Agreed. Some degree of autonomy is desired, but I fear that they may go back to a religious regime. It's easy for the Dalai Lama to speak about peace when he has no power. Tibet won't be solely ruled by the Dalai Lama. He has to answer to his supporters and if his supports want to revert to their old religious state, it could get messy really quickly. Also, it's not about the fear of someone invading from the mountains, it's about China cannot show any weaknesses as they make progressive changes in all of China. I'm very glad we can find some common ground.
It is easier said than done. Religion and politics are inseperable in this Tibet case. Daila Lama is as much a political figure as religious figure. And as you (or someone else) said Tibetans will enjoy religious freedom as long as it doesn't introduce political conflict with CCP.
That is because people are throwing big words around and we just want to get a fair understanding of what the standard is. Sort of like in legal system, you look at previous cases and existing similiar cases.
Also, I'm talking about other similar cases to reflect the absurdity in definitions of crimes pinned to China.
You believe they are similar. I do not. that is your prerogative. Unfortunately you don't see the crimes as absurd. Just the definitions.
Personally I think the North should've let the South govern itself as slavery at that time was an untenable state due to industrialization. As for you feeling that the PRC is making progressing changes in Tibet that's fine but shouldn't the Tibeants be allowed to decide for themselves? You're displaying an arrogance as great as GW Bush's in deciding that a secular western state is the right thing for Iraq.
No offense but you know very little about the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama has continuously spoken out against violence. If he wanted to start an interacial war he had plenty of opportunity too yet he himself has argued against Tibetans taking up arms against the PRC. Further the Dalai Lama was never a slave master in the 1950's as he never wielded any power. He was a teenager during the 1950's. He's not Saddam. Saddam has never apologized about his reign while the Dalai Lama has said many times that the old ways were wrong and that Tibet should never go back to the old ways. Lastly you wonder why the Dalai Lama is so popular worldwide. It isn't because people hate Chinese it is because the Dalai Lama has consistently supported and set a standard of non-violence, compassion and tolerence even to one's enemy. Why do you think unlike the leaders of Hamas that the Dalai Lama has said that he wants coexistence with the PRC that he is even willing to accept overall PRC rule as long as Tibet has religious and cultural autonomy. Tell me how is that like Hamas or Hezbollah that has called for no negotiation and the outright destruction of Israel?
How in the heck was Tibet in 1950 an anti-China government or a threat of anysort to the PRC? Heck 1950 Tibet didn't have much of an army and an army at that that was primarily armed with spears and swords.
I don't know, IMO, if South had it's way, the segregation in the South would've been A LOT worse without the control of the carpetbaggers. You're probably right about my arrogance. It's simply my opinion that governments should be secular, but there are certainly people that believe otherwise. In most cases, I believe the people should get what they want. However, I fear that there is danger in passing the power to a religion that is capable of it's past injustice. Regardless, I definitely understand you point.
Good post and I agree with you that all of the PRC should have democracy. That said the Tibetans are under a system that is not of their own choosing why not let them decide their own fate on their own. As for the Han Chinese settling in Tibet sure they should have a vote too but in that case so should Tibetan exiles as the Han Chinese came in due to inducementhatts from the PRC while the Tibetan exiles where forced out due to PRC practices. Lets level the playing field and see what happens. The one part that I find your post troubling is this last paragraph First off its not totally clear that regarding ownership unless the point is that might makes right and the fact that the PRC went into Tibet military that makes their ownership justified. the PRC is the one that set an army around and into the territory not he Tibetans. All you're doing is justifying that might makes right.
What evidence do you have to support that? If you know Civil War history you will know that many prominent Southernors including Robert E. Lee didn't support slavery. Robert E. Lee himself expressed deep reservations about fighting the Union because he didn't see defending that way of life as being just. What he stood for was what he believed to be the right of self-determination. If the South had won here's no guarentee that slavery would've have continued given that there were prominent Southernors like Lee who had their doubts and that industrialization would've rendered slavery to be not only useless but overly expensive due to the costs of maintaining slaves. OTOH if you know the history you will know that Reconstruction was devestating to the South in terms of how it crippled the economy and deliberately humiliated the South. Lincoln himself was opposed to a harsh occupation but was assasinatd before he could do it. While you might feel the South was better off with reconstruction consider that without it the South still might've retainred a functioning economic infrastructure along with being able to retain capital to rebuild rather than having those destroyed and looting by Northern carpetbaggers.
Reconstruction was certainly a messy time. I suppose we'll never know what leaders would the South voted in if they had the choice to vote. You could certainly be right, but it's just a personal feeling that it could've gotten worse than the Jim Crow laws had the wrong people been in charge and factions like KKK would've gotten more government backing.
I forgot to add that maybe if the South weren't so pissed off at the North for reconstruction, the Jim Crow Laws and KKK may never have so much power. I suppose that would be the alternate view.
