Why bother making excuses for him, if you feel that way? Rather a major slip on his part. As I said earlier, I don't disagree with everything ever written by Parenti, but he is well known for his political views and they certainly color his work... but, then again, he has a Ph.D! God, I know some absolute idiots with Ph.Ds. Parenti isn't an idiot, far from it, but I don't consider him an unbiased source, either, which was and is my original point concerning him. Impeach Bush.
Credibility is certainly a valid issue to raise. Deckard points out that Parenti is known to play loose with the facts, and then points out a specific example of Parenti doing it in the article quoted. That's a pretty solid argument that one cannot trust Parenti's version of the 'facts.' As for the 'essence of the article,' if one cannot trust Parenti's recitation of facts, the facts he uses to justify the 'essence' (ie the point) of the article, then it logically follows you cannot trust his conclusion. As for the PhD, that IS a classic logical fallacy of argument by authority (or appeal to authority). Also, if China was joined with Tibet in the 13th century by the Mongols, and hence China has a claim to Tibet, then why aren't the Mongols the rightful rulers of China?
isn't it pretty obvious that the powerful one always rule? i mean, i guess China could also claim much of central Asia from those military expansion of the Han and Tang dynasties. so does a lot of countries else where. besides, even if Parenti's article isn't 100% accurate, but the central theme and a lot of the facts are not false. just because you twist a little bit here and there, doesn't discredit the entire article as completely false.
If you are correct then China doesn't have any claim to Tibet other than they were more powerful than Tibet. If you're happy with that then fine, but that doesn't equate to China having a right or claim on Tibet as somehow historically being part of China. Don't think so. We don't know which claims Parenti makes are true, if any, and which are false. We DO know he plays loose with facts so we can't take his writing as something we should base an opinion on.
i always assumed that power is the right to claim. that's the case everywhere in the world. if not, what is the right to claim anything? white people pretty much "claimed" the world. of course most people are good people with a good heart and sympathetic to the weaker ones. there is nothing wrong with that. and whatever facts that you think weren't true, just ask. what he said about tibetan society in the past is pretty much completely true. the fact that the lama is both the head of the state and the religion is true. re-incarnation of the lama is completely un-democratic. re-incarnation can only be used as a religious method to pass down the torch. if the lama is involved in government in any way, it defeats the purpose of democracy. the chinese emperor was overthrown and both the government and the religion collapsed.
Why did you have to say that? Were you trying to use a tragic event in history as a weapon to insult the people who are arguing with you? That's low.
Dude, don't even try to spin it. Using a tragic event in history for one's own selfish purpose to insult the other people is uncalled for. How much lower can one get?
Hey Hayes, glad to see you here. Haven't seen you around for a while. It's all fine and dandy, except I am yet to learned anything of what mis-presentations are in his describing of Tibetan theocracy other than the claim that the guy has an agenda? What was it actually like? Mongols? I don't know. I'm guessing they disaggregated and then ceded and never maintain any control over China again, like a lot of nomad people did? For the part that settled (Mongols now in China), they became a part of China although not the ruler? BTW, what exactly is that Patenti guy's agenda? Is it secretly destroying all minority people around the world? Or kissing up to China's with nuances? And how does that translate into his presentation of Tibetan history? I'm just curious.
LOL, are all your 11000+ posts as meaningless as this one? Protests in Tibet and Separatism: the Olympics and Beyond Letter submitted to South China Morning Post Barry Sautman, Associate Professor of Social Science at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology The protests in Lhasa and other Tibetan areas last week were organized to embarrass the Chinese government ahead of the Olympics. The Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC), the major Tibetan exile organization that advocates independence for Tibet and has endorsed the use of violent methods to achieve it, has said as much. Its head, Tsewang Rigzin, stated in a March 15 interview with the Chicago Tribune that since it is likely that Chinese authorities would suppress protests in Tibet, "With the spotlight on them with the Olympics, we want to test them. We want them to show their true colors. That's why we're pushing this." Several groups of Tibetans were likely involved in the protests, including in the burning and looting of non-Tibetan businesses and physical attacks against migrants to Lhasa. The large monasteries have long been centers of separatism, a stance cultivated by the TYC and other exile entities. Monks are self-selected to be especially devoted to the Dalai Lama. However much he may characterize his own position as seeking only greater autonomy for Tibet, monks know he is unwilling to recognize that Tibet is legitimately part of China, an act that China demands of him as a precondition to formal negotiations. Because the exile regime eschews a separation of politics and religion, many monks adhere to the Dalai Lama's stance of non-recognition of the Chinese government's legitimacy in Tibet as a religious obligation. Reports on the violence have underscored that Tibetan merchants competing with Han and Hui Chinese are especially antagonistic to the presence of non-Tibetans. Alongside monks, Tibetan merchants were the mainstay of protests in Lhasa in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This time around, many Han and Hui-owned shops were torched. Many of those involved in the arson, looting, and ethnic-based beatings are also likely to have been unemployed young men. Towns have experienced much rural-to-urban migration of Tibetans with few skills needed for urban employment. Videos of the riots in Lhasa showed almost all those involved to have been males in their teens or twenties. In that regard, the actions in Lhasa differed sharply from the broad-based demonstrations of "people power" in places like Southeast Asia. Tibetans have legitimate grievances about not being sufficiently helped to compete for jobs and in business with migrants to Tibet. There is also job discrimination by migrants in favor of family members and people from their native places. The gaps in education and living standards between Tibetans and Han are substantial and too slow in narrowing. Raising these grievances however is a very different matter from the calls for Tibet's independence that featured in last week's demonstrations. The grievances have long existed, but the protests and rioting took place this year because it is an opportune time for separatists to advance their agenda. While there is no chance that separatists will succeed in detaching Tibet from China by rioting, they believe that China will eventually collapse, like the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and they seek to establish their claim to rule before that happens. Alternatively, they think that the United States might intervene, as it has elsewhere, to foster the breakaway of regions in countries to which the US is antagonistic, e.g. Kosovo and southern Sudan. The Chinese government also fears such eventualities, however much they are unlikely to come to pass. It accordingly acts to suppress separatism, an action that comports with its rights under international law. International law also gives the Chinese government the right to regulate religious institutions to prevent them from being used as vehicles for separatism. The separatists know they can count on the automatic sympathy of Western politicians and media, who view China as a strategic economic and political competitor. Western elites have thus widely condemned China for suppressing riots that these elites would never allow to go unsuppressed in their own countries. Witness, for example, the Los Angeles riots of 1992, in which 53 people died. Western leaders urge China to exercise restraint, but neither they, nor the Dalai Lama have criticized those Tibetans who engaged in ethnic-based attacks and arsons. Western elites give the Chinese government no recognition for significant improvements in the lives of Tibetans as a result of subsidies from the China's central government and provinces, improvements that the Dalai Lama has himself admitted. Western politicians and media also consistently credit the Dalai Lama's charge that "cultural genocide" is underway in Tibet, even though the exiles and their supporters offer no credible evidence of the evisceration of Tibetan language use, religious practice or art. In fact, more than 90% of Tibetans speak Tibetan as their mother tongue. Tibet has about 150,000 monks and nuns, the highest concentration of full-time "clergy" in the Buddhist world. Western scholars of Tibetan literature and art forms have attested that it is flourishing as never before. The riots in Tibet have done nothing to advance discussions of a political settlement between the Chinese government and exiles, yet a settlement is necessary for the substantial mitigation of Tibetan grievances. For Tibetan pro-independence forces, a setback to such efforts may have their very purpose in fostering the riots.
Sorry to be intruding in this serious discussion. I am just wondering if there exists some creditable materials/evidence from the Tibetan people currently living in Tibet wanting to be rid of the Chinese rule? I am looking for some valid statistical reports, if any. If all the Tibetans do not want the Han Chinese there, perhaps the Chinese should just leave them be. If it led to the Tibetans' own extinction, it is their wish and we should respect that. On the other hand, can someone better educated and better versed suggest something that can be done peacefully? (I guess not all people are as lucky as the Czechs in their 11/89 velvet revolution.Link )
it's hard to get unbiased source unless you've lived there. the exiles are mostly upper class of the old society that had means to run away. the ones who stayed are the poor people. a lot of them welcomed the army due to the fact they are no longer slaves. a lot poor people were provided a share of things they never had. like other feudal society, only about 5% - 10% of people were upper class, the rest were dirt poor and exploited by the upper class. religion and the government was one entity, so they pretty much had their ways. again, you are never going to get unbiased information unless you've lived there. even then, you'll probably see difference between the rich and poor within themselves.
You probably should first wonder if there exist some creditable materials/evidence from the Indigenous people currently living on your Oceania land wanting to be rid of the Australian rule. If all the Indigenous do not want the Australians there, perhaps the Australians should just pack up and go back to UK.
Too bad that particular argument Deckard furiously tried to challenge is not Parenti's own opinion as a result of "playing loose with facts," but the work of two researchers, Frances Moore Lappé and Rachel Schurman. I actually read the original paper. Did you or Deckard read it before passing the judgment? LOL ... this is the tactic SamFisher is pretty good at. Um, it doesn't work that way. When the Mongol or Yuan Dynasty collapsed in the 14th century, it was supplanted by a Han-Chinese dominated Ming Dynasty, which inherited jurisdiction over the Mongol empire, including the Tibetan region. This is how Tibet, and of course Mongolia, became part of China.
I was comparing two tragic events in history, the rape of China by Japan and the rape of Tibet by China, to dispell the notion that victims of brutality and cultural genocide are better off as long they gain economically but the chief Chinese provocateurs in these threads are too ignorant to have understood the concept. His reply was something along the lines of the Chinese culture always prevails. Eh... yeah. These posters would actually have us believe that the Chinese Communists, one of the most vile and oppressive governments in modern world history, have just had the best of intentions for Tibet over the last 50 years and it's actually the spiritual leader of Buddhists all over the world who is a terrorist. Oh yeah they would also have us believe that Americans with their free press, free speech, and democracy are actually the brainwashed people in the world and the Chinese with their state run media and inprisoned thought criminals are actually the ones who are in the know on the state of world affairs. What an entertaining debate... lol.
I actually asked a serious question with no ill intent and without taking sides. If there is sufficient evidence to prove that most Tibetans are happy to have the Chinese there, talking about "Free Tibet" is probably moot. I will leave it to more qualified Aussie posters (if they did visit this thread) to answer your question regarding the Indigenous people. For your information, our prime minister Kevin Rudd has just apologised publicly to the Indigenous people regarding the stolen generation. What was done could not be undone but we are trying our very best to look after them. I hate to see the violence in Tibet. I would like to know more and gain an understanding. Sometimes getting too emotionally charged is not the best way to get to "the bottom of things" aka the Truth.
You keep trying to insult the Chinese here by comparing the wartime brutality of Japan with what's happening in Tibet. Japan was determined to exterminated all Chinese and eliminated the Chinese as a race, hence the numerous atrocities and massacres in Nanjing and other parts of China. On the other hand, Tibetans could have as many children as they wanted at the time when China was adopting the one-child policy. To compare the treatments received by the Chinese in WWII and the Tibetans is moronic. China has done wrong in Tibet, no doubt. But trying to put what China has being doing in Tibet with what Japan has done in China during WWII shows that you are either an outrageously hypocritical human being or you have lower IQ than my 2 years old cousin.
