Popular Tibetan singer Tsewang Norbu dies of self-immolation protest(tchrd.org)
tchrd.org
Popular Tibetan singer Tsewang Norbu dies of self-immolation protest
https://tchrd.org/popular-tibetan-singer-tsewang-norbu-dies-of-self-immolation-protest/
281 comments
So... what did they think was the future for Tibet?
I certainly didn't ask that question from a political perspective. I'm not delusional to assume that Tibet and its people stand a chance against China.
And this was also reflected in their answers.
They're mostly concerned with ensuring that people have a safe passage out of there (having the ability to go to India and lead a life without oppression), while trying to negotiate peace deals for sacred locations and the deep Tibet. But I do think that this has been consistently falling on deaf ears. And, of course, they are hoping that the Dalai Lama will choose to reincarnate again to keep the "fight" going.
Getting out of Tibet is not exactly a walk in the park. Though, it is a walk. A long and gloomy walk through treacherous mountains which in 70%+ cases leave people with frostbite and other injuries.
I befriended a yoga teacher who was teaching an authentic Tibetan practice, and he sometimes had people over at his studio who had the day prior arrived to Dharamshala, from Tibet, through the mountain passages. It's unreal.
It's not like they have the luxury of an empire conglomerate like other modern countries, but India has been good to them.
And this was also reflected in their answers.
They're mostly concerned with ensuring that people have a safe passage out of there (having the ability to go to India and lead a life without oppression), while trying to negotiate peace deals for sacred locations and the deep Tibet. But I do think that this has been consistently falling on deaf ears. And, of course, they are hoping that the Dalai Lama will choose to reincarnate again to keep the "fight" going.
Getting out of Tibet is not exactly a walk in the park. Though, it is a walk. A long and gloomy walk through treacherous mountains which in 70%+ cases leave people with frostbite and other injuries.
I befriended a yoga teacher who was teaching an authentic Tibetan practice, and he sometimes had people over at his studio who had the day prior arrived to Dharamshala, from Tibet, through the mountain passages. It's unreal.
It's not like they have the luxury of an empire conglomerate like other modern countries, but India has been good to them.
Sounds like a strong people trying to make the best of a bad situation. Rugged to the core, yet softened by wisdom.
Is it expected Han Chinese will move in to displace the Tibetans? Why are they focusing on safe passage?
"Tibet has an estimated population of about 6 million Tibetans and 7.5 million Chinese settlers." [0]
This is using the Chinese definition of Tibet, which is less than half of the historical Tibet. Han Chinese are encouraged to move into Tibet (and Xinjiang) to dilute the indigenous population.
[0] https://unpo.org/members/7879
This is using the Chinese definition of Tibet, which is less than half of the historical Tibet. Han Chinese are encouraged to move into Tibet (and Xinjiang) to dilute the indigenous population.
[0] https://unpo.org/members/7879
I visited the 3 largest Tibetan cities in 2007. Each city had a "Tibetan Quarter". I can't see how this could ever be an independent country ever again.
Yeah I was there around the same time.
The scale of the work being done to dilute the population is astounding.
We were there at Christmas time, having driven from Kathmandu. That trip was telling in itself: there was only one way to get a visa to do that trip, and all of the trips were run by a single Chinese government run tour agency.
Even with terrible roads, your can do the trip in 3 days of about 4 hours driving each. Instead they try and force most people into a 7 day tour. Luckily we got a driver we managed to haggle with and cut it down to 3 days.
Those who did the 7 days ended up staying in weird empty towns that had large hundred room hotels that were _completely_ empty, but also fully staffed.
The closer we got to Lhasa the more of this we saw. Huge infrastructure that appeared to serve no purpose other than to get people into the region.
The scale of the work being done to dilute the population is astounding.
We were there at Christmas time, having driven from Kathmandu. That trip was telling in itself: there was only one way to get a visa to do that trip, and all of the trips were run by a single Chinese government run tour agency.
Even with terrible roads, your can do the trip in 3 days of about 4 hours driving each. Instead they try and force most people into a 7 day tour. Luckily we got a driver we managed to haggle with and cut it down to 3 days.
Those who did the 7 days ended up staying in weird empty towns that had large hundred room hotels that were _completely_ empty, but also fully staffed.
The closer we got to Lhasa the more of this we saw. Huge infrastructure that appeared to serve no purpose other than to get people into the region.
Settlement is an active effort, but Tibet is an incredibly hostile region and the Han suffer from various health and fertility problems there.
The real solution to settlement would have to be Han intermarrying with Tibetans and raising their children as Han.
The real solution to settlement would have to be Han intermarrying with Tibetans and raising their children as Han.
Put all of the Tibetan Chinese in camps for re-education? You can ask the Chinese government how that works. /s
EDIT : The current Uyghur camps are a tragedy in passing to which the world is turning a blind eye. Tibet should be continuously recognized as an independent country within the world community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs
EDIT : The current Uyghur camps are a tragedy in passing to which the world is turning a blind eye. Tibet should be continuously recognized as an independent country within the world community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs
Sorry to ask such a macabre question... but why would China ever release political prisoners? Moreover, why wouldn't they just disappear them?
I'm in no way suggesting they should or asserting China's great because they have standards when it comes to taking political prisoners... Nor am I stating that China is so barbarous that I would expect nothing less of them... I just don't know and wonder about the answers to these questions?
Sounds like the former prisoners you met still hold the beliefs that probably made them prisoners in the first place. They're still monks (practicing I assume). They're now back in their country of origin?
What was accomplished?
Time? The best I can come up with is that it bought China time to begin and continue ethnically cleanse (displacing, not killing) Tibet (as well as other regions), while not breaking any international laws or attracting enough negative attention to jeopardize any foreign trade or financial relationships?
Look at the news about what's supposedly going on in Xinjiang... China is getting nothing but bad publicity, but no international entity is pulling out of those areas or others in China because of what they're supposedly doing to the Uyghur population. If anyone is leaving China, it's been reported that it's for unrelated reasons.
If China just disappeared these people instead of putting them in camps, would the world react any differently? It doesn't seem like anyone has been able to substantiate these claims about the resorts (concentration camps), so how much harder would it be for China create the same level of control around a massive park or recreation area (polyandrion or burial site)?
I'm in no way suggesting they should or asserting China's great because they have standards when it comes to taking political prisoners... Nor am I stating that China is so barbarous that I would expect nothing less of them... I just don't know and wonder about the answers to these questions?
Sounds like the former prisoners you met still hold the beliefs that probably made them prisoners in the first place. They're still monks (practicing I assume). They're now back in their country of origin?
What was accomplished?
Time? The best I can come up with is that it bought China time to begin and continue ethnically cleanse (displacing, not killing) Tibet (as well as other regions), while not breaking any international laws or attracting enough negative attention to jeopardize any foreign trade or financial relationships?
Look at the news about what's supposedly going on in Xinjiang... China is getting nothing but bad publicity, but no international entity is pulling out of those areas or others in China because of what they're supposedly doing to the Uyghur population. If anyone is leaving China, it's been reported that it's for unrelated reasons.
If China just disappeared these people instead of putting them in camps, would the world react any differently? It doesn't seem like anyone has been able to substantiate these claims about the resorts (concentration camps), so how much harder would it be for China create the same level of control around a massive park or recreation area (polyandrion or burial site)?
Same reason Gulag prisoners were released.
It's a bureaucracy.
The law says that this "crime" warrants a 15 year sentence.
So he is sentenced to 15y. He is kept in the same labor camp with thieves &c.
If he survives, he walks, because that's what the bureaucratic protocol says.
Sometimes there is a separate rule that people like him are to be given an extra, say, 5 years for some "regime violation".
However, the point is that if _all_ political crimes warrant a life sentence, then the deterrent value of prison disappears.
They want to keep people afraid enough to comply, but not pissed off enough to rise up.
You can only afford so many Tiananmens before you crush the national morale, and with it, your autocratic pyramid scheme. China doesn't want to become North Korea.
You can only afford so many Tiananmens before you crush the national morale, and with it, your autocratic pyramid scheme. China doesn't want to become North Korea.
> But, as for the stories themselves, probably not that funny.
You can't mention this and not tell a story or two
You can't mention this and not tell a story or two
One of the monks I met in the bookstore was Ven. Bagdro who authored the book A Hell on Earth[0].
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Earth-Biography-Political-Prison...
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Earth-Biography-Political-Prison...
Nit: you were likely in McLeod Ganj, Dharamshala is the city in the valley below (where few foreigners stay), and not terribly convenient to travel to/from if you were living in the city.
That, or you were up in Dharamkat and hiked down into town/temple area where there are needless to say many Tibetan monks from the diaspora -- amazing part of India.
Free Tibet
That, or you were up in Dharamkat and hiked down into town/temple area where there are needless to say many Tibetan monks from the diaspora -- amazing part of India.
Free Tibet
The city (town) below is Lower Dharamshala, and McLeod Ganj is just another name for Upper Dharamshala. The Central Tibetan Administration, physically located in the upper part, consider themselves to be in "Dharamshala", and so does the Indian post office.
https://tibet.net/contact/
https://tibet.net/contact/
Wow, what a tiny nit to pick.
I appreciated it. I spent a little time looking at a map after reading it. The geographical, cultural and political relationships between India and Tibet are not discussed in the US as often as China-Tibet.
Threaded forums are well able to accommodate these kinds of small side discussions, too.
Threaded forums are well able to accommodate these kinds of small side discussions, too.
Which is so surprising. Religious, cultural and political connections between India and Tibet are old and historic.
Absolutely. We are just bad at geography and obsessed with China.
I'd encourage people to read the letter that Thich Nhat Hanh sent Martin Luther King on the self immolation of Vietnamese monks:
https://plumvillage.org/about/thich-nhat-hanh/letters/in-sea...
That letter started a correspondence between the two that led to MLK speaking out against the war in Vietnam.
That letter started a correspondence between the two that led to MLK speaking out against the war in Vietnam.
I find it interesting how different of an explanation this letter gives for the immolation VS what actually happened:
> Quảng Đức was protesting the persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government led by Ngô Đình Diệm, a staunch Roman Catholic. Photographs of his self-immolation circulated around the world, drawing attention to the policies of the Diệm government.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%9...
> Quảng Đức was protesting the persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government led by Ngô Đình Diệm, a staunch Roman Catholic. Photographs of his self-immolation circulated around the world, drawing attention to the policies of the Diệm government.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%9...
The quote you've provided aligns very much with the sentiment of the letter:
> I believe with all my heart that the monks who burned themselves did not aim at the death of the oppressors but only at a change in their policy. Their enemies are not man. They are intolerance, fanaticism, dictatorship, cupidity, hatred and discrimination which lie within the heart of man.
> I believe with all my heart that the monks who burned themselves did not aim at the death of the oppressors but only at a change in their policy. Their enemies are not man. They are intolerance, fanaticism, dictatorship, cupidity, hatred and discrimination which lie within the heart of man.
Very relevant and very moving. Thank you for sharing.
As a zen Buddhist, I've always kinda felt our Tibetan 'dharma brothers' style of buddhism (admittedly, I don't know a lot about) feels much more like a proper religion than the kind of thing I've been into.. Which put me off quite a lot of it, I still hope to someday visit the place.
It’s pretty sad that such an essentially peaceful and introspective group of people are abused thus, even if they believe in some pretty mad shit.
I’ve never worked out what china wants in Tibet tbh though, does anyone have a clue? Chan is bigger in .cn than Tibetan Buddhism (and chan (which became zen) also rejects any kind of eternal self / reincarnation / non-impermanence) and so thus there are no such thing as a lama.
So I guess the restrictions / bad business china got unto in tibet are related to some kind of territorial dispute? But what’s there? What do they gain?
I can’t see how it’s making them a profit..
It’s pretty sad that such an essentially peaceful and introspective group of people are abused thus, even if they believe in some pretty mad shit.
I’ve never worked out what china wants in Tibet tbh though, does anyone have a clue? Chan is bigger in .cn than Tibetan Buddhism (and chan (which became zen) also rejects any kind of eternal self / reincarnation / non-impermanence) and so thus there are no such thing as a lama.
So I guess the restrictions / bad business china got unto in tibet are related to some kind of territorial dispute? But what’s there? What do they gain?
I can’t see how it’s making them a profit..
IMHO only, not an expert/informed analysis: Buddhism can be a risk to Chinese harmony if left to a separate authority (the real Dalai Lama). The Chinese grand social experiment of a strong state can only really work if they are relatively culturally homogenous, whether in Tibet or Hong Kong or Xinjiang or Taiwan. Dissent plants the seeds of change, and the CCP's system doesn't work when there is too much diversity of values. It's uber-collectivism in the name of the nation.
China very rarely does anything in the name of short-term profit. Their government doesn't work on 4-year competitive cycles like ours does, they plan and orchestrate in decades, and to them it's safer to conquer and assimilate other territories while they are still underdeveloped than when they become too powerful, either economically (like Taiwan) or culturally (like Tibet) or both (like Hong Kong). Having a puppet religious master under their control, along with all of Tibet's future economic output, is reason enough to seize it, even the real gains won't be realized for another few decades. The artificial legitimacy of Chinese-controlled Buddhism would greatly expand their cultural sphere of influence both inside and outside their immediate borders.
China very rarely does anything in the name of short-term profit. Their government doesn't work on 4-year competitive cycles like ours does, they plan and orchestrate in decades, and to them it's safer to conquer and assimilate other territories while they are still underdeveloped than when they become too powerful, either economically (like Taiwan) or culturally (like Tibet) or both (like Hong Kong). Having a puppet religious master under their control, along with all of Tibet's future economic output, is reason enough to seize it, even the real gains won't be realized for another few decades. The artificial legitimacy of Chinese-controlled Buddhism would greatly expand their cultural sphere of influence both inside and outside their immediate borders.
I would hope that China would understand Buddhism enough to know that there is no possible separate authority... I mean, the Heart sutra almost definitely came from China..
Although, I admit that I do have a hard time knitting together Tibetan and Burmese etc forms of Buddhism with what my understanding is (zen). They seem to genuinely worship Gautama Buddha as if he was some kinda god or something.
That's not what we're into at all. He was just a normal dude, in zen... And I mean... Dogen too. Both kinda interesting and insightful ones, ones we probably can learn something from (also learn some negative things from, e.g, O.G buddha walked out on his family (what a cunt!)) but yeah, there's no space laser eyes or anything in my book.
Just some dudes that looked at a wall for some years, and realised they're essentially the same as the local lemon tree. Kinda makes sense to me.
Takes a while though.
Even though I'm a buddhist, I seem to really offend non-zen buddhists in this fashion, which I find kinda hilarious.
Although, I admit that I do have a hard time knitting together Tibetan and Burmese etc forms of Buddhism with what my understanding is (zen). They seem to genuinely worship Gautama Buddha as if he was some kinda god or something.
That's not what we're into at all. He was just a normal dude, in zen... And I mean... Dogen too. Both kinda interesting and insightful ones, ones we probably can learn something from (also learn some negative things from, e.g, O.G buddha walked out on his family (what a cunt!)) but yeah, there's no space laser eyes or anything in my book.
Just some dudes that looked at a wall for some years, and realised they're essentially the same as the local lemon tree. Kinda makes sense to me.
Takes a while though.
Even though I'm a buddhist, I seem to really offend non-zen buddhists in this fashion, which I find kinda hilarious.
The way I look at it: it's all skilful means. What you believe isn't the point, the practices are to help you reach enlightenment. In that sense, it probably doesn't matter if you practice zen, Tibetan, or Thai forest variety. But I'm pretty heretical by nature.
> I would hope that China would understand Buddhism enough to know that there is no possible separate authority... I mean, the Heart sutra almost definitely came from China..
Speaking as an agnostic, outside observer looking in on the various forms of Buddhism:
Buddhism has mutated a lot in its history, and every country it touches has been changed by it and in turn changes it. I don't think any two countries practice the same form of Buddhism. Some sects of it are strongly mystical and others are more rational, and deification is an important part of some practices (and practitioners) and not others. In the US, I've been to supposedly Zen practices that had an emphasis on "acknowledging/honoring" the bodhisattvas prior to meditation; to me, as an agnostic, it felt very similar to worship.
"Buddhism with Chinese characteristics" (to steal a phrase) mixes their particular cultural norms with the Indian version, adds on Confucianism and Taoism to some degree, and then seeks to put it all under CCP control. Much like the Romans absorbed Christianity and added their own flavor, China does the same with its assimilees... again, for cultural and political hegemony. They are trying to weave the young puppet Dalai Lama into their own narrative, slowly and subtly.
You are a Buddhist in the same sense that Protestants and Catholics are both Christian, but that never stopped them from disagreeing :) Weird, the arbitrary lines in the sand we like to draw, no?
Speaking as an agnostic, outside observer looking in on the various forms of Buddhism:
Buddhism has mutated a lot in its history, and every country it touches has been changed by it and in turn changes it. I don't think any two countries practice the same form of Buddhism. Some sects of it are strongly mystical and others are more rational, and deification is an important part of some practices (and practitioners) and not others. In the US, I've been to supposedly Zen practices that had an emphasis on "acknowledging/honoring" the bodhisattvas prior to meditation; to me, as an agnostic, it felt very similar to worship.
"Buddhism with Chinese characteristics" (to steal a phrase) mixes their particular cultural norms with the Indian version, adds on Confucianism and Taoism to some degree, and then seeks to put it all under CCP control. Much like the Romans absorbed Christianity and added their own flavor, China does the same with its assimilees... again, for cultural and political hegemony. They are trying to weave the young puppet Dalai Lama into their own narrative, slowly and subtly.
You are a Buddhist in the same sense that Protestants and Catholics are both Christian, but that never stopped them from disagreeing :) Weird, the arbitrary lines in the sand we like to draw, no?
> In the US, I've been to supposedly Zen practices that had an emphasis on "acknowledging/honoring" the bodhisattvas prior to meditation; to me, as an agnostic, it felt very similar to worship.
Oh yeah, this goes on. It's very common during zazenkai or sesshin to honour the ancestors and so some full on chants and even prostrations; I felt the same way as you did for at the beginning -- it really fucked with my atheist elitism, but really those problems were mine not theirs :}
Wear the silly hat, do a few bows, it helps more than it hurts.
And, sorry, there is no god outside of yourself :}
Oh yeah, this goes on. It's very common during zazenkai or sesshin to honour the ancestors and so some full on chants and even prostrations; I felt the same way as you did for at the beginning -- it really fucked with my atheist elitism, but really those problems were mine not theirs :}
Wear the silly hat, do a few bows, it helps more than it hurts.
And, sorry, there is no god outside of yourself :}
since you cant see me nod at you i am typing it nods in agreement i am pretty sure all these people had some terrible opinions and bad habits no doubt
"Buddhism can be a risk to Chinese harmony"
It boggles my mind that anyone would consider to be harmonious a society that kills, imprisons, tortures, censors, and brainwashes so many of its own people.
It boggles my mind that anyone would consider to be harmonious a society that kills, imprisons, tortures, censors, and brainwashes so many of its own people.
They use "harmony" the same way we use "freedom": as propaganda for control and imperialism.
How do you sell violence to the populace? For collectivist countries, it's "they are unlike us, we will show them our ways." For individualist countries, it's "we are unlike them, we will show them our ways." It doesn't really matter what noble buzzword you attach to your violent ideology, in the end you have a hierarchical society predicated upon the exploitation of the less powerful.
In describing what I perceive their objectives to be, it does not in any way mean I condone their actions. Only that I desire to understand a great power that is more than likely going to become a great enemy someday soon, unless we can somehow find common ground with their common people and rebel against the violent, coercive elitism in both cultures.
The average person anywhere isn't really all that different, in my personal experience. But their supposed values, most of which go unexamined their whole lives, are largely shaped by the cultural environment they grew up in. More often than not they just toe the line of whatever hero their parents or friends happened to worship, typically some asshole elite. That's as true in China as it is in the USA. That's not a defense of Chinese oppression, it's a recognition of human folly in the aggregate.
For what it's worth, we incarcerate more people than the Chinese, even though they have 4x the population. For every Xinjiang they have we have a Gitmo, for every Tibet we have Afghanistan and Iraq. There are no innocent superpowers; all are evil and got there by doing great evil in the not-so-distant past.
How do you sell violence to the populace? For collectivist countries, it's "they are unlike us, we will show them our ways." For individualist countries, it's "we are unlike them, we will show them our ways." It doesn't really matter what noble buzzword you attach to your violent ideology, in the end you have a hierarchical society predicated upon the exploitation of the less powerful.
In describing what I perceive their objectives to be, it does not in any way mean I condone their actions. Only that I desire to understand a great power that is more than likely going to become a great enemy someday soon, unless we can somehow find common ground with their common people and rebel against the violent, coercive elitism in both cultures.
The average person anywhere isn't really all that different, in my personal experience. But their supposed values, most of which go unexamined their whole lives, are largely shaped by the cultural environment they grew up in. More often than not they just toe the line of whatever hero their parents or friends happened to worship, typically some asshole elite. That's as true in China as it is in the USA. That's not a defense of Chinese oppression, it's a recognition of human folly in the aggregate.
For what it's worth, we incarcerate more people than the Chinese, even though they have 4x the population. For every Xinjiang they have we have a Gitmo, for every Tibet we have Afghanistan and Iraq. There are no innocent superpowers; all are evil and got there by doing great evil in the not-so-distant past.
Your last paragraph goes too far to me. China represses its whole population. Yes, all empires are inherently "evil", but there are far more freedoms in the "west" than in China. You can't just equate them. This site we are talking on could not exist in China.
All nation states repress their whole population by definition. You could argue about differences in degree but while the USA might not be as repressive to it's own population as the Chinese (or Russians) are, the reach of their repression is global in nature.
Most liberal democracies operate this way in fact. They offer their own citizens a modicrum of freedom - a mix of the substantive and performative - but bolster their own economic and political might through imperialism abroad. The only difference between the Europeans and Americans in this regard is the former rely mostly on "soft" power and economic represssion while the USA have a more overtly militant approach.
This does not mean that liberal democracies are not an improvement over the monarchies and fuedal states that preceeded them but lets not pretend that they are not still pretty terrible to anybody that's not either wealthy themselves or the most profitable group for the representatives currently in power to appeal to.
Most liberal democracies operate this way in fact. They offer their own citizens a modicrum of freedom - a mix of the substantive and performative - but bolster their own economic and political might through imperialism abroad. The only difference between the Europeans and Americans in this regard is the former rely mostly on "soft" power and economic represssion while the USA have a more overtly militant approach.
This does not mean that liberal democracies are not an improvement over the monarchies and fuedal states that preceeded them but lets not pretend that they are not still pretty terrible to anybody that's not either wealthy themselves or the most profitable group for the representatives currently in power to appeal to.
I'm not equating them. I choose to live in the West, after all, and I describe China as a great potential future enemy.
I agree that China is more oppressive towards its own citizenry. America's evil is often directed externally; there is a reason much of the Muslim world calls us the Great Satan.
In attempting to describe China, I am not defending it, but pointing out their different goals. They don't strive for personal freedom, but harmony and societal stability -- at an extreme cost to those who do not fit in. Individual liberty is not a strong concern in their culture, and from birth children are often taught to not stick out from the crowd too much. The raised nail gets the hammer.
Is that a bad thing? Yes, I think so, to the extent that they do it. But freedom isn't an absolute good either. Too little, and you get a coercive autocracy where citizens have no autonomy. Too much, and you get balkanization that turns into its own kind of social discord, whether it's an extreme political divide in a democracy, great wealth and power divides, ethnic conflicts, a civil war, or warlordism like Somalia/Iraq/etc. At a societal scale, too little freedom almost always means extreme suffering, but the inverse isn't always true: maximum freedom does not mean maximum happiness.
On a political compass, freedom and authoritarianism may be two sides of an axis, but they are not the only matters of concern. The level of personal freedom in a society directly influences any other axis you may choose to plot: happiness, wealth, equality, sustainability, stability, etc.
In any given society there are always people who seek power over others. The rule of law, be it the Magna Carta or a Constitution, is intended to temper the power of traditional royalty or modern autocracies, to varying degrees of success. I'd argue the most essential function of a democracy is to ensure no one person/group gets too powerful, that checks and balances aren't a side effect of a good democracy but a defining characteristic. That requires a check upon the freedoms of the powerful in order to protect those with less power from exploitation... that's been a truism carried from antiquity through the industrial era and onto the present day. Otherwise you get Hitler, Putin, Trump... all monsters created by democracies in decline, all strong-men who rose to power selling the idea of power for an in-group by exploiting some out-group.
In the modern West, I think the idea of "freedom" is often discussed as both "freedom to" (own guns, have an abortion, start a business, vote, marry who you choose, worship as you please, pay the wages you want, choose the suppliers you want) and "freedom from" (extreme poverty, labor exploitation, slavery, monopolies, a military draft, religious control, vote suppression, WASP male dominance, autocracy). With our freedoms, we've developed a roughly 50/50 split on any major political topic, and as a result our government has been quagmired for decades, our citizens hate each other, and the only things most Americans can agree on is that the government is broken and the country is going to shit. Our enemies savvily exploit these divisions to further divide and conquer us.
China after Mao simply tackled those kinds of controversies by decree, shut everyone up, and focused on transforming their infrastructure and economy with an emphasis on harmony over liberty. In the process they rose from a impoverished, war-torn peasant economy to the world's next superpower. Some of their citizens find this an acceptable tradeoff, especially considering they never really had a history of democracy. Going from divine emperors to nationalist-capitalist autocracy (under the guise of agrarian communism, but who are we kidding) drastically improved the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people, more than the entire population of the USA. There are more middle-class Chinese than there are Americans (of any class). That is no small undertaking, even if outsiders like us don't agree with their methods.
Would we choose to give up the freedoms we have now to become more like China? No. You wouldn't, and I wouldn't. But would our answers be different if we were a peasant in 1980s China, who didn't have much freedom to begin with, and were looking at imminent starvation and death? I don't know. Mao's revolution failed and destroyed the country, yet in its wake somehow their people picked up the pieces and clawed their way back to relevance, and now, strength. It wasn't pretty, and the loss of personal liberty was part of the price they paid. It's easy to judge that value system out of its historical context, from a comfortable seat in the West, but I imagine for their people on the ground back then, it was a very different situation.
Anyhow... back to the topic at large. Freedom is often a loaded word, carrying so much cultural baggage and weaponized politicism that it's difficult to use in everyday discussion anymore. I usually find it less emotionally charged to discuss freedom in adjacent terms: individualism and collectivism.
The USA is strongly individualistic, China strongly collectivist. In between, some of Europe is more individualistic (the UK), while others are more collectivist (Finland). In aggregate the wealthiest, happiest, most developed countries tend to be those that are highly free, but also rather homogenous and collectivist. The United States may be more free than others, but its freedoms typically favor the elites (white gun owners, WASP business owners, people arising from the European tradition of individualism, etc.), and as a result it suffers in other measures of human development (healthcare, education, equality, etc.).
Arguably there is a wrong place to be on the individualist vs collectivist spectrum: on either extreme. But there is not necessarily a "right" place. Much of the West leans individualist, much of the East leans the other way. We see both strong and weak countries in both, and happy and miserable citizens in both. Different societies have different ideals, and different power structures, and from their values arise different laws and propaganda. It's not as simple as saying freer countries are better. There is both a value and a cost to our freedoms.
Only by NOT equating us to China can we tease out potential changes for the future. I'd argue that America would see better societal outcomes by pivoting more towards collectivism, and China would see better societal outcomes by pivoting more towards individualism. In the middle both would have to tease out what sorts of freedoms to protect and which to sacrifice. Personally I'd hope both would ultimately land somewhere near the Scandinavians, but with the way things are going, probably both are headed towards ultra-authoritarianism instead.
Back home, in the US, I don't think our fractured democracy will survive the challenges of the next few decades... we are a country now without vision, unity, or purpose. Once the advertising bubble collapses and China and Russia catch up to our tech and services sectors, then soon after overtake our military, there won't be much left for us. Because we were so blindly chasing personal freedoms we forget anymore what it means to be a country.
I agree that China is more oppressive towards its own citizenry. America's evil is often directed externally; there is a reason much of the Muslim world calls us the Great Satan.
In attempting to describe China, I am not defending it, but pointing out their different goals. They don't strive for personal freedom, but harmony and societal stability -- at an extreme cost to those who do not fit in. Individual liberty is not a strong concern in their culture, and from birth children are often taught to not stick out from the crowd too much. The raised nail gets the hammer.
Is that a bad thing? Yes, I think so, to the extent that they do it. But freedom isn't an absolute good either. Too little, and you get a coercive autocracy where citizens have no autonomy. Too much, and you get balkanization that turns into its own kind of social discord, whether it's an extreme political divide in a democracy, great wealth and power divides, ethnic conflicts, a civil war, or warlordism like Somalia/Iraq/etc. At a societal scale, too little freedom almost always means extreme suffering, but the inverse isn't always true: maximum freedom does not mean maximum happiness.
On a political compass, freedom and authoritarianism may be two sides of an axis, but they are not the only matters of concern. The level of personal freedom in a society directly influences any other axis you may choose to plot: happiness, wealth, equality, sustainability, stability, etc.
In any given society there are always people who seek power over others. The rule of law, be it the Magna Carta or a Constitution, is intended to temper the power of traditional royalty or modern autocracies, to varying degrees of success. I'd argue the most essential function of a democracy is to ensure no one person/group gets too powerful, that checks and balances aren't a side effect of a good democracy but a defining characteristic. That requires a check upon the freedoms of the powerful in order to protect those with less power from exploitation... that's been a truism carried from antiquity through the industrial era and onto the present day. Otherwise you get Hitler, Putin, Trump... all monsters created by democracies in decline, all strong-men who rose to power selling the idea of power for an in-group by exploiting some out-group.
In the modern West, I think the idea of "freedom" is often discussed as both "freedom to" (own guns, have an abortion, start a business, vote, marry who you choose, worship as you please, pay the wages you want, choose the suppliers you want) and "freedom from" (extreme poverty, labor exploitation, slavery, monopolies, a military draft, religious control, vote suppression, WASP male dominance, autocracy). With our freedoms, we've developed a roughly 50/50 split on any major political topic, and as a result our government has been quagmired for decades, our citizens hate each other, and the only things most Americans can agree on is that the government is broken and the country is going to shit. Our enemies savvily exploit these divisions to further divide and conquer us.
China after Mao simply tackled those kinds of controversies by decree, shut everyone up, and focused on transforming their infrastructure and economy with an emphasis on harmony over liberty. In the process they rose from a impoverished, war-torn peasant economy to the world's next superpower. Some of their citizens find this an acceptable tradeoff, especially considering they never really had a history of democracy. Going from divine emperors to nationalist-capitalist autocracy (under the guise of agrarian communism, but who are we kidding) drastically improved the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people, more than the entire population of the USA. There are more middle-class Chinese than there are Americans (of any class). That is no small undertaking, even if outsiders like us don't agree with their methods.
Would we choose to give up the freedoms we have now to become more like China? No. You wouldn't, and I wouldn't. But would our answers be different if we were a peasant in 1980s China, who didn't have much freedom to begin with, and were looking at imminent starvation and death? I don't know. Mao's revolution failed and destroyed the country, yet in its wake somehow their people picked up the pieces and clawed their way back to relevance, and now, strength. It wasn't pretty, and the loss of personal liberty was part of the price they paid. It's easy to judge that value system out of its historical context, from a comfortable seat in the West, but I imagine for their people on the ground back then, it was a very different situation.
Anyhow... back to the topic at large. Freedom is often a loaded word, carrying so much cultural baggage and weaponized politicism that it's difficult to use in everyday discussion anymore. I usually find it less emotionally charged to discuss freedom in adjacent terms: individualism and collectivism.
The USA is strongly individualistic, China strongly collectivist. In between, some of Europe is more individualistic (the UK), while others are more collectivist (Finland). In aggregate the wealthiest, happiest, most developed countries tend to be those that are highly free, but also rather homogenous and collectivist. The United States may be more free than others, but its freedoms typically favor the elites (white gun owners, WASP business owners, people arising from the European tradition of individualism, etc.), and as a result it suffers in other measures of human development (healthcare, education, equality, etc.).
Arguably there is a wrong place to be on the individualist vs collectivist spectrum: on either extreme. But there is not necessarily a "right" place. Much of the West leans individualist, much of the East leans the other way. We see both strong and weak countries in both, and happy and miserable citizens in both. Different societies have different ideals, and different power structures, and from their values arise different laws and propaganda. It's not as simple as saying freer countries are better. There is both a value and a cost to our freedoms.
Only by NOT equating us to China can we tease out potential changes for the future. I'd argue that America would see better societal outcomes by pivoting more towards collectivism, and China would see better societal outcomes by pivoting more towards individualism. In the middle both would have to tease out what sorts of freedoms to protect and which to sacrifice. Personally I'd hope both would ultimately land somewhere near the Scandinavians, but with the way things are going, probably both are headed towards ultra-authoritarianism instead.
Back home, in the US, I don't think our fractured democracy will survive the challenges of the next few decades... we are a country now without vision, unity, or purpose. Once the advertising bubble collapses and China and Russia catch up to our tech and services sectors, then soon after overtake our military, there won't be much left for us. Because we were so blindly chasing personal freedoms we forget anymore what it means to be a country.
I nod in fierce agreement. True words
"Harmony" is an important value in Confucianism, which means it's a value with a lot of importance in Chinese culture. Governments increase their legitimacy by being perceived to offer harmony. The Chinese government therefore couches its propaganda in terms of it offering harmony, and other things threatening harmony.
I'm not saying that cyberpunk is a Chinese propagandist - just that he/she has adopted their term (perhaps from hearing them use it so much).
I'm not saying that cyberpunk is a Chinese propagandist - just that he/she has adopted their term (perhaps from hearing them use it so much).
It certainly is harmonious if you are a mainstream Han Chinese person (or an expat) who lives in a major city with some level of affluence - you are insulated from the repression, your life will be comfortable and things appear to work quite well. From the outside people talk about these big social problems, which are bad, but from the perspective of day to day life for the vast majority of people, those issues don’t affect you and you just see a very productive and good standard of living society. (I lived there for some time)
"Their government doesn't work on 4-year competitive cycles like ours does..."
Not that I don't agree with your idea that the CCP work on a longer time horizon than the US govt, but China does run on short-term cycles, namely its 5-year plans:
https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/t0284_14th_Fi...
Not that I don't agree with your idea that the CCP work on a longer time horizon than the US govt, but China does run on short-term cycles, namely its 5-year plans:
https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/t0284_14th_Fi...
Goal of the short term cycles is different. In the US the goal is to remain in power through votes. In China, where remaining in power is a given, the goal is to use the time to make impact on the country's progress, for better or worse
It's not so much that they have to plan for 100 years at once, but that they can execute strategies lasting more than one power cycle. Their pendulum (and with it, bills and executive orders and social effects) doesn't reset every 4-8 years.
Edit: basically what michaelscott said already
Edit: basically what michaelscott said already
If diversity is a threat, then I wonder why Taoism is not treated like buddhism.
I don't know enough about Taoism to even speculate. What are your thoughts?
I see similarities between Buddhism and Taoism. As far as I understand both, their attitude towards life is similar. Both acknowledge dualism and the need for balance in your life.
I think both acknowledge the interconnected-ness of life.
Taoism inside China doesn't appear to be involved in worldly matters such as politics. Then again, I don't really know what Tibet has concretely done to upset China. Is it just the desire for independence?
Taoism inside China doesn't appear to be involved in worldly matters such as politics. Then again, I don't really know what Tibet has concretely done to upset China. Is it just the desire for independence?
They were not so peaceful and introspective when they were actually in power. This is basically a CCP talking point at this point, but it is pretty true that the system they governed was essentially a serfdom-powered society.
See the sort of punishments that were common for people who tried to organize the serfs in any way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungshar
See the sort of punishments that were common for people who tried to organize the serfs in any way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungshar
Just as a side thought... if you look long enough at any country's history, you'll surely find horrors and terrible individuals. But that rarely means that country or its modern descendants would want to be "liberated" by a foreign conquerer, whether that's China or the USA. Forced assimilation is a form of genocide and people would almost always choose to be oppressed by one of their own rather than a foreigner...
Not saying it does, although for note this structure I'm describing was Tibet in the 1940s-50s, so not too far in the past. They guy who did this blinding is the guy who picked the current Dalai Lama
Agree that a regime being "better than" one that existed in the past doesn't justify repression, but also what is "foreign" and what is not is something that is socially constructed and shaped by the passage of time, not objective fact.
For instance, I would not have preferred for the South in the US to be able to secede because "repression by a local is better than foreign Northerners."
Agree that a regime being "better than" one that existed in the past doesn't justify repression, but also what is "foreign" and what is not is something that is socially constructed and shaped by the passage of time, not objective fact.
For instance, I would not have preferred for the South in the US to be able to secede because "repression by a local is better than foreign Northerners."
rackjack(1)
Thats true, but you do not have to look long to see, that Tibet was a feudal theocracy, with no dissent allowed, either. But that is history. Modern Tibet deserves to make their own choices, I hope they get the chance to make them one day.
And about old Tibet, I recommend "Seven Years in Tibet", real story of a Nazi who fled a british war prisoner camp in india and then spend 7 years in Tibet, also as a teacher for the young Dalai Lama, until the chinese came. I read and recommend the book, but they also made a Hollywood movie with Brad Pitt out of it (which I have not watched yet, it is supposed to be good, but likely not as deep).
And about old Tibet, I recommend "Seven Years in Tibet", real story of a Nazi who fled a british war prisoner camp in india and then spend 7 years in Tibet, also as a teacher for the young Dalai Lama, until the chinese came. I read and recommend the book, but they also made a Hollywood movie with Brad Pitt out of it (which I have not watched yet, it is supposed to be good, but likely not as deep).
How would modern Tibetans making their own choices work? They're majority Han Chinese now so are you proposing some kind of apartheid or ethnostate, or Han dominated democracy?
I know, this is not simple with so much time passed and I am not a fan of proofing heritage or ethnicity to be allowed to life anywhere.
And I am not directly involved, so I do not propose any concrete solution, due to lack of detail knowledge.
But I do see some solutions. Local autonomy. Federalism. Different districts with different systems. End of absolute rule of the CCP - no more interfering in cultural and religious topics. Allow the exil Tibetans and the Dalai Lama to come back, give them back the monastaries. Let them work something out, with the Han chinese who live there today and in many cases, were born there.
And I am not directly involved, so I do not propose any concrete solution, due to lack of detail knowledge.
But I do see some solutions. Local autonomy. Federalism. Different districts with different systems. End of absolute rule of the CCP - no more interfering in cultural and religious topics. Allow the exil Tibetans and the Dalai Lama to come back, give them back the monastaries. Let them work something out, with the Han chinese who live there today and in many cases, were born there.
> monastaries
The monasteries including their lands? That's absurd.
The monasteries including their lands? That's absurd.
Why is that absurd? The catholic church did some pretty horrible things in the past, too. But they changed (and still have most of their churches and land) and it seems, so did the Tibetian Buddhism. So like I said, it is complicated to reverse expropriation, but if it is possible and the tibetians want their temples back, it would sound right to me, to give them at least some important ones.
The catholic church is not comparable to the social system in Tibet. When you say "let the Catholic church keep their lands", it is a much smaller claim than saying "let the monastaries keep their land" as the monasteries were the center of the feudal system in Tibet.
They owned over half of all of the arable land in Tibet and had legally bound serfs working that land for the benefit of the ecclesiastical class.
Your request is more akin to saying that Europe should return the land belonging to feudal lords (ie. most land).
They owned over half of all of the arable land in Tibet and had legally bound serfs working that land for the benefit of the ecclesiastical class.
Your request is more akin to saying that Europe should return the land belonging to feudal lords (ie. most land).
"to give them at least some important ones."
Tibet is not majority Han chinese, not sure where you pulled this fact from.
Doesn't every country have official languages that they teach and conduct business in? There are very few groups who still speak their native languages after being assimilated into the US. Tibetan is still being taught in schools there along with mandarin.
Wouldn't it be hard to integrate into the business community if you didn't speak the official language of business in a given country?
No definitely not. The majority of people and the majority of countries are multilingual. People conducting business in a language other than the one spoken at home is possibly even the norm, worldwide. And many places have regionally varying languages within a country.
Even in "monolingual" countries this is true to some extent. Most of the people likely to be in here right now are are in countries clustered along one side of the spectrum, that we are a minority and an outlier.
Even in "monolingual" countries this is true to some extent. Most of the people likely to be in here right now are are in countries clustered along one side of the spectrum, that we are a minority and an outlier.
The US does not have an official language. We just default to English. There are bilingual schools, especially in bigger cities. It's typically conservatives who don't want bilingualism. Within major immigrant hubs, bilingualism and code-switching are very common, especially in multigenerational households. And most modern immigrants come to America willingly, seeking a better quality of life. Among the forced assimilations (Native Americans, Blacks), yeah, they lost a lot of culture.
Many other countries are multilingual and to some degree multicultural. Few are as homogenous as East Asian countries.
> Wouldn't it be hard to integrate into the business community if you didn't speak the official language of business in a given country?
Uh, so offer free Chinese language schools and economic opportunities. It doesn't require kidnapping them and putting them in concentration camps.
Many other countries are multilingual and to some degree multicultural. Few are as homogenous as East Asian countries.
> Wouldn't it be hard to integrate into the business community if you didn't speak the official language of business in a given country?
Uh, so offer free Chinese language schools and economic opportunities. It doesn't require kidnapping them and putting them in concentration camps.
We have compulsory schooling in the US with mandatory English. If kids don't go to school, they and their parents can go to jail.
Also, you do realize the whole concentration camp thing is mostly propaganda to apply pressure to a geopolitical rival, right? The US has been doing it for the entirety of its existence.
Also, you do realize the whole concentration camp thing is mostly propaganda to apply pressure to a geopolitical rival, right? The US has been doing it for the entirety of its existence.
That's still not an official language. What's your point? That forced assimilation is OK because they learn a useful language? It's basically their version of manifest destiny and native boarding schools. Brainwashing in either case.
The US has been doing what its entire existence? Propaganda, camps, both? And so what? Doesn't make it right for either country. The US and China are both evil in their own ways.
The US has been doing what its entire existence? Propaganda, camps, both? And so what? Doesn't make it right for either country. The US and China are both evil in their own ways.
It's just definitional stretch, which is basically inevitable when you have a word like "genocide."
People want to make some odd simile to the holocaust when obviously assimilation is not at all close in magnitude to that horror.
People want to make some odd simile to the holocaust when obviously assimilation is not at all close in magnitude to that horror.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy
Lots of conflicting perspectives on this topic indeed.
Lots of conflicting perspectives on this topic indeed.
There's numerous direct primary sources who were alive at least until the 1990s about what life was like in Tibet. It is only because this is such a politically contentious issue that the wikipedia page is "both sides"-ing it.
The only source they have in that article that disagrees that amputation and gouging of the eyes was a routine punishment was a literal Nazi.
The overwhelming weight of evidence, even in that wiki article, is towards Tibet having a feudal society with routine amputation/gouging as punishment.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Lungshar - had their eyes gouged out by the state
The only source they have in that article that disagrees that amputation and gouging of the eyes was a routine punishment was a literal Nazi.
The overwhelming weight of evidence, even in that wiki article, is towards Tibet having a feudal society with routine amputation/gouging as punishment.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Lungshar - had their eyes gouged out by the state
There is a lot of history there between China and Tibet reaching all the way to the Yuan dynasty. For example, the Mongolian people have deep ties with the Tibetan Buddhists, such that the Mongolian rulers of the Yuan dynasty gave a lot of leeway to the region. The Manchurian rulers of the Qing dynasty were Buddhists themselves and found a way to politically claim the area while letting Tibet run as a vassal state.
Lastly, there was this prophecy among the Tibetans about the diaspora.
China has historically considered themselves as the axis mundi of the world. The name “中國” when translated to “Middle Kingdom” loses a lot of the flavor. Better translated as “Central Kingdom”, an insular society in which the far-flung frontiers pivot around the Chinese culture.
Both the Opium Wars and the Boxer Rebellion were rude awakenings and humiliating. But I think a lot of people in the West underestimate how much China could have been the superpower at the time, and instead chose not to.
I think China’s political goals in the modern time make more sense when viewed this way. Consolidate the historical territories it once held. Make its influence known so other polities can’t humiliate and rob China again.
Lastly, there was this prophecy among the Tibetans about the diaspora.
China has historically considered themselves as the axis mundi of the world. The name “中國” when translated to “Middle Kingdom” loses a lot of the flavor. Better translated as “Central Kingdom”, an insular society in which the far-flung frontiers pivot around the Chinese culture.
Both the Opium Wars and the Boxer Rebellion were rude awakenings and humiliating. But I think a lot of people in the West underestimate how much China could have been the superpower at the time, and instead chose not to.
I think China’s political goals in the modern time make more sense when viewed this way. Consolidate the historical territories it once held. Make its influence known so other polities can’t humiliate and rob China again.
Tibet is strategically located and has been part of the Great Game in Asia for a long time.
In fact, the British tried to invade it at the very beginning of the 20th century but hard landscape and the Tibetan and Chinese armies repelled them. Following that the Western powers even signed a treaty recognizing Chinese sovereignty over Tibet...
In fact, the British tried to invade it at the very beginning of the 20th century but hard landscape and the Tibetan and Chinese armies repelled them. Following that the Western powers even signed a treaty recognizing Chinese sovereignty over Tibet...
Hello, all replies at this point I think are ~cultural. Caspianreport (others to probs but that’s where I heard it) iirc says a lot of China water comes from Tibet region. Many big Chinese rivers start there. This is first comment ever, god knows how long I’ve lurked, please take it easy on me.
Confirmation bias link and quote: https://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/geo/proper.htm
“ Two great rivers run through China Proper: the Yellow River in the north, and the Yangtze (or Yangzi ) River to the south. In fact, most of China Proper belongs to the drainage-basins of these two rivers. Both originate to the far west in the Tibetan Plateau.”
This is factually incorrect: claiming Chan Buddhists do not believe in reincarnation. On the facts, wrong.
The Buddha taught reincarnation and all major schools essentially follow his example. This includes Chan Buddhism. It may not be emphasized or really suggested as a topic for reflection - but if you are asking point blank "Do Chan Buddhists accept the idea of reincarnation after death, as the Buddha taught - or do they teach reincarnation as wrong view", the answer is "they accept reincarnation."
Source: look up Chan Buddhism on Wikipedia, or just Google search it. Not a single result affirming that Chan Buddhists teach the falsity of reincarnation.
The Buddha taught reincarnation and all major schools essentially follow his example. This includes Chan Buddhism. It may not be emphasized or really suggested as a topic for reflection - but if you are asking point blank "Do Chan Buddhists accept the idea of reincarnation after death, as the Buddha taught - or do they teach reincarnation as wrong view", the answer is "they accept reincarnation."
Source: look up Chan Buddhism on Wikipedia, or just Google search it. Not a single result affirming that Chan Buddhists teach the falsity of reincarnation.
You are absolutely wrong. The whole reincarnation thing probably came from Brahmanism, but Buddha tought impermanence which is absolutely the opposite of any form of reincarnation. There is no soul to be reincarnated.
Yes, there are some Koans and such which use stories involving reincarnation, however these are not literal teachings, they are just stories used to make a different point (usually, something about non duality).
Do some buddhists believe in reincarnation? yep. Some are also christians, or Scientologists, or atheists too. We don't know what comes after we die so it's really up to whomever to think whatever they wish.
We do not teach it, however. And the Buddha did not either. Zen teachers would all agree that reincarnation is a wrong view. Back to Dogen, even. It's literally the opposite of what we think about the nature of self.
Yes, there are some Koans and such which use stories involving reincarnation, however these are not literal teachings, they are just stories used to make a different point (usually, something about non duality).
Do some buddhists believe in reincarnation? yep. Some are also christians, or Scientologists, or atheists too. We don't know what comes after we die so it's really up to whomever to think whatever they wish.
We do not teach it, however. And the Buddha did not either. Zen teachers would all agree that reincarnation is a wrong view. Back to Dogen, even. It's literally the opposite of what we think about the nature of self.
> chan (which became zen)
Chan and zen are the same thing, literally the same word.
> I’ve never worked out what china wants in Tibet tbh though, does anyone have a clue?
I think the failure of China to divest its non-Chinese territories after the downfall of the Qing Empire mostly occurred because no one wanted to take responsibility for losing territory.
For Tibet in particular, though, it seems worth noting that Tibet is the source of both of China's major rivers. The Yellow and Yangtze rivers are not less significant to China than the Nile is to Egypt. Look what's happening between Egypt and Ethiopia.
Chan and zen are the same thing, literally the same word.
> I’ve never worked out what china wants in Tibet tbh though, does anyone have a clue?
I think the failure of China to divest its non-Chinese territories after the downfall of the Qing Empire mostly occurred because no one wanted to take responsibility for losing territory.
For Tibet in particular, though, it seems worth noting that Tibet is the source of both of China's major rivers. The Yellow and Yangtze rivers are not less significant to China than the Nile is to Egypt. Look what's happening between Egypt and Ethiopia.
Minerals, particularly rare earths, that are a huge strategic asset to
China and their desire to dominate the world economy. It's also in a strategic place vis a vis India, and they can't tolerate even a degree of autonomy of such a large area adjacent to their rival in Asia. But the real threat is a national and religious identity separate from China.
It's 1/10 of modern Chinese territory, no one is going to give up that much land. Headwaters to major rivers feeding South Asia. Security, see CIA's Tibet program. Unlimited mineral resources.
>making them a profit
It's mostly not, spending billions on high speed rail and other infra linkage to control restive region and the entire western theater command security network is expensive. But wealth + new military capabilities makes taming this frontier feasible. Military forces in Tibet can reach huge strategic areas of South Asia while Tibet itself is buffer from core PRC territories. The richer PRC is is, the easier exploiting Tibet becomes, and the more there is to be gained. Serious mining started just 10 years ago.
>making them a profit
It's mostly not, spending billions on high speed rail and other infra linkage to control restive region and the entire western theater command security network is expensive. But wealth + new military capabilities makes taming this frontier feasible. Military forces in Tibet can reach huge strategic areas of South Asia while Tibet itself is buffer from core PRC territories. The richer PRC is is, the easier exploiting Tibet becomes, and the more there is to be gained. Serious mining started just 10 years ago.
[deleted]
There is an argument that, by controlling the high parts of the Himalayas, China can control the rivers of Asia, in the same way that the United States controls the Colorado River and similar. With their civil engineering prowess, they can dam and divert them when fresh water becomes scarce.
Goodbye to the Indus, the Ganga, the Brahmaputra. China needs its own Cadillac Desert.
Goodbye to the Indus, the Ganga, the Brahmaputra. China needs its own Cadillac Desert.
I practice anapana and vipassana so can empathise, but it is plain ignorant to think Buddhists are necessarily peaceful. Tibet was a violent warrior kingdom and Buddhists have committed many crimes too. See the ongoing (!!) genocide in Myanmar where Buddhists slaughter Muslims. You could argue those agent real Buddhists, but thats just another Scotsman.
I don't mean to diminish the crimes the Chinese continue to commit against the Tibetans, nor the benefits of Buddhist practice, but seeing Buddhism with rose tinted glasses is just not reflecting reality.
I don't mean to diminish the crimes the Chinese continue to commit against the Tibetans, nor the benefits of Buddhist practice, but seeing Buddhism with rose tinted glasses is just not reflecting reality.
Tibet is the source of many rivers essential to China and it's south asian neighbours.
I'm curious how you define "proper religion" in this context.
CHina wants the water sources to the major rivers in Asia.
Tibet provides a lot of water to China and India
And what, china thinks tibet will somehow find a way to stop rivers running? Or the kind of people who move individual ants while building temples would poison such waters? I still don't get it.
Maybe it's those little blue flowers from Batman Begins they're after? >_<
Maybe it's those little blue flowers from Batman Begins they're after? >_<
China is already planning the "world's riskiest mega dam" in Tibet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEYuRFJ12iw.
It plans to use water supply as a weapon against India.
It plans to use water supply as a weapon against India.
If they don't take it, who will?
China, yes.
India, no.
Most of the water entrapment areas of India are within India's borders.
And, the rest come from the Himalayas, where it isn't easy to divert the flows, and most of those mountains are under Indian control. See: https://www.thetibetpost.com/en/features/44-environment-and-...
The real threat is China launching attacks from Tibet, against India.
Why? Because much of Chinese trade goes through the Indian Ocean, where India has negative control.
So, it is easy to see China getting wary of India and launching a territorial war from Tibet, in order to gain dominance over India. And, of course, Pakistan would join in.
India, no.
Most of the water entrapment areas of India are within India's borders.
And, the rest come from the Himalayas, where it isn't easy to divert the flows, and most of those mountains are under Indian control. See: https://www.thetibetpost.com/en/features/44-environment-and-...
The real threat is China launching attacks from Tibet, against India.
Why? Because much of Chinese trade goes through the Indian Ocean, where India has negative control.
So, it is easy to see China getting wary of India and launching a territorial war from Tibet, in order to gain dominance over India. And, of course, Pakistan would join in.
The most famous self-immolation is of Thích Quảng Đức (photo):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%9...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%9...
The Arab spring started with one too:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi
I lived very close to there and drove by the location every day. It is on a very busy street where you would never imagine that something like this would have happened. It wasn't until a local pointed it out to me that I realized what it was. The monument is beautiful.
https://goo.gl/maps/k2dsRfHeNXYW2My2A
https://goo.gl/maps/k2dsRfHeNXYW2My2A
The article is poignant and worth reading.
This young man chose to die for his beliefs.
“The self-immolation of young Tibetans like Tsewang Norbu, who seems to have it all, lays bare China’s claim that the spate of self-immolations that have engulfed the Tibetan plateau since 2009 is triggered by psychological and livelihood issues.
China continues to hatch strategies to win the hearts and minds of the new generation of Tibetans in its Sinicization project, but the self-immolation protests by young Tibetans like Yonten and Tsewang Norbu expose how China’s ill-intent strategies in Tibet is deeply hurting young Tibetans.
To prevent self-immolations and save lives, TCHRD calls on China to halt its Sinicization programs and uphold the human rights of Tibetans to protect and promote their culture and language, and freely exercise basic freedoms including freedom of expression and freedom to practice one’s religion or belief.”
This young man chose to die for his beliefs.
“The self-immolation of young Tibetans like Tsewang Norbu, who seems to have it all, lays bare China’s claim that the spate of self-immolations that have engulfed the Tibetan plateau since 2009 is triggered by psychological and livelihood issues.
China continues to hatch strategies to win the hearts and minds of the new generation of Tibetans in its Sinicization project, but the self-immolation protests by young Tibetans like Yonten and Tsewang Norbu expose how China’s ill-intent strategies in Tibet is deeply hurting young Tibetans.
To prevent self-immolations and save lives, TCHRD calls on China to halt its Sinicization programs and uphold the human rights of Tibetans to protect and promote their culture and language, and freely exercise basic freedoms including freedom of expression and freedom to practice one’s religion or belief.”
Reminds me of the Neruda quote: "You can crush the flowers, but you can't stop spring from coming."
Free Tibet
Free Tibet
What the CCP is doing to Tibet is beyond belief.
The ethnic cleansing they pioneered there was perfected in East Turkistan.
The ethnic cleansing they pioneered there was perfected in East Turkistan.
I hope the fact this happened is spread far and wide. It's depressing that the Chinese government will try to suppress this, trying to deny any meaning to this man's death.
This sort of protest only hurts the cause of Tibet, as it is a demonstration of extremism.
By most standards the only person that would set themselves on fire is a religious fanatic or someone suffering from mental illness.
By most standards the only person that would set themselves on fire is a religious fanatic or someone suffering from mental illness.
That's for people everywhere to interpret as they will, without propagandist interference.
To everyone I've ever know it's always been a powerful demonstration of desperation. Every such incident I've seen has been taken abroad that way. Except by CCP shills who prefer to call it... 'extremism'... mmm.
To everyone I've ever know it's always been a powerful demonstration of desperation. Every such incident I've seen has been taken abroad that way. Except by CCP shills who prefer to call it... 'extremism'... mmm.
I do wish the world would be more sympathetic to Ukraine and Tibet than it is currently (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet).
Indeed. Both the Tibetans and the people of Xinjiang deserve much better than what they currently have.
And those Afghanis now starving to death after being ravaged by imperialist war-adventuring for decades
[deleted]
Yeah, creating educational opportunities for girls was the worst. Good thing that's all being put back the way it's supposed to be.
have you seen Afghanistan before US helped Taliban with arms to fight USSR? and before USSR invaded? they didn't need your "educational opportunities" they need invaders not to invade.
It is possible both are true: Arming the Taliban was bad. Disarming them was good.
Given that the intention of arming the Taliban was to bring down a government similar to the one currently invading Ukraine, maybe the overall effect of arming the Taliban was good, however tragic for Afghanistan.
Ultimately, I do not presume to be smart enough to know what is right in international relations.
Given that the intention of arming the Taliban was to bring down a government similar to the one currently invading Ukraine, maybe the overall effect of arming the Taliban was good, however tragic for Afghanistan.
Ultimately, I do not presume to be smart enough to know what is right in international relations.
The cynical use of feminism as a justification for war-mongering then bookended by abandoning the same girls to starve to death is not something to be proud of.
Gender equality works well for the developed world because a lot of other systems are compatible with it and we have technology to even the playing field. But it may very well be bad for most people involved, including the girls themselves, in an extremely undeveloped society.
Because you know better? Complete BS.
Because almost every society in history, including the present, and except for technologically developed ones had strong gender roles.
Citations massively needed.
and Iraq? And the United States?
croes(2)
It's a big mess. The major rivers of India and China all originate in Tibet, so having that whole area be under the control of either one of these two actors is a recipe for ongoing stability concerns in the region.
> The major rivers of India and China all originate in Tibet
Apart from the Brahmaputra, which flows through the part of India east of Bangladesh, I have a hard time finding a major India river that originates in Tibet. Certainly, the Ganges flows west to east.
What river(s) do I overlook?
Apart from the Brahmaputra, which flows through the part of India east of Bangladesh, I have a hard time finding a major India river that originates in Tibet. Certainly, the Ganges flows west to east.
What river(s) do I overlook?
Indeed OPs comment doesn't make much sense. Ganges is sourced in Gangotri, Yamuna in Yamunotri which are in Indian territory, behing massive himalayan wall separating it from (occupied and formerly indian) chinese territory.
Mighty fine hiking locations too!
Mighty fine hiking locations too!
The Karnarli comes from Mt Kailash, which is a tributary of the Ganges.
There are 4 sacred river that originate from Mt Kailash as far as I remember.
https://www.wondersoftibet.com/mount-kailash-four-river-sour...
(I have kayaked the Karnarli, well worth a rafting trip if you are in Nepal).
I think the Yarlung Tsangpo as well comes from one of them.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/80558/yarlung-tsang...
Ahhh, wait, in see you said India. That would be the Indus and Karnarli - which goes to the Ganges. Sorry rushed post not got time to remind myself.
https://www.wondersoftibet.com/mount-kailash-four-river-sour...
(I have kayaked the Karnarli, well worth a rafting trip if you are in Nepal).
I think the Yarlung Tsangpo as well comes from one of them.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/80558/yarlung-tsang...
Ahhh, wait, in see you said India. That would be the Indus and Karnarli - which goes to the Ganges. Sorry rushed post not got time to remind myself.
Tibet has never been under the control of India as far as I know. It was an ethnically independent region in the past and now comes under the govt of China. So major Himalayan rivers originating in Tibet is a big gain for China and a strategic problem for India, considering China has already built several huge upstream damns across these rivers which irrigate much of N India.
I suppose one could claim that at the time of the Convention of Lhasa, Tibet and much of India swore suzerainty to the same nation of Great Britain.
There's also the concept of Arkhand Bharat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhand_Bharat) which is the notion of a unified Indian subcontinent.
There's also the concept of Arkhand Bharat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhand_Bharat) which is the notion of a unified Indian subcontinent.
One may also observe that India is primarily Hindu, while Tibet is primarily Buddhist, which is an offshoot of Hinduism. Present day China is communist atheist, which has a lot less in common with Buddhism than Hinduism does.
Reality is a bit more complicated, there are many religions in India and most people consider Buddhism not theistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India
https://qz.com/india/1585631/the-ancient-connections-between...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India
https://qz.com/india/1585631/the-ancient-connections-between...
"most people consider Buddhism not theistic"
In practice, a lot of Buddhists are very theistic. Many of them worship various gods and Buddhas.
In the West, Buddhism has been desacrilized to make it more palatable for Westerners, but in the East it's often way more religious and theistic, especially as the Buddhism that actually exists in those countries has often been blended with other indigenous religions which themselves are very theistic.
In practice, a lot of Buddhists are very theistic. Many of them worship various gods and Buddhas.
In the West, Buddhism has been desacrilized to make it more palatable for Westerners, but in the East it's often way more religious and theistic, especially as the Buddhism that actually exists in those countries has often been blended with other indigenous religions which themselves are very theistic.
River high up in mountains aren't where the power lies. You could damn all of those 4 but the water coming off of them wouldn't affect the large important parts of rivers downstream too much.
I'm not sure how significant that geographic fact is. Tibet is incredibly remote and rugged. Any kind of dam project large enough to have downstream impacts would be infeasible.
I'm pretty sure the Vietnamese have already began to complain about the impacts of damming in Chinese Tibet.
Though I read that in the news, so take it with a grain of salt
Though I read that in the news, so take it with a grain of salt
The Mekong, the usual river that comes up when it comes to water rights, originates in Qinghai province, not Tibet. Any other rivers originating in China and flowing through VN would be even further east.
You might be confused because the Mekong (along with numerous other rivers) originates on the Tibetan Plateau, but that's a geographical feature which is vastly larger than Tibet itself.
You might be confused because the Mekong (along with numerous other rivers) originates on the Tibetan Plateau, but that's a geographical feature which is vastly larger than Tibet itself.
That doesn't seem right. The North/East borders of India, Nepal, and Bhutan are along the Himalayas. Any river that flows in India should start on India's side of the mountains.
True. But sometimes there are small openings in the hills which are enough for rivers to rush through. Brahmaputra starts near Tibet, but enters India in the state of Arunachal Pradesh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmaputra_River#/media/File:...
@treis, It doesn't work like that. Rivers can originate anywhere and flow in any direction. For ex- Jhelum and Indus rivers originate in India but flow through Pakistan. I am sure there are many other similar examples.
In this case, though, they seem to be correct.
A map of the Ganges watershed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ganges-Brahmaputra-M...
Looks unlikely that Tibet could exert too much control over it.
A map of the Ganges watershed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ganges-Brahmaputra-M...
Looks unlikely that Tibet could exert too much control over it.
There are many authors and traditions that have escaped the Himalayas. Please support these authors and programs as much as possible so the passion and wisdom lives on.
What. are. you. talking about? Passion and wisdom?
Is this just some knee-jerk suddenly enlightened mass market fortune cookie drivel that one spouts after seeing some movie about Tibet and finding yourself in tune with the mysticism of the Himalayas?
Is this just some knee-jerk suddenly enlightened mass market fortune cookie drivel that one spouts after seeing some movie about Tibet and finding yourself in tune with the mysticism of the Himalayas?
This gentleman set himself on fire.
I will remember him.
I will remember him.
I believe many "Czechoslovaks" feel with Tibet and also Ukraine these days. For those interested in history of "living torches" fighting for freedom:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Palach
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Palach
Yeah, the cases of normal US citizens lighting themselves on fire to protest against the war in Vietnam was jarring, they would also do it right in front of the White House or other centers of US power
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Self-immolations_in...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Self-immolations_in...
Thank you for posting this. It's history about my own country that I didn't know.
In communist Romania, 2 March 1988... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liviu_Cornel_Babe%C8%99
And in Soviet-occupied Poland... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryszard_Siwiec
Romas Kalanta in Lithuania 1972. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romas_Kalanta
Fighting the good fight! Unlike those who die of selfies. If he set himself on fire while jumping 50 cars, he would get more likes though. Somehow i dont think peaceful protests mean anything to a government intent on genocide like the Spanish, Germans and the Brits of the past.
The banter and discussion here is great and I love to see all the culture discussion, but I'm compelled to ask, why is this in hacker news? Not that I mind, just seems a bit, off-topic?
Containment for China next please.
that must be a terrible way to go.
My understanding is that it's pretty much the worst way to go, and only really gets used by people trying to make a (usually political) statement. It also has form in this region - see Thích Quảng Đức.
A desperate last stand to try and make a statement about censorship and repression, which ironically seems to have had all evidence censored and repressed. Truly awful.
A desperate last stand to try and make a statement about censorship and repression, which ironically seems to have had all evidence censored and repressed. Truly awful.
it should be. and then you watch these monks with absolute mental control just sitting in the fire meditating until they're ash
This is one of the most fascinating things. It is close to a real life miracle in my opinion. To not even move when you’re experiencing that level of pain, it’s awe inspiring
Am I the only one who is deeply uncomfortable with the glorification of self-immolation in Tibet? These are nearly always young men, often times teenagers. One must question what sort of upbringing they must of had to sacrifice their life in that way for the sake of their religion.
> In the Buddhist belief, life is not confined to a period of 60 or 80 or 100 years: life is eternal. Life is not confined to this body: life is universal. To express will by burning oneself, therefore, is not to commit an act of destruction but to perform an act of construction, i.e., to suffer and to die for the sake of one’s people.
https://plumvillage.org/about/thich-nhat-hanh/letters/in-sea...
https://plumvillage.org/about/thich-nhat-hanh/letters/in-sea...
For the sake of their religion? Or for the sake of their freedom?
In a religious value system, to die for one's faith is the utmost privilege, a combined ordeal and honor to which most of us are not equal. Martyrs demonstrate absolute devotion and dedication — and they demonstrate the true cost of principles, which most of us refuse to pay. They shame and inspire us.
Got to remember that Buddhists believe they they will be reborn.
They have the ability to turn off their pain entirely so it’s less of a miracle than if they were experiencing it.
They don’t “turn off” pain. Likely, they either objectify it (i.e. dispassionately observe the experience of pain) or ignore it (i.e. focus on a separate sensation) or dilute it (i.e. focus on “nothing” or alternatively, the all-encompassing sensation of “being”, the “now”, so that the experience of the pain is not the sole focus of their attention).
If the sense door of anatta [1] I walked through almost a decade ago now is any indication it's the former. The pain is still pain and as vivid but because not-you there's no clinging therefore no suffering.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anattā
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anattā
They are experiencing it. Just because you aren't letting the pain dictate your actions, it doesn't mean you aren't experiencing it. It's about not letting your reflexes override your control.
It’s absolutely shocking how much pain you can be in before losing control if your willpower is strong enough.
> It’s shocking how much pain you can be in if your willpower is strong enough.
Or you are drugged with something strong enough. A much simpler explanation that doesn't require to believe in guys developing supernatural superpowers.
Or you are drugged with something strong enough. A much simpler explanation that doesn't require to believe in guys developing supernatural superpowers.
I was speaking from personal experience. Including having my insides burned away for multiple minutes without numbing agent. Stupid doctor.
Really bad kidney stone comes somewhat close to that.
Or severe nerve damage that causes every waking moment to be a nightmare. That one isn’t Not as bad acute as kidney pain. But it lasts a long time and doctors always think your faking.
One can build up a lot of tolerance.
One can build up a lot of tolerance.
I'm sorry for your experience. Colon cancer treatment, I guess?. Hope you are better now.
Poison. Clots, vascular and nerve damage
Wow, horrible experience then. I don't know what to say, frankly.
Some vascular problems can be fixed with surgery and some nerve damages can repair itself, even if is a frustrating slow process. Hope you the best in your recovery. Stay connected here if you need to talk.
Some vascular problems can be fixed with surgery and some nerve damages can repair itself, even if is a frustrating slow process. Hope you the best in your recovery. Stay connected here if you need to talk.
[deleted]
What drug could work in that situation? I don’t think morphine would do the trick.
And even if there was a drug that would let you tolerate this level of pain, you would expect that it would make you super drowsy or at least not be able to stand still like they do. I don’t know, maybe you’re right though
And even if there was a drug that would let you tolerate this level of pain, you would expect that it would make you super drowsy or at least not be able to stand still like they do. I don’t know, maybe you’re right though
There's no control to lose. There's no one suffering. The willpower to arrive at the experience is shocking but there's no sustaining of will once arrived at.
that in itself should tell what the alternate was that the person chose to end his life like this over living like that.
new_guy(1)
Was he really that popular ? There’s very little about him online.
What would be the endgame for Tibetan independence. I can see it going straight to theocracy.
It's for them, as in Tibetans, to decide, not China, not CCP nor anyone else.
Is it really though? Does this generation get to decide that all generations following it should live under a theocratic dictatorship? I'm not sure that's a whole lot better than Chinese control. Anyone who thinks the old Tibetan monarchy/aristocrat system was a good form of government should really read up on it and not just assume it was paradise for the Tibetan people. They still had serfs and slaves.
There are many kinds of "theocracy". The islamic republic of Pakistan is significantly better than Saudi Arabia. Or would your rather have them both as "rightful Chinese territory"?
Sure, but are you at all familiar with the history of pre-CCP Tibet? Their "theocracy" was likely worse than Saudi Arabias, both in terms of the sorts of punishments they inflicted upon their populace (routine gouging of the eyes, chopping of the limbs, and then hanging up for display) as well as the autocratic (serf-like) structure built up.
Are you sure you want to do comparison? As late as 1863, captured leaders of the Taiping Rebellion were sentenced to death by slicing flesh off the body until they died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Dakai
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Dakai
This is whataboutism. No relevance to the issue at hand whatsoever.
I'm saying that it's silly to argue that Tibetans don't deserve their own government because ancient Tibetans were horrible people, when the current alternative is Tibetans being ruled by China with its own horrible ancestors.
Ancient people were horrible everywhere. It's not really an argument for anything.
Ancient people were horrible everywhere. It's not really an argument for anything.
The Tibetans deserve a government that represents them, but not the Dalai Lama led one (although I don't agree with a principle of "every ethnic group governs themselves" or something like that. I don't think it is wrong or colonialist to be part of a supranational, pluralistic state - but China is obviously authoritarian).
These aren't "ancient Tibetans"... this is quite literally the Tibetian government directly prior to the Chinese takeover, ie. within current people's lifetime. There are direct, credible witnesses to what Tibet under the current Dalai Lama's government was like. The current Dalai Lama was picked by people who tortured their citizens and gouged out their eyes for trying to organize away from serfdom. The current Dalai Lama oversaw a feudal system where these sorts of punishments continued to be carried out.
Tashi Tsering's autobiography details the extensive whippings and sexual assault he experienced working in the current Dalai Lama's dance troupe, prior to the Chinese takeover.
This is not "ancient" history.
These aren't "ancient Tibetans"... this is quite literally the Tibetian government directly prior to the Chinese takeover, ie. within current people's lifetime. There are direct, credible witnesses to what Tibet under the current Dalai Lama's government was like. The current Dalai Lama was picked by people who tortured their citizens and gouged out their eyes for trying to organize away from serfdom. The current Dalai Lama oversaw a feudal system where these sorts of punishments continued to be carried out.
Tashi Tsering's autobiography details the extensive whippings and sexual assault he experienced working in the current Dalai Lama's dance troupe, prior to the Chinese takeover.
This is not "ancient" history.
If I view people as animals, I just wish them stay the same for generations, so my kids can visit them, their exotic cultures. Don't have my stupid modern life style, stay pure, stay different. I feel that's how people see this world. In many tourists places, people have to pretend to be the same as old time, wear exotic clothes, do something stupid shit in village for tourists to see. That's how this world is, becoming a big zoo.
.... says the person comparing Tibet to Saudi Arabia.
What? It was the person I was replying to making comparisons with Saudi Arabia, I was merely responding.
> but are you at all familiar with the history of pre-CCP Tibet? Their "theocracy" was likely worse than Saudi Arabias
Yes, now read one comment up where Saudi Arabia is mentioned as a comparison with other theocracies, such as Tibet.
Tibet was much more closer to SA (rigidly authoritarian, brutal punishments) than Pakistan (democratic election of leaders, less chopping off of people's limbs)
Tibet was much more closer to SA (rigidly authoritarian, brutal punishments) than Pakistan (democratic election of leaders, less chopping off of people's limbs)
Could you please point me to an independent source which can confirm what you wrote, as in not Chinese/CCP propaganda to justify their invasion and occupation of Tibet.
Also, looks like the Tibetan's are suffering exactly the kind of treatment as you wrote under the CCP.
Also, looks like the Tibetan's are suffering exactly the kind of treatment as you wrote under the CCP.
Probably not the tone you're looking for, but definitely independent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYEOSCIOnrs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYEOSCIOnrs
I am more familiar with the history of pre British India. Thankfully the British "civilized" my country. Surely China will do the same to Tibet.
The excuses people make for colonialism remain the same as centuries pass by.
The excuses people make for colonialism remain the same as centuries pass by.
the history between china and tibet isn't the history between britain and india.
It is exactly the same. It is colonialism right down to the justifications
The history of Pakistan based terrorism in india suggests otherwise.
Saudi Arabia funds conservative schools of Islam all over the world , however they have yet to involve themselves in the kind of state sponsored terrorism Pakistan does.
For people outside these countries i would say Saudi is definitely better
Saudi Arabia funds conservative schools of Islam all over the world , however they have yet to involve themselves in the kind of state sponsored terrorism Pakistan does.
For people outside these countries i would say Saudi is definitely better
Putin threatened SA for supporting Chechens
Religious based government is bad all the way around. It leads to persecution of other religions and even sects of the same religion (Sunni vs Shia). It's a bad thing to have at the core of your government. This used to be a 1st principal in the USA but the lines are becoming blurred by alt-right ideology that is seeping into and starting to control the republican party. I really hope it has peaked and is on the down swing because there are finally some GOP people pushing back against a Trumpist coup in 2024.
What are we going to do when Tibetans are ravaged by a theocratic government? Air drop some freedom and democracy. And maybe a few flag emojis on twitter.
What is wrong with a theocratic government if the people want it and it suits their way of life, especially if it is a peaceful spiritual way of life and makes people happy. Last I checked Bhutan, which is also Buddhist, was doing well.
Also, I hope you're not saying that the way of the China/CCP is better than how Tibetans were before Chinese invasion. I don't think they were ever ravaged, unless you're referring to the Chinese propaganda to show them as the savior. And, if they were such a savior why are people killing themselves?
Moreover, I'm assuming you're on a similar crusade against the Pope and other theocratic governments, of other religions, in the world.
Also, I hope you're not saying that the way of the China/CCP is better than how Tibetans were before Chinese invasion. I don't think they were ever ravaged, unless you're referring to the Chinese propaganda to show them as the savior. And, if they were such a savior why are people killing themselves?
Moreover, I'm assuming you're on a similar crusade against the Pope and other theocratic governments, of other religions, in the world.
Bhutan government has done some brutal things to Nepalis in the 90's. Catholic church was much worse when it had actual power. State propaganda can be overwhelming to weak minds but a little history lesson can cure it.
To be clear I'm not for CCP or any autocracy. I'm against theocracy.
To be clear I'm not for CCP or any autocracy. I'm against theocracy.
I wonder why you think Tibet would become a theocracy if it were independent. I don't think the current Dalai Lama would support that. Many places were not democratic before falling under foreign rule, but became democratic afterwards.
You described some example of Theocracy's that performed brutal acts against those that were perceived as "others". USA is responsible for many deaths and is constantly invading countries. Since using examples of bad things a government type has done is enough to say that the type of government is bad, democracy in turn must be bad. /s
Any form of government once formed is hard to change. How many governments do you see regularly changing from democracy to communism to theocracy to etc... Theocracy is a perfect valid form of governance.
Religion's just like governments have multiple sides to them. Which side the rulers decided to focus on changes which actions are performed.
Any form of government once formed is hard to change. How many governments do you see regularly changing from democracy to communism to theocracy to etc... Theocracy is a perfect valid form of governance.
Religion's just like governments have multiple sides to them. Which side the rulers decided to focus on changes which actions are performed.
Yes but unlike say a democracy, you can't vote the theocracy out. You can't be treated fairly if you are not of the official religion. You become an outsider, never to be treated like a full citizen, because of who you are.
Imagine if instead of religion it was skin color, or gender, or hell even height - only people over 2 meters could be in government. Can we whitewash those too? Are they as legitimate as Theocracy? Why not?
Imagine if instead of religion it was skin color, or gender, or hell even height - only people over 2 meters could be in government. Can we whitewash those too? Are they as legitimate as Theocracy? Why not?
What's wrong with theocracy? Really?
How about that you can't change it very easily once you have it? Or that it's based on authority, mostly of a small set of people? Or that religious issues have caused the slaughter of millions of people?
Are you really abandoning liberal democracy because you happen to have found a religion you like?
How about that you can't change it very easily once you have it? Or that it's based on authority, mostly of a small set of people? Or that religious issues have caused the slaughter of millions of people?
Are you really abandoning liberal democracy because you happen to have found a religion you like?
> Are you really abandoning liberal democracy because you happen to have found a religion you like?
I've not found a religion I like :)
I'd said what's wrong with theocracy if that is what the people want, for example vote for. So, in effect it's a democratically chosen theocracy. Is that not democracy after all?
In other words, if Tibet were to become independent and the people chose Dalai Lama to be the head of the state, would it be a theocracy or a democracy or a theocratic democracy?
But, I get your point.
Still, I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves debating future Tibetan government while it is being butchered under the CCP. We safely can punt this debate for later.
I've not found a religion I like :)
I'd said what's wrong with theocracy if that is what the people want, for example vote for. So, in effect it's a democratically chosen theocracy. Is that not democracy after all?
In other words, if Tibet were to become independent and the people chose Dalai Lama to be the head of the state, would it be a theocracy or a democracy or a theocratic democracy?
But, I get your point.
Still, I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves debating future Tibetan government while it is being butchered under the CCP. We safely can punt this debate for later.
Depends.
Is there some sort of founding document that enshrines the right to vote and replace leaders with a regular cadence, regardless of the desires of that leader? If so, then regardless of who they vote for, it's a democracy.
If instead a person is appointed to lead, who will use their religion to decide state matters, and there is no way to remove them except for them to choose to replace themselves, then it's a theocracy.
"Theocratic democracies" are unstable and don't last. There is no way for them to last. Either it allows those who are not of the same faith as the leaders to influence policy and have their voices heard and becomes a democracy, or it doesn't, in which case it is a theocracy, and a form of autocracy or oligarchy (just, one that claims divine authority instead of purely material authority).
Is there some sort of founding document that enshrines the right to vote and replace leaders with a regular cadence, regardless of the desires of that leader? If so, then regardless of who they vote for, it's a democracy.
If instead a person is appointed to lead, who will use their religion to decide state matters, and there is no way to remove them except for them to choose to replace themselves, then it's a theocracy.
"Theocratic democracies" are unstable and don't last. There is no way for them to last. Either it allows those who are not of the same faith as the leaders to influence policy and have their voices heard and becomes a democracy, or it doesn't, in which case it is a theocracy, and a form of autocracy or oligarchy (just, one that claims divine authority instead of purely material authority).
Sure, if we just redefine "theocracy" to mean "democracy" then it isn't too bad at all!
Was Nazi Germany democratic because Hitler was elected? I doubt it. Once you preclude being able to remove the leader, which seems to be the case de facto or de jure (I don't know) you stop being a democracy.
Russia is another one of those countries that had some kind of election in the past but going forward you can't really see them being fair elections.
Of course people are free to elect eg the Christian democrats as often as they like, so long as they can choose otherwise. Japan and Mexico IIRC had people electing the same party for decades.
Russia is another one of those countries that had some kind of election in the past but going forward you can't really see them being fair elections.
Of course people are free to elect eg the Christian democrats as often as they like, so long as they can choose otherwise. Japan and Mexico IIRC had people electing the same party for decades.
They force others to believe as they do and likely any nonbelievers are either jailed or become rejected by society at large as untouchables. That seems as bad as most dictatorships, barring outright torture and indiscriminate execution for going against the state.
[deleted]
We can put a wager on it suddenly being Catholics again, and then we can continue being lazy.
I think when China defeated the theocratic rules, it was an improvement for Tibetan people. But a government's legitimacy is constantly re-evaluated by the governed, and it's the ruling party's job to earn the support necessary for maintaining a stable society.
Using force to ensure conformity can work for the short-term, but history shows even the strongest dictators will fall eventually, if they lose the support of the people.
Using force to ensure conformity can work for the short-term, but history shows even the strongest dictators will fall eventually, if they lose the support of the people.
Self-determination
Is it really self determination if you swap out one group of despots for another rather than installing a democracy?
Well good for you cause the Tibetan Government in Exile and the Dalai Lama do not want independence.
https://tibet.net/important-issues/the-middle-way-policy/
Of course they do want the independence, why would they not. It's just that after decades of occupation and China's economic rise, they feel that that is an impossible goal, at least until China implodes like the USSR did - which may or may not ever happen.
So, they are asking for the next best option as a compromise - even the proposal is called middle-way for it is a compromise.
So, they are asking for the next best option as a compromise - even the proposal is called middle-way for it is a compromise.
There are benefits to being associated with a global superpower in regards to quality of life improvements. Obviously they are not worth the cultural and human costs that Tibet is currently experiencing, but if we can get true autonomy, I don't see why you wouldn't want both. I say that as a Tibetan in exile.
There are some Tibetans that don't think true autonomy is possible with the CCP and thus still want independence though.
There are some Tibetans that don't think true autonomy is possible with the CCP and thus still want independence though.
[deleted]
if that’s what they decide then that’s ok
Tibet is a Chinese territory, just as the Americans cannot carve out Alaska.
Yes. At least till China implodes into a thousand disjoint pieces. Tibet's salvation will come.
What would set china to likely partition itself? Meaning religion, culture what can it be. Currently it looks like china is pretty homogeneous?
I think this form of protest is outdated in modern times.
We're constantly being bombarded by war footage, dead kids from school shootings, suicide bombings, and collapsing skyscrapers.
This may have been significant back in the day but now it's hardly a blip on the radar of tragedies of people trying to send a message through violence.
I personally find it to be a sad senseless outdated cultural practice , no matter what the message is.
I find absolutely nothing powerful about killing oneself without taking a whole bunch of your enemies out at the same time.
We're constantly being bombarded by war footage, dead kids from school shootings, suicide bombings, and collapsing skyscrapers.
This may have been significant back in the day but now it's hardly a blip on the radar of tragedies of people trying to send a message through violence.
I personally find it to be a sad senseless outdated cultural practice , no matter what the message is.
I find absolutely nothing powerful about killing oneself without taking a whole bunch of your enemies out at the same time.
Freedom fighter or terrorist... once you use violence on your enemies, you obscure whatever your original message may have been and force public attention onto the violence instead. Do we remember Osama Bin Laden's pleas for justice, or just the collapsing skyscrapers?
Self-sacrifice as an act of martyrdom lets you maintain the moral high ground, continue your role as the victim, and still speak your truth -- however quietly, in the modern attention-deficit, compassion-fatigued era.
Also, keep in mind the power differential between China and Tibet. There is no feasible way for Tibet to even put up a fight, much less win an actual armed conflict. Suicide bombing would just bring even more terrible oppressions upon their people.
The self-immolation isn't an act of grand military strategy. It's a desperate cry for justice in this world or their next, whispered into the wind and carried to an uncaring world. It's the sort of thing that requires a deep commitment to one's values, knowing its ultimate effect and still choosing to go through with it, not because it's strategically useful but only because you are exercising what little agency you have left with the ideals you've carried your whole life.
Self-sacrifice as an act of martyrdom lets you maintain the moral high ground, continue your role as the victim, and still speak your truth -- however quietly, in the modern attention-deficit, compassion-fatigued era.
Also, keep in mind the power differential between China and Tibet. There is no feasible way for Tibet to even put up a fight, much less win an actual armed conflict. Suicide bombing would just bring even more terrible oppressions upon their people.
The self-immolation isn't an act of grand military strategy. It's a desperate cry for justice in this world or their next, whispered into the wind and carried to an uncaring world. It's the sort of thing that requires a deep commitment to one's values, knowing its ultimate effect and still choosing to go through with it, not because it's strategically useful but only because you are exercising what little agency you have left with the ideals you've carried your whole life.
i can't agree about taking out a bunch of your enemies. the photographs of thich quang duc had such an impact because the practice was novel to the west. that novelty is gone. but there isn't any novelty in suicide bombing either. as far as sending a message goes, they are both outdated practices and a waste.
In random book stores, I met actual monks who had served time (in China) as political prisoners. One of which had also written a book about it. It was kind of funny to walk in into a book store, see these two guys drinking tea and then get pulled into a conversation out of curiosity. But, as for the stories themselves, probably not that funny. Some of the people (monks, mostly) had physical scars and their stories were anything but fun.
I also went to their offices (a modest distance away from the Dalai Lama temple, but very walkable) and got to speak to senior officials there. I asked them basics questions like, "What do you think is the future for Tibet?" and they were very accommodating.
We had tea, laughed and talked life. At first they thought I was a journalist, which was hilarious since my approach was very blunt but curious at the same time.