Sishir Chang: If Dalai Lama is sincere about his remorse on the troubling past of Tibet under his and previous Lama's ruling, he should come out and tell his people that he is not the reincarnation of Budda because he cannot prove it. It's such worship of living god caused lack of religious freedom in Tibet , You said that Dalai Lama will acknowledge China's sovereignty at the condition of his returning to power in Tibet, as well as religious and cultural autonomy. I think it's within your interllectual prowess
Sorry,I accidentally hit the submit reply button. You said that Dalai Lama will acknowledge China's sovereignty over Tibet at the condition of his returning to power in Tibet, as well as religious and cultural autonomy. I think it's within your interllectual prowess to see that him using sovereignty as a bargain chip shows that he thinks he owns Tibet, and religious autonomy has no conflict with religious monoplization that he used to enjoy.
Grow the fuck up ppl, what is the point arguing on the internet, this is not even education discussion for fuck's sake. This is blantant trolling and I am suprised mod didn't do anything, yeah yeah yeah, it's all right coz they are the United Stupid Assholes, they can't be wrong ...bla bla bla .... that's nothing new or you are that stupid. All the whining from USA are fucking same. Their logic always goes like this.... a rich moron with a Ferrari complaining why the poor guy still riding a cow and forced the poor cow to farm and later kill and eat the poor thing, they claim the poor guy abusing the cow's animal right. They just constantly put down ppl to make themselves look better or make themselves feel better. While they constantly b****ing about ppl's problem, they forget their own....... from Kent State University shooting at students to the most recent Gitmo abusing, and raping and killing in Iraq citizens. All those what so called Internatonal rules of war crime doesn't apply to Americans because they know they are going to get pwned. So please drop all these stupid shit now. A friend from the great North who enjoys hunting whales and seals, fucking moose, and living in an igloo.
Americans haven't forgotten about gitmo, or any of the atrocities in Iraq. If you think that then you haven't read this board very much, because we discuss it at length. You are just talking out your ass, and what you say just isn't true except in your own mind. Are you comparing poor Chinese to farm cows, and suggesting they be used to death?
Actually the Dalai Lama has. In several interviews he has said he is only a humble Buddhist monk and not a reincarnation. That people continue to believe he is that is there own perogative. As far as intellectual prowess there are many many many Tibetans that want him to return. There is a popular movement to want him to return that's not just him asserting a power and popularity he doesn't have that is a power and popularity he has. You're attempting to use a rationalization under "intellectual prowess" asking someone to go to speculation than facts.
You mentioned many times that the policy or people in power now are not Tibetan's choice. I think you are right but also wrong at the same time. Can I assume that you somehow implied that previous Lama ruling was Tibetans choice? I would bet that certainly was not of those slaves. Religion was used as tools to rule people, although nothing new, nevertheless it was never a pure spiritual belief, when it could be used to turn people into slaves. People make their choices all the time. But rarely, people's choice is recognized by the powerful ones. After WWII, Chinese people made the choice considering the failure of Nationalist's ruling, the corruption, the suffering farmers endured, they made the choice and supported Communists. Despite the full support from US, Communists defeated Nationalists in a short 3 years. Nothing to be proud of as it was a war between Chinese and Chinese, however, the Chinese people, mostly farmers selected the Communists. So what? The powerful Westerns wouldn't recognize that, the labeling, sanction, financially supporting every single group who's against PRC etc etc. Without all these, maybe the CCP government wouldn't go that far with craziness, maybe Tibet would not be an issue. Dalai Lama wouldn't be kidnapped. That's my pure speculation. By no means I am blaming US for pursuing own interests, although there might be mis-judgment in my opinion. The reason I am saying this is, people's choice normally doesn't weigh much, especially 50 years ago. Look around the world, if people's choice counts, there will be no Israel in the Middle East; if people's choice counts, Saddam wouldn't be in power, wouldn't be removed from power; if people's choice counts, so many dictatorship wouldn't have a chance to start with in Latin America and all over the world. One can't critisize China on the hand for human rights record, but on the other hand hold China to an extremely high standard, that no one else has been able to do so far - leveling the play field, and let all people re-do the choice, without any foreign interference. I don't think it's realistic. Let's just imagine, if that indeed happens, if Tibetan Chinese selects the continuity of current status quo, will those so-called pro-Tibet groups give up? Will Americans, Britains, and Indians stay out of it? The record in Palastine and Lebanon doesn't lend any credibility. Again, I think the idea might be noble, but just no chance at this point, not because of CCP, but rather how ugly politic has always been. Actually I am not justifying anything, but rather just exploring the possibilities and feasibilities. As a person in technology related field, practice is very important to me. My latter continuous reply to you regarding claim over territories in history was actually addressing this conflict between idea and feasibilities. Again, you can't hold China to a higher standard above everyone else. I am not talking about human rights or fair treatment here, but rather the claim over territories. Sometimes I find it quite interesting, that lots of people believe that democracy and liberal concept are Western trademarks. However, ultra liberalism started thousands years ago in China, even before the Qing Dynasty (not the one before republic, but the first ever in China). “Hundreds kinds of theories debating each other; hundreds kinds of flowers blooming together”. Later on, although the Emperor was called as “Son of Heaven”, but the noble idea was always “People weighes more than the Emperor”, “Water can hold the ship, but water can also sink the ship”. That water is people, and regime is the ship. The model ultra liberal who people admired, was not someone high up, but rather intellectuals like great artist, poet, painter, who despised powerful positions, money, and fame, seeking for the ultra freedom. At one point in Tang Dynasty, all prostitutes started to learn painting, poetry, and music. Whorehouses held all kinds of competitions in that regards. People were happy and the society was prosperous. Do you want to live in that kind of society? I do. Because at that time, I don’t think socialism or capitalism matters any more. That has been the ideal world for Han Chinese for thousands of years – I try my best to live well and enjoy life all I want to, and don't mind your business, and you leave me alone. But can such thing last? History told us, no. Look at the war brought by Menggu and Man, looked at the ruling under them. Ultra liberals know how to enjoy life, but they will be killed like insects by powerful outside force. Look at what happened in 1840, in WWII. If you are not powerful enough, you can’t defend your choice. Not to justify anything, but merely citing the sad reality. Well, it’s Friday. Let me waste some more time on this board. One question always troubles me. Why the popularity of Tibetan Buddhism? I read many things about original Buddhism before, and not too familiar about Tibetan version. Maybe you can correct me if I am wrong. The original Buddhism, slightly transformed to an East Asian version led by Chinese after it was propagated to China, is a truly peaceful form that one accepts any suffering and endures them as test and exercise to further purify oneself. Anything harmful to anyone is absolute taboo. Tibetan Buddhism is more of a extreme version of Buddhism. Nowadays, many Western people accept the Buddhism concept but most of them were lectured by Tibetan Lamas or that version of Buddhism. Is that simply because they got the most air time and financial support, or simply this much less peaceful version is a lot easier to practice? Hmm, somehow I felt my question looks like some implication with hidden agenda. But that’s just my true opinion.
What do you mean by "let tibetans decide for themselves"? There are other people living in Tibet now, don't they get a say about what is gonna happen to Tibet? Again, my question is are you gonna allow native indians decide whether we all should leave their turf - north america? If not, I don't see how you can argue against chinese.
Dalai Lama was 15 when he left Tibet. Are you telling me someone that old does not understand the dark side of slavery system? Are you telling me that someone who is supposed to know it all doesn't see it is wrong and violent to trade slaves like cows and sheeps? Daila Lama of all generations had suprem power in Tibet, they were treated beyond kings and queens, so don't tell me he was kidnaped to do those unspeakable things to his slaves. And no offense, even if Daila Lama wanted to start an interacial war, he had no way to do it from outside of china. He is smart enough to know so he'd never admit his ambition. A lot of people in western world like him because the simple rule "your enemy's enemy is your friend" and because China was an enemy to the west, especially in cold war era. And yeah, Arafat also got a Nobel peace award. It just tells you how much being respected by the west means.
I suppose your education from a british background wouldn't have let you on anything in that regard, would it? Brits and Indians were in Tibet plotting the seperation when China decided to interfere.
Ya know, most people don't have a problem with my debate style on here. If you address a point with facts and not excuses or weird uncollaborated theroies, I'll discuss. Oh, I admit - I'm not the most pleasent person and the nicest guy. But ya know what, I say what I think. I don't skirt any edges. And I am not afraid to show what I think. So if you decry the loss of decency, I hope you start with yourself. But if you are just going to be insulted because I'm critical of your home country - and fire back with personal attacks - well, you aren't going to learn a single thing and you're just living in a prison of your own creation.
Maybe you should collaborate these statement before your write them. How do you know many of them don't want to return? Did you conduct a research study?
China was smart - one way to prevent a land from ever leaving is to populate it with people loyal to your own agenda. Change the demographics.
You know, it is a funny thing, despite all this "attempts to change the demographics" occurring in Tibet, it's funny how Tibetans are still firmly the majority. I guess certain morons just enjoy talking out of their asses.
As someone who was raised in a monastery for almost his whole life up to that point the Dalai Lama had next to no exposure of what life was like for most Tibetans. It wasn't like the young Dalai Lama spent a lot of time going aroudn his people. As he's found out though about that he's acknowledged the wrongs of that way of life. He has many ways of doing so. The PLO was able to incite an Intifada in the 1980's from Tunis. The PRC border is far from ironclad and there is plenty of information going back and forth. I've heard firsthand from Tibetans that info gets in and out of Tibet. You make it sound like the PRC is keeping it under lockdown. If so that would go against the argument that there is openness in Tibet under the PRC. As far as the West supporting the Dalai Lama because the enemy of my enemy is my friend would first imply that the PRC is the enemy of the West. Are you saying that the PRC is the enemy of the West? Second Western powers have certainly supported many armed and violent groups, remember the Contras, Mujahadeen? If support for the Dalai Lama's group by the West was only to undermine the PRC the west has chosen a pretty poor agent since the Dalai Lama's group is nonviolent and is even accepts PRC sovereignity. I don't think Arafat being chosen for the Nobel Peace Prize was something that the west wanted. You would suppose wrong. Anyway this argument doesn't hold water. In 1950 the Brits and Indians weren't cooperating on much since India had just kicked them out. If they were why didn't the Tibetan army, aided and armed by those Brits and Indians you mention, put up more resistance? Technically under the Simla Treaty Tibet was under British protection yet the Brits made no move at all to help Tibet because they were in no positions strategically to help the Tibetans having just been kicked out of India. This idea of a Indo-British Tibetan conspiracy just doesn't hold when compared to the reality of how Tibet fell to the PLA. I answered that earlier in that the settlers in Tibet should get a say too. That said exiled Tibetans should also be allowed to get a vote too since the Han Chinese settlers were encouraged to settle due to PRC policies while the exiles were forced out due to PRC policies so a fair vote would be open to both parties. We aren't taking native Indians turf as that would be India and not North America. The term you are looking for is "Native Americans" or "American Indian." That said I think Native Americans should be granted much more sovereignity and there are several moves to grant them that. That said it has to be acknowledged that 500 years of history has greatly reduced their numbers that a wholesale abandonment of North America isn't going to happen. Personally though I think the reservation system should be even greater to the point of allowing Native Americans to decide what extent of sovereignity they should have along with the return of culturally important lands like the Black hills to them. Given though that there truly was a genocide committed against the Native Americans is your argument now that if genocide a the hands of white Europeans on Native Americans was acceptable that it should be acceptable on Tibetans? Because your argument is equating them.
