maoist revolution. The Dalai Lama's annual share was $186,000, making him a paid agent of the CIA. Indian intelligence also financed him and other Tibetan exiles. ... It might be said that we denizens of the modern secular world cannot grasp the equations of happiness and pain, contentment and custom, that characterize more "spiritual" and "traditional" societies. This may be true, and it may explain why some of us idealize such societies. But still, a gouged eye is a gouged eye; a flogging is a flogging; and the grinding exploitation of serfs and slaves is still a brutal class injustice whatever its cultural embellishments. There is a difference between a spiritual bond and human bondage, even when both exist side by side. To be sure, there is much about the Chinese intervention that is to be deplored. In the 1990s, the Han, the largest ethnic group comprising over 95 percent of China's vast population, began moving in substantial numbers into Tibet and various western provinces. (48) These resettlements have had an effect on the indigenous cultures of western China and Tibet. On the streets of Lhasa and Shigatse, signs of Chinese preeminence are readily visible. Chinese run the factories and many of the shops and vending stalls. Tall office buildings and large shopping centers have been built with funds that might have been better spent on water treatment plants and housing. ... In a book published in 1996, the Dalai Lama proffered a remarkable statement that must have sent shudders through the exile community. It reads in part as follows: 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. . . . The failure of the regime in the Soviet Union was, for me not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.
...
In 1953, the greater part of the rural population -- some 700,000 of an estimated total population of 1,250,000 -- were serfs. Tied to the land, they were allotted only a small parcel to grow their own food. Serfs and other peasants generally went without schooling or medical care. They spent most of their time laboring for the monasteries and individual high-ranking lamas, or for a secular aristocracy that numbered not more than 200 wealthy families. In effect, they were owned by their masters who told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. A serf might easily be separated from his family should the owner send him to work in a distant location. Serfs could be sold by their masters, or subjected to torture and death.
The Chinese Communists occupied Tibet in 1951, claiming suzerainty over that country. The 1951 treaty provided for ostensible self-government under the Dalai Lama's rule but gave China military control and exclusive right to conduct foreign relations. The Chinese were also granted a direct role in internal administration "to promote social reforms." At first, they moved slowly, relying mostly on persuasion in an attempt to effect change. Among the earliest reforms they wrought was to reduce usurious interest rates, and build some hospitals and roads.
Many of the Tibetan commandos and agents whom the CIA dropped into the country were chiefs of aristocratic clans or the sons of chiefs. Ninety percent of them were never heard from again, according to a report from the CIA itself. (30) The small and thinly spread PLA garrisons in Tibet could not have captured them all. The PLA must have received support from Tibetans who did not sympathize with the uprising. This suggests that the resistance had a rather narrow base within Tibet. "Many lamas and lay members of the elite and much of the Tibetan army joined the uprising, but in the main the populace did not, assuring its failure," writes Hugh Deane. (31) In their book on Tibet, Ginsburg and Mathos reach a similar conclusion: "The Tibetan insurgents never succeeded in mustering into their ranks even a large fraction of the population at hand, to say nothing of a majority. As far as can be ascertained, the great bulk of the common people of Lhasa and of the adjoining countryside failed to join in the fighting against the Chinese both when it first began and as it progressed." (32) Eventually the resistance crumbled.
The émigrés' plight received fulsome play in the West and substantial support from U.S. agencies dedicated to making the world safe for economic inequality. Throughout the 1960s the Tibetan exile community secretly received $1.7 million a year from the CIA, according to documents released by the State Department in 1998. Once this fact was publicized, the Dalai Lama's organization itself issued a statement admitting that it had received millions of dollars from the CIA during the 1960s to send armed squads of exiles into Tibet to undermine the Maoist revolution. The Dalai Lama's annual share was $186,000, making him a paid agent of the CIA. Indian intelligence also financed him and other Tibetan exiles.
It might be said that we denizens of the modern secular world cannot grasp the equations of happiness and pain, contentment and custom, that characterize more "spiritual" and "traditional" societies. This may be true, and it may explain why some of us idealize such societies. But still, a gouged eye is a gouged eye; a flogging is a flogging; and the grinding exploitation of serfs and slaves is still a brutal class injustice whatever its cultural embellishments. There is a difference between a spiritual bond and human bondage, even when both exist side by side.
To be sure, there is much about the Chinese intervention that is to be deplored. In the 1990s, the Han, the largest ethnic group comprising over 95 percent of China's vast population, began moving in substantial numbers into Tibet and various western provinces. (48) These resettlements have had an effect on the indigenous cultures of western China and Tibet. On the streets of Lhasa and Shigatse, signs of Chinese preeminence are readily visible. Chinese run the factories and many of the shops and vending stalls. Tall office buildings and large shopping centers have been built with funds that might have been better spent on water treatment plants and housing.
In a book published in 1996, the Dalai Lama proffered a remarkable statement that must have sent shudders through the exile community. It reads in part as follows:
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. . . . The failure of the regime in the Soviet Union was, for me not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.
Ok, that became many paragraphs, so read it in full. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
Parenti is not neutral. He's a hardcore ideologue, the kind the left could do without.
I'd say, on the contrary, we are woefully short of rigorous thinkers and polemicists like Valenti. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
Parenti is not a rigorous thinker.
He's a cheap polemicist, a lazy, pompous, self-indulgent bottom feeder and an ideological wanker of the first order. Not an ounce of rigor and nothing original to say. He just rehashes what has been thought and said much better by others. He happens to be a very successful beneficiary of one of the many denunciatory, pseudo-radical jerk circles that exist here and there in the academic poli-sci left.
Contrast with people like Altmeyer.
I forwarded this to my da, former political science prof, first thing he said was he taught out of the guy's textbook. I see his bibliography, and note he is well published, and anybody on the Verso Press list gets an automatic pass from me for life.
We talking about the same guy? I mean, I know we're not exactly ideologically compatible a lot of the time, but we're still broadly on the same side...
Just checking. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
He's highly praised in some academic circles but he's still a vacuous hack.
well, everyone has their taste in writers, there's no explaining it. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
It's not even that I necessarily disagree with some of the positions he embraces. It's more that I find him utterly banal when he's correct and completely loopy and discredited otherwise. Racism in the US is a decoy issue to control the white lower class? Well, yeah, duh. Rich people like power and use it to consolidate their positions at the expense of everybody else? Wow, now that's a profound truth that needed to revealed for all to know! Thanks you, Michael! How courageous! And for the rest, barf: barely disguised apologetics of communist totalitarians, open support for conspiracy cranks, knee-jerk victim-sucking for any "struggle" out there, etc.
The last I paid attention to that idiot was "Against Empire". I found that book atrocious. He manages to be at the same time hectoring and whiny, zero useful information and an inordinate amount of BS and highly selective fact dropping. All in one Noam Chomsky without the brains and Ann Coulter without the legs.
On that article Sven quoted, there was something I found very amusing:
Whatever wrongs and new oppressions introduced by the Chinese in Tibet after 1959, they did abolish slavery and the serfdom system of unpaid labor. They eliminated the many crushing taxes, started work projects, and greatly reduced unemployment and beggary. They built the only hospitals that exist in the country, and established secular education, thereby breaking the educational monopoly of the monasteries. They constructed running water and electrical systems in Lhasa.
First, I wouldn't trust any of that at face value given the BS that precedes. He's pretty much spewing Chinese propaganda, the Maoist-Marxist correct version of our own western pro-colonial literature a century ago.
But more importantly: So what? Close to the same could be said of Israel when it took over the occupied territories from Egypt and Jordan who had grossly mismanaged Gaza and Cisjordan. Under Israeli occupation in the 70s and early 80s, Palestinians had one of the highest living standards in the Arab world. Not difficult given how disastrous the rest of the region was at that time. It didn't prevent Palestinians from really resenting the occupation :)
I just find Parenti profoundly useless and unremarkable at his least offensive and grossly hackish and dishonest otherwise.
All in one Noam Chomsky without the brains and Ann Coulter without the legs.
Thank you. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
You should watch that, posted by bluegal at C&L and be edified. I'm not the crass one in that issue.
That being said, I think that strategy is thankfully well past its sell-by date.
It'd be sexist if I made the same remark on, say, Rachel Maddow or Keli Goff, here both of them demolishing Pat Buchanan, who have their seat as political commentators on their own merits from the trenches (and Maddow as a pretty witty humorist on Air America Radio), independent of their (very) good looks.
The more it is practiced and accepted as normal, the more it spreads and harms social behavior. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
This text is full of blatant lies, just check serious academic books I recommended earlier. Especially this paragraph is outrageous.
Why, I can explain - in pre-Chinese invasion Tibet there was staggering amount of monks. Of course monks did not produce food or cloth or whatever they need for life. Monasteries were biggest feudals (according to Marxist and European point of view) having lots of so-called serfs. Yet these serfs had to provide food, tea, cloth and other items for special religious ceremonies mainly.
Monasteries paid their monks meagre sums which were not sufficient for their survival but monks could participate in as many as possible religious ceremonies where they could eat and drink tea. Thus monasteries managed to oblige monks to perform their duties otherwise there were no ways to do this and to get rid of useless or lazy monks (monks could be expelled from monasteries only if they committed murder or had sex).
Of course there were rich bureaucratic or aristocratic families but their holdings were much smaller than monasteries and in stead they had to work for state for free (without salary). If aristocratic family failed to produce clerks their holdings were forfeited and confiscated.
It's just amazing how much lies about Tibet Chinese dessiminated while more amazing is readiness to absorb these lies.
I freely admit to knowing very little about Tibet, so I would be glad to have errors in Parentis text pointed out.
I will try to pick up Goldsteins book at the library after easter. I have not found it online.
Why, I can explain - in pre-Chinese invasion Tibet there was staggering amount of monks. Of course monks did not produce food or cloth or whatever they need for life. Monasteries were biggest feudals (according to Marxist and European point of view) having lots of so-called serfs. Yet these serfs had to provide food, tea, cloth and other items for special religious ceremonies mainly. Monasteries paid their monks meagre sums which were not sufficient for their survival but monks could participate in as many as possible religious ceremonies where they could eat and drink tea. Thus monasteries managed to oblige monks to perform their duties otherwise there were no ways to do this and to get rid of useless or lazy monks (monks could be expelled from monasteries only if they committed murder or had sex). Of course there were rich bureaucratic or aristocratic families but their holdings were much smaller than monasteries and in stead they had to work for state for free (without salary). If aristocratic family failed to produce clerks their holdings were forfeited and confiscated.
This description would suit many parts of medieval Europe (except the details of how food is distributed to monks within the temples). I do not see it contradicting Parentis description, rather complementing it by adding the functions of the feudalism. Yet it is obvious that you find Parentis text wrong, so was it (according to you) that tax rates were pretty low or was the peasants not bound to the soil? (Or both?) Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
This maybe a problem when one tries to explain some things to European audience and stuck as our terms are unknown there.
Chinese no doubt are (and were) very clever using negative European-style cliches and terms to justify their imperialist policies.
First of all when you try to make judgement on society that you don't know try to collect all information available. Beginning with harsh high altitude climate and low fertility of soils and proceeding further.
Goldstein in details describe "exploitation", "serfdom" and monastic system existed in Tibet before Chinese invasion. It was not an ideal society but it was distinctive society which majority (I can say overwhelming majority) of people found satisfactory.
Tragedy of Tibet was its location between geopolitical giants and decline of Mongol power in Central Asia and of course Tibet had no chances to preserve its unique culture in the same way as indigenous American civilizations could not preserve their culture and freedom under European onslaught.
First of all I see no point of speculating what Tibet would look like - you ask this question to draw negative opinion in minds of readers. Because most of them think that theocracy is bad. This question very often not only Chinese nationalists ask, when they try to justify unjustifiable but also all European colonialists asked - what indigenous American societies would look like if noble Europeans did not come and rescued victims of barbaric human sacrifices.
Secondly you're wrong in your description of Bhutan and your comparison with Nepal is not justified here - Nepal is not under occupation and nobody suppress culture of Nepalis.
Thirdly theocracy in Tibet was absolutely different from what we can see in Iran.
You can recommend two very good books on Tibet: The Dragon in the land of snow. A history of Modern Tibet 1947-1999 by Tsering Shakya and Melvin Goldstein's Demise of the lamaist state, History of modern Tibet 1913-1951.
In fact, that the country exists as an entity with national aspirations has far more to do with British colonialism of the 19th century, which is why your ascribing some sort of colonialist agenda to my statement here is somewhat ironic in my view. Especially since, if I understand things correctly, you are writing from India, which has taken up the same geopolitically interested position today as did India of the British Raj of yesterday...and I don't think I have to go over what China's experience with British colonialism actually was; this was but one aspect of it, but the history is sordid, very very sordid, and goes far to explain properly nationalist views in China in this regard (and again, to reiterate, I'm not Chinese).
As for the rest of it, and again I respectfully disagree. In my view progress by definition moves forward. The 1949 revolution did this, in the long view of history. Countries without radio, television, an absolutist king, et c., until this decade (like Bhutan) do not. Again, this "national happiness" stuff look great on paper but I want to see poverty reduction and moving the ball forward for all of us, and the PRC is delivering.
Quite frankly I don't buy the fact that there are Tibetan national aspirations, felt by a groundswell of Tibetans, any more than I buy that there are Cubans in Cuba who think that the Cubans in Miami should just show up tomorrow in Havana, take over everything and run the country, or that if you poll Corsicans they actually want autonomy (which, by the way, we tried...and they didn't..some would say quite convincingly that this was unfortunate).
Of course I am willing to be proven wrong but until I see a poll of all Tibetans (including Han who live in Tibet) who want independance, autonomy or some other, I'm having a hard time with this.
Again, respectfully and fully understanding this is an unpopular view around here. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
That's official Chinese state ideology today. However, whether an autonomous but tribute-paying region is part of a country is in the eye of the beholder (see f.e. the fiefdoms not directly under Ottoman control in Europe, or Korea for long periods of China's history). What's more, Tibet was not the only region getting free during the Chinese imerium's 20th century weakness: there's Taiwan (overtly threatened by One China ideology) and Mongolia (covertly threatened), too.
It is not under occupation, though I do understand some ethnic Tibetans (like some ethnic Basques in Spain, ethnic Corsicans in France, ethnic Tamils in Sri Lanka or ethnic Pathans in Pakistan) think it is
The only reason I haven't told you are channelling official Chinese state ideology is that I think you are channelling French national state ideology.
More to the point, China's settlement policies (which didn't 'finish off the job' so far only because a lot of settlers can't stand the climate and move back East after a few years) and the behaviour of the settlers cannot be called other than occupation. To not rely on Western media, I tell what a friend told who travelled from Beijing to Bombay as backback tourist. For example, every village is 'doubled': the original village of the native ethnics is sided with a Han Chinese quarter, and power is held by the latter. The problem is not just the regime, it's Han Chinese nationalism, as evidenced by tourists: the most disrestpectful in Buddhist temples weren't from Texas but from Shanghai & environs. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The above is no advocacy of Tibetan separatism. In general, I don't think in drawing borders as a solution to anything. For the population of Tibet, I think the best would be more cultural autonomy, more local government, and an end to settlement policies while infrastructure and other projects of the Chinese central government would continue.
Of course all of this is predicated upon the issue of democracy, which the PRC is not (it is a hyper-capitalist worker-exploiting state and a centralised-top-down-bureaucratic imperium in one), not anymore than the old feudal government of Tibet. Which makes me wince at both you (redstar) speaking about opinion polls to 'believe' that there is popular resentment and FarEasterner claiming wide satisfaction pre-PRC-occupation.
I haven't attacked your (redstar's) point about the economic benefits the PRC brought because even if I am not unreservedly enthusiastic about the changes and less willing to blanket equate them with progress, just these are the reasons I don't think the Tibet case is as clear-cut as in the eye of most Western Free Tibet! campaigners. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I myself find redstar's attitude rather interesting. After all, I could equally have said some short years ago "I have no evidence for national aspirations in Ukraine" etc. etc."
Or, one can easily say "I see no reason to believe that the people of Burma are unhappy with their present government, in the absence of a poll that talks to all the people in the country."
And yet, redstar claims to unabashedly believe in "progress." But only economic it seems, not in terms of people's lived political lives...
Burma did have a poll, and the Burmese people did speak overwhelmingly against the military regime currently occupying the couutry. That one is pretty clear.
But you are absolutely correct in your take on my view that economic progress and above all equality are far better guideposts to human rights and human gain than simply installing a liberal democracy which can be gamed by the wealthy to their advantage, a regime I lie under (for now) in Amerika. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
I wouldn't want the pope running the EU. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
I also recognize this may be attacked as naive, but as far as I know, the operating governing principle in Beiing is still Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and, if emphasis on markets rather than command and control has taken place, it's also a fact that the Beijing government actively governs with a view towards not just social stability, but also equality and fairness. Whereas in the west discussions of gini coefficients and growing income disparities make the glibertarian elites roll their eyes, these considerations are taken very very seriously, still, in Beijing.
As long as the party hasn't changed its name and the army is still called the People's Liberation Army, I'm going to err on the side of naivete and continue to believe that they are, in the large survey of history, on our side.
That, anyhow, explains what might appear to some to be my apparently curious position here. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
Your "naive faith" in the nature of the PLA as a non-imperial instrument seems contrary to a history of a thousand years of popular revolts against "Imperial rule" in many regions of what is now China.
Your assumptions about how seriously the "Gini coefficient" is taken in governing circles in China seems not only contradictory to the experiences of the people I know living there, but also the outcomes of government policies we can see in action.
Distrusting the Western press is a good thing, but you might consider being less certain about "the realities on the ground" if you are claiming a position of "generalised distrust of the propaganda we're being fed."
I am wondering, do you have any numbers, information on the PRC and income inequality that would suggest the Beijing government and the Party do not take this seriously? China is a big place, a bigger place, by most meaningful demographic measures far more socio-economically diverse, to begin with, than Europe is, and so you need to take these differences into consideration. Comparing gini's to Europe's individual nations, or even the US, is therefore not appropriate, as the rapid gains the PRC has made economically are regionally uneven, something the Beijing government actively tries to manage. Rural poverty is quite high, but let's remember that China is still going through the stage of rural to urban migration which largely ended in Europe two or three generations ago, and this process creates havoc in creating income disparities in the short term all the while eventually, if managed well, creating conditions for much greater equality in the medium- and long view. Put another way, I have no doubt the PRC will be a much more equal place than it is today when my grandchildren finish school; as for the "West" (tm), I'm not so sure. That might be an article of faith, but there it is.
And anyhow, the most comprehensive measure of human rights and human gain, produced annually by the UN, has the PRC climbing steadily where it will soon enter the top tier in the UN's Human Development Index's annual rankings. Compare to the other places we are talking about - India, Bhutan, Nepal. Way, way down. For me, it's simply not even controversial to say that the PRC is mankind's most successful poverty alleviation program in history.
And I do distrust propaganda and take official PRC statements like this one with perhaps less a skeptical eye as I do the anglo-american press, but a skeptical eye nonetheless. But I will say one thing, and this too may be taken by some as an article of faith and if so, so be it: socialist imperialism is an oxymoron. I don't see the PLA in this sense the same way as you.
All this being said, I suppose we could give Brittany back to the Bretons, it's been part of France for about as long as Tibet has been part of China, and there is a separatist movement there as well, at times in history quite strong.
Plus they have a really cool flag. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
There are still things to be very concerned about with respect to China, perhaps even afraid of, including Han nationalism which DoDo (or was it Metatone?) mentioned, corruption, the precarious state of internalized social controls, and a historical self-image which is shockingly grandiose (not to mention favorite Western targets like natural resource consumption, socioeconomic inequality, human rights abuses, information control, pollution, etc.) But -- and like you, maybe I am being naïve -- overall I am impressed by and optimistic about China's progress.
Oh, reading Western coverage of these riots has been disappointing to say the least -- and in some ways even more instructive about Western media bias than the pre-Iraq war insanity. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
And perhaps my perceptions are colored by my own experiences, which is far more PRC-oriented (I've probably exchanged 50 ims with one of my best friends from university...her da is a PRC (now retired) diplomat who spent a long time at the UN.) But while dated, I did have contacts on the other side of this argument we are having here as well, not Tibetan, but Bhutanese, also from university days, a woman from my circle of friends who was a daughter of an adviser to the king and also posted for a time at the UN. She went to Scarsdale for high school in America, then the same international university as I (Kofi Annan, among others, was a graduate) at the same time and again in the same circle of friends.
The things she told about Bhutan, and what she would be doing when she graduated, and the typical life of a Bhutanese back then (ie, not going abroad for school in rizty highschools and so on), boggled my mind. I immediately thought of peasant life back in the days of the Shogunate.
I mean, I understand people romanticise this stuff, and I understand also the romanstic appeal of this "national happiness" measure the king of Bhutan has come up with (funny - that's not PR, but "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" somehow is!). But sorry, for me, progress ain't the past, it's now and in the future. Great leaps forward, great enough so that the inevitable steps backward in reaction don't retract the whole of the steps leaped.
The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
I may be naïve and gullible, but I do not believe the weeping Han civilians who were interviewed on Chinese TV news were actors making up stories about how their daughters and sisters were burned to death in stores which were impossible to escape from which were set on fire by Tibetan mobs from which they were hiding. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Of course, one cannot buy the Chinese version wholesale. But one should not buy the foreign version wholesale either. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
The PLA was used to crush the people's uprising in 1989 all across the country (this is not commonly known, the revolt then did not consist of TV-cameraed Beijing students on Tiennanmen Square only).
As an internationalist, I take expressions like "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" as PR hogwash to cloud over the abandonment of real Marxist ideals. (I contend BTW that rejecting internationalism was crucial in the initial split-off of Social Democrats from Marxist socialism, and a similar rejection by Lenin sealed the fate of the Soviet Union.)
In my view, the PRC central government considers social stability a power issue, exploitation of migrant workers is OK as long as discontent doesn't concentrate in a major region. Ths what it does is less programmes for social equality rather than regional equality.
After these critical notes, I submit it may be that, as it often happens in top-down hierarchical systems, the majority may believe that the central government is all good for them, and blame local officials for problems (not recognising this is a systemic problem, and strikers and uprisers against a bad local official who appeal to the central government are in for a rude surprise when armed forces are sent in in support of that official). The example that sruck most in me comes from a source you may term MSM, National Geographic: Northeast of Bejing, a local official embezzled the funds for the big tree-planting project, by sending people to dig the holes but not buying any trees. The author seemed to expect anti-regime feelings, but the locals told him about it all in the explicit hope that he'll relay it into the ears of the top in Beijing. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I contend BTW that rejecting internationalism was crucial in the initial split-off of Social Democrats from Marxist socialism, and a similar rejection by Lenin sealed the fate of the Soviet Union
I'd really like it if you developed this thought into a longer post. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
Ah please, one can be a victim of imperialism and imperialist at the same time. There have been rebellions against China's own colonialism throughout its history of over two millennia, some successful (Vietnam) some not (Miao-Yao rebellions). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
China is an imperialist power like any other. It has "historical" claims on all of its neighbours: Tibet, Indochina, Eastern Siberia, etc. The fact that it's not a European power doesn't make any difference.
Commonalities in traditional world views are real--resulting from intellectual and trade ties over many centuries.
This is a case where facts exist. Opinion alone not acceptable. The Fates are kind.
Tibetans do not owe their civilisation, religion and culture to China in any way, and their country was occupied and their culture, religion and way of life were brutally suppressed since 1950. More astonishing that China still continue to claim some Indian territories like Arunachal Pradesh claiming these lands once belonged to Tibet - no surprise how locals think of such horrible perspective. Sheer hypocrisy, callous and imperialist designs - that's how inhabitants of these Buddhist regions think of Chinese policies.
If some did not know here I am neither Tibetan nor Indian to be biased by origin. I know and can speak about many negative features of Tibetans and Indians and their policies, but these do not overshadow the clear picture of atrocities committed by China in Tibet. In my view you just try to justify unjustifiable.
Especially given that I've been more than respectful in presenting the counterpoint, and that at root, the source of dissension is as much one of interpretation of fact as it is one of ideological beliefs. We've had similar discussions on Afghanistan (where I've actually been at) and held the undoubtedly just as unpopular view on this matter that Afghanistan would have been far better off if the Saudi Americans and their mujahideen proxies had been defeated by the Soviets and Najibullah, while bad, was far better than who (and what) came thanks to the Saudi Americans.
For me, this is a very similar discussion at the ideological level. Same part of the world, too, buffer areas of hardscrabble between very large and competing regional imperial powers (one of which you current reside in). And, while the Dalai Lama presents an admirable, sympathetic, noble face for his people and his cause, I think you know that as he has moved more and more towards inclusionary, progressive views of the future and of relations with Beijing and the Han people who live in Tibet, the exile community has in inverse proportion gotten quite nervous about him. This brings to the fore the obvious question of who succeeds the Dalai Lama after his death, and what all of this means to future progress, plurality human rights and human gains not in this decade, but in future decades as well.
Again, I really do not appreciate being called a liar.
Didn't you say that "Tibet has been part of China since before the white man..." - you do feel comfortable with such distortion of history?
And yet you proceed to invoke some long-overdue sympathy for treatment China suffered at the hands of European powers and Japan then spinning into what real aspirations of Tibetans are (surprise, surprise in one-party state).
If you don't appreciate to be called a liar, you had better to think whether your statements are independently verifyable or not in advance.
If it is untrue this can either be becuase it is a lie or because it is factually incorrect and the other person is unaware of it. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
Everything you said is obvious lie
I'm not an FP'er, but there was no need for saying that, FarEasterner.
It only diminishes your point.
Which is a shame, because this has been an interesting thread and Diary. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
Understood english as second language, something i deal with all the time, but i don't think that's what was going on here. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
If you feel comfortable with lies it's up to you.
Culturally, Tibet has features both from the Hindu and Chinese cultural matrices - like (the perhaps aptly named) Indochina, it's a buffer state between India and China. It is probably not properly part of neither. Someone mentioned the fact that the 3 great Chinese rivers start in Tibet. In fact, they start in the provinces of Amdo and Kham to the Northeast, which China annexed around 1928 leaving the region around Lhasa (what is now the Tibet Autonomous Region) alone. The region around Lhasa is an endorheic basin with no ecoregion-level connection to China proper. Someone mentioned the sources of the Brahmaputra but that's just on the southernmost edge of the Tibetan plateau. Were it not for the buffer state location between China and India it would have no strategic value to China. Well, maybe there are some mineral deposits there. At the rate they're going China can rape those resources in 5 years and move on to greener pastures leaving a bunch of smoking holes in the mountains. Which brings me to the PRC as "history's most successful poverty reduction program" to quote another comment of yours in this thread. Is that sustainable? It's being done at an appalling environmental price, and it is doubtful that the Chinese people in the hinterland are benefitting at all from it, not to speak of the fact that the Cultural Revolution was a cultural suicide to follow the physical suicide that was the Great Leap Forward. Wasn't there some story about all metal objects being confiscated in order to help the industrial production, but for instance the many, many tons of steel produced to match the insane targets of the central planners were brittle and effectively crap steel? What a waste.
Tibet fun fact of the day: the game of Go (WeiQi in Chinese, quite possibly also the game referred to as Qi in ancient texts) probably originated in Tibet. We know this because an archaic version of the game is played there. Maybe we could have a case of "our national game originated in Tibet therefore Tibet is China". It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris
Each time I hear of Tibet in the Western press, and its relationship to Beijing, I wonder what an autonomous or an independent Tibet would look like. Or in particular, would have looked like had it not been liberated by the People's Liberation Army shortly after the revolution.
by gmoke - Nov 8
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2 12 comments
by Oui - Oct 26 33 comments
by gmoke - Oct 26
by Oui - Nov 9
by Oui - Nov 79 comments
by Oui - Nov 614 comments
by Oui - Nov 47 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 212 comments
by Oui - Oct 3127 comments
by Oui - Oct 2633 comments
by Oui - Oct 267 comments
by Oui - Oct 2547 comments
by Oui - Oct 254 comments
by Oui - Oct 2423 comments
by Oui - Oct 246 comments
by Oui - Oct 20
by Oui - Oct 1915 comments
by Oui - Oct 193 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 1811 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 18
by Oui - Oct 186 comments