ca.youtube.com— Video of Chinese soldiers shooting Tibetans pilgrims. Please digg this so the world knows what is happening
Apr 25, 2008View in Crawl 4
Not sure how you're getting dugg down, but you are absolutely correct. China is not taking over Tibet by force, but by demographics. They have more than enough population to simply displace the natives and claim the land due to ethnic majority, and that is exactly what they are doing. It happened to the Native Americans, it happened in Kosovo and it's happening in Tibet.
Yes Sir,Beijing (as well as sympathetic Western scholars such as Michael Parenti, Tom Grunfeld and Anna Louise Strong) asserts that "pre-liberation" Tibet was a medieval, oppressive society consisting of "landowners, serfs and slaves." Tashi Rabgay, a Tibetan scholar at Harvard, points out that these three alleged social classes are arbitrary and revisionist classifications that have no basis in reality. There were indeed indentured farmers in old Tibet. There were also merchants, nomads, traders, non-indentured farmers, hunters, bandits, monks, nuns, musicians, aristocrats and artists. Tibetan society was a vast, multifaceted affair, as real societies tend to be. To try to reduce it to three base experiences (and non-representative experiences at that) is to engage in the worst kind of revisionism.No country is perfect and many Tibetans (including the Dalai Lama) admit that old Tibet had its flaws and inequities (setting aside whether things are better under Chinese occupation). But taking every real or imagined shortcoming that happened in a country over a 600-year period and labeling it the "way it was" is hardly legitimate history. Any society seen through this blurry lens would come up short. And in many ways, such as the elimination of the death penalty, Tibet was perhaps ahead of its time. The young 14th Dalai Lama had begun to promote land reform laws and other improvements, but China's take-over halted these advances. It is instructive to note that today the Tibetan government-in-exile is a democracy while China and Tibet are under communist dictatorship.The crucial subtext of Beijing's condemnation of Tibet's "feudal" past is a classic colonialist argument that the target's alleged backwardness serves as a justification for invasion and occupation. These are the politics of the colonist, in which the "native" is dehumanized, robbed of agency, and debased in order to make occupation more palatable or even necessary and "civilizing." China has no more right to occupy a "backward" Tibet than Britain had to carry the "white man's burden" in India or Hong Kong.
Beijing (as well as sympathetic Western scholars such as Michael Parenti, Tom Grunfeld and Anna Louise Strong) asserts that "pre-liberation" Tibet was a medieval, oppressive society consisting of "landowners, serfs and slaves." Tashi Rabgay, a Tibetan scholar at Harvard, points out that these three alleged social classes are arbitrary and revisionist classifications that have no basis in reality. There were indeed indentured farmers in old Tibet. There were also merchants, nomads, traders, non-indentured farmers, hunters, bandits, monks, nuns, musicians, aristocrats and artists. Tibetan society was a vast, multifaceted affair, as real societies tend to be. To try to reduce it to three base experiences (and non-representative experiences at that) is to engage in the worst kind of revisionism.No country is perfect and many Tibetans (including the Dalai Lama) admit that old Tibet had its flaws and inequities (setting aside whether things are better under Chinese occupation). But taking every real or imagined shortcoming that happened in a country over a 600-year period and labeling it the "way it was" is hardly legitimate history. Any society seen through this blurry lens would come up short. And in many ways, such as the elimination of the death penalty, Tibet was perhaps ahead of its time. The young 14th Dalai Lama had begun to promote land reform laws and other improvements, but China's take-over halted these advances. It is instructive to note that today the Tibetan government-in-exile is a democracy while China and Tibet are under communist dictatorship.The crucial subtext of Beijing's condemnation of Tibet's "feudal" past is a classic colonialist argument that the target's alleged backwardness serves as a justification for invasion and occupation. These are the politics of the colonist, in which the "native" is dehumanized, robbed of agency, and debased in order to make occupation more palatable or even necessary and "civilizing." China has no more right to occupy a "backward" Tibet than Britain had to carry the "white man's burden" in India or Hong Kong.
Right now the vast majority of Chinese are under the belief that the west is supporting a terrorist state named Tibet. These people are getting pissed off being told what to do. They wear t-shirts and carry banners in protest of Tibet, France, the United States and all other nations that have protested the torch run. IF the relationship between the west and China were to come to blows, it is safe to assume that those who are not part of the military machine in China will do whatever they can to support the machine as it "defends" the country from foreign "aggressors". I use quotes only to emphasize 1) we can't predict who the aggressors will be at this time and 2) the way they see the world is vastly different than we do and they feel attacked now politically which could lead to physical retaliation.Keep in mind that during WW2, the majority of the United States citizens were not equipped for war, but they took up the war effort by rationing and in filling roles in factories to manufacture the war machines. Particularly important to note is the role of women at that time. Previously they were severely limited in their roles of employment to things like teachers, librarians, and nurses. WW2 got them training and opened up the world of blue collar labor among other things. The same would very likely happen in China.
Wiki:White Nationalism (WN) advocates a racial definition (or redefinition) of white national identity, as opposed to multiculturalism. The contemporary movement in the United States is a reaction to the apparent decline (based on US census projections) in white demographics, politics and culture.[1] According to Samuel Francis, a key white nationalist writer, it is "a movement that rejects equality as an ideal and insists on an enduring core of human nature transmitted by heredity."[2] Anti-racist organizations generally have argued that ideas such as white pride and white nationalism exist merely to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy.[3]Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the name of several past and present secret organizations in the United States, mostly in the South, that are best known for advocating white supremacy and acting as vigilantes while hidden behind masks and robes. Stormfront:Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the name of several past and present secret organizations in the United States, mostly in the South, that are best known for advocating white supremacy and acting as vigilantes while hidden behind masks and robes. Stormfront: Q. What is White Nationalism?A. The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves.It seems to me that Tibetans are more analogous to the groups described above as they seem to be more divisive, but I would agree that would be going to far. BTW, this topic is old and buried.
Did Japan give China infrastructure when they take over? Did they build railroads through the mountains to transport goods? I mean honestly if you are an American, one day Alaska and Hawaii just say we want to be freed and we don't want to be part of this nation?What would you say? "It's ok, just go."?
bariusApr 25, 2008
Not sure how you're getting dugg down, but you are absolutely correct. China is not taking over Tibet by force, but by demographics. They have more than enough population to simply displace the natives and claim the land due to ethnic majority, and that is exactly what they are doing. It happened to the Native Americans, it happened in Kosovo and it's happening in Tibet.
gabbagabbaApr 25, 2008
basically when you ignore pre-chinese tibetan history, you look like an idiot.
urimanApr 27, 2008
You mean like Israel?
beijing08facadeApr 27, 2008
Yes Sir,Beijing (as well as sympathetic Western scholars such as Michael Parenti, Tom Grunfeld and Anna Louise Strong) asserts that "pre-liberation" Tibet was a medieval, oppressive society consisting of "landowners, serfs and slaves." Tashi Rabgay, a Tibetan scholar at Harvard, points out that these three alleged social classes are arbitrary and revisionist classifications that have no basis in reality. There were indeed indentured farmers in old Tibet. There were also merchants, nomads, traders, non-indentured farmers, hunters, bandits, monks, nuns, musicians, aristocrats and artists. Tibetan society was a vast, multifaceted affair, as real societies tend to be. To try to reduce it to three base experiences (and non-representative experiences at that) is to engage in the worst kind of revisionism.No country is perfect and many Tibetans (including the Dalai Lama) admit that old Tibet had its flaws and inequities (setting aside whether things are better under Chinese occupation). But taking every real or imagined shortcoming that happened in a country over a 600-year period and labeling it the "way it was" is hardly legitimate history. Any society seen through this blurry lens would come up short. And in many ways, such as the elimination of the death penalty, Tibet was perhaps ahead of its time. The young 14th Dalai Lama had begun to promote land reform laws and other improvements, but China's take-over halted these advances. It is instructive to note that today the Tibetan government-in-exile is a democracy while China and Tibet are under communist dictatorship.The crucial subtext of Beijing's condemnation of Tibet's "feudal" past is a classic colonialist argument that the target's alleged backwardness serves as a justification for invasion and occupation. These are the politics of the colonist, in which the "native" is dehumanized, robbed of agency, and debased in order to make occupation more palatable or even necessary and "civilizing." China has no more right to occupy a "backward" Tibet than Britain had to carry the "white man's burden" in India or Hong Kong.
beijing08facadeApr 27, 2008
Beijing (as well as sympathetic Western scholars such as Michael Parenti, Tom Grunfeld and Anna Louise Strong) asserts that "pre-liberation" Tibet was a medieval, oppressive society consisting of "landowners, serfs and slaves." Tashi Rabgay, a Tibetan scholar at Harvard, points out that these three alleged social classes are arbitrary and revisionist classifications that have no basis in reality. There were indeed indentured farmers in old Tibet. There were also merchants, nomads, traders, non-indentured farmers, hunters, bandits, monks, nuns, musicians, aristocrats and artists. Tibetan society was a vast, multifaceted affair, as real societies tend to be. To try to reduce it to three base experiences (and non-representative experiences at that) is to engage in the worst kind of revisionism.No country is perfect and many Tibetans (including the Dalai Lama) admit that old Tibet had its flaws and inequities (setting aside whether things are better under Chinese occupation). But taking every real or imagined shortcoming that happened in a country over a 600-year period and labeling it the "way it was" is hardly legitimate history. Any society seen through this blurry lens would come up short. And in many ways, such as the elimination of the death penalty, Tibet was perhaps ahead of its time. The young 14th Dalai Lama had begun to promote land reform laws and other improvements, but China's take-over halted these advances. It is instructive to note that today the Tibetan government-in-exile is a democracy while China and Tibet are under communist dictatorship.The crucial subtext of Beijing's condemnation of Tibet's "feudal" past is a classic colonialist argument that the target's alleged backwardness serves as a justification for invasion and occupation. These are the politics of the colonist, in which the "native" is dehumanized, robbed of agency, and debased in order to make occupation more palatable or even necessary and "civilizing." China has no more right to occupy a "backward" Tibet than Britain had to carry the "white man's burden" in India or Hong Kong.
urothaneApr 28, 2008
Right now the vast majority of Chinese are under the belief that the west is supporting a terrorist state named Tibet. These people are getting pissed off being told what to do. They wear t-shirts and carry banners in protest of Tibet, France, the United States and all other nations that have protested the torch run. IF the relationship between the west and China were to come to blows, it is safe to assume that those who are not part of the military machine in China will do whatever they can to support the machine as it "defends" the country from foreign "aggressors". I use quotes only to emphasize 1) we can't predict who the aggressors will be at this time and 2) the way they see the world is vastly different than we do and they feel attacked now politically which could lead to physical retaliation.Keep in mind that during WW2, the majority of the United States citizens were not equipped for war, but they took up the war effort by rationing and in filling roles in factories to manufacture the war machines. Particularly important to note is the role of women at that time. Previously they were severely limited in their roles of employment to things like teachers, librarians, and nurses. WW2 got them training and opened up the world of blue collar labor among other things. The same would very likely happen in China.
urimanApr 29, 2008
Wiki:White Nationalism (WN) advocates a racial definition (or redefinition) of white national identity, as opposed to multiculturalism. The contemporary movement in the United States is a reaction to the apparent decline (based on US census projections) in white demographics, politics and culture.[1] According to Samuel Francis, a key white nationalist writer, it is "a movement that rejects equality as an ideal and insists on an enduring core of human nature transmitted by heredity."[2] Anti-racist organizations generally have argued that ideas such as white pride and white nationalism exist merely to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy.[3]Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the name of several past and present secret organizations in the United States, mostly in the South, that are best known for advocating white supremacy and acting as vigilantes while hidden behind masks and robes. Stormfront:Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the name of several past and present secret organizations in the United States, mostly in the South, that are best known for advocating white supremacy and acting as vigilantes while hidden behind masks and robes. Stormfront: Q. What is White Nationalism?A. The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves.It seems to me that Tibetans are more analogous to the groups described above as they seem to be more divisive, but I would agree that would be going to far. BTW, this topic is old and buried.
miborovskyMay 12, 2008
Yes. The only difference is time. Given 200 more years and 295 million more people, the Chinese should stay in Tibet.
diggeratworkSep 9, 2008
Did Japan give China infrastructure when they take over? Did they build railroads through the mountains to transport goods? I mean honestly if you are an American, one day Alaska and Hawaii just say we want to be freed and we don't want to be part of this nation?What would you say? "It's ok, just go."?