Terrorist attack in Thailand; New Year's countdown cancelled

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Now there's a neutral source.

which is why I noted where it came from. But it quotes from many other sources.

I dont have time to go researching all the sources on society in pre-1951 Tibet. But if every poor, isolated society on earth that had a backward social system in 1950 was considered ripe for invasion, well .... Look,most such societies of that era managed to modernize without benefit of being invaded by the PRC. I have little doubt that in the absence of a PRC invasion Tibet would have modernized its society. Meanwhile the propaganda campaign is used to counter calls for international attention to the human rights situation in Tibet today.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
As for the peasants, there were reforms under way before the Chinese invasion.

Any reforms under the 14th Dalai Lama occurred under Chinese occupation, as he was not installed as head of state until after the Chinese invaded.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I have little doubt that in the absence of a PRC invasion Tibet would have modernized its society.

One merely look at places like Nepal, Bhutan, and Sikkim to see why one should have had doubts.

Meanwhile the propaganda campaign is used to counter calls for international attention to the human rights situation in Tibet today.

And the rest of China is ignored except by right-wingers using it to bash China to try and get some trade concessions. The human rights situation in Tibet is no worse than in China proper, as as one old peasant said, "I may not be free under Chinese communism, but I am better off than when I was a slave." (John Pomfret, "Tibet Caught in China's Web," Washington Post, 23 July 1999.)

And this discussion was brought up because someone claimed that Buddhism really was the religion of peace. This is just to point out that Buddhists have been as nasty as everyone else.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I have little doubt that in the absence of a PRC invasion Tibet would have modernized its society.

One merely look at places like Nepal, Bhutan, and Sikkim to see why one should have had doubts.

Meanwhile the propaganda campaign is used to counter calls for international attention to the human rights situation in Tibet today.

And the rest of China is ignored except by right-wingers using it to bash China to try and get some trade concessions. The human rights situation in Tibet is no worse than in China proper, as as one old peasant said, "I may not be free under Chinese communism, but I am better off than when I was a slave." (John Pomfret, "Tibet Caught in China's Web," Washington Post, 23 July 1999.)

And this discussion was brought up because someone claimed that Buddhism really was the religion of peace. This is just to point out that Buddhists have been as nasty as everyone else.

1. I will have to look up the conditions in Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim, but my impression is that serfdom does not exist in any of them, and that in the latter two at least theres no longing for a PRC invasion.

2. Tibet versus rest of PRC -cause, you know, while human rights are important, and ISTR posting things about human rights in China proper, its still, within limits, an internal affair of the country in question. Given Tibet ambiguous history wrt to its status in international relations, even those of us who do not call for Tibetan independence, think China has a special obligation to respect human rights and cultural autonomy in Tibet, that it does not have in undisputed parts of China.

3. THe question was whether Buddism is a religion of peace, which in the context of these question is usually about, you know, wars and terror, and OCCASIONALLY about civil conflicts, not about social systems. When the discussion of Islam as a religion of peace occurs, the discussion usually centers on the concept of Jihad, NOT on say, class relations and land holding patterns in the Ottoman empire. The Tibetans as warriors was right on topic, and i only questioned the dating of that. The issue of the Tibetan social system seemed off topic to me, and a reiteration of PRC propaganda (though Im quite aware youre not a huge fan of the PRC - since theyve become a virtually capitalist dictatorship, hardly surprising) used as a shield against the tibetan human rights campaign.

[Datajack Franit]

a Communist calling a Buddhist violent

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. I will have to look up the conditions in Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim, but my impression is that serfdom does not exist in any of them, and that in the latter two at least theres no longing for a PRC invasion.

They are hardly models of development was my point, but IIRC, Bhutan is still a theocracy where the god-king runs and owns everything and everyone. Sikkim, IIRC, was incorporated into India, and conditions in Nepal were so bad that the Maoists very nearly overthrew the government in less than ten years.

The issue of the Tibetan social system seemed off topic to me,

Perhaps. There is a tendency to equate peace with justice and tranquility. Tibet is often forward as a happy little realm where peasant and monk existed in harmony until the Chinese came. I should think a religion of peace wouldn't condone cutting off a man's hands for stealing a cow or gouging out his eyes for stealing food. That doesn't seem peaceful to me.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
a Communist calling a Buddhist violent

Until I strike you, hush.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. I will have to look up the conditions in Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim, but my impression is that serfdom does not exist in any of them, and that in the latter two at least theres no longing for a PRC invasion.

They are hardly models of development was my point, but IIRC, Bhutan is still a theocracy where the god-king runs and owns everything and everyone. Sikkim, IIRC, was incorporated into India, and conditions in Nepal were so bad that the Maoists very nearly overthrew the government in less than ten years.

Conditions are very different from Tibet. The Maoists gained power in Nepal through a combination of an autocratic (Hindu) monarchy, corrupt politicians, and, well, large-scale extortion, rape, and murder. And a popular democratic movement was responsible for the removal of Sikkim's monarchy and its accession to India.

Unlike in Tibet, there were no massacres of hundreds of Buddhist monks by the communists.

[Dr Strangelove]

IIRC wasn't one of China's pre-Mongol dynasties from Tibet? A Tibetan warlord invaded China and ousted the previous Chinese dynasty. They were Buddhists too.

At the time of WW2 most Japanese were Buddhists as well as Shinto. Their religious beliefs didn't stop the despoiling of Nanking or numerous other war crimes.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. I will have to look up the conditions in Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim, but my impression is that serfdom does not exist in any of them, and that in the latter two at least theres no longing for a PRC invasion.

They are hardly models of development was my point, but IIRC, Bhutan is still a theocracy where the god-king runs and owns everything and everyone. Sikkim, IIRC, was incorporated into India, and conditions in Nepal were so bad that the Maoists very nearly overthrew the government in less than ten years.

Per wiki Bhutan has the highest GDP per cap in south asia, despite its monarch aiming for "gross happiness" instead of GDP (or so he says) Very conservative buddist societies, but then thats what you might expect in isolated buddist mountain societies. None had land reform, and IIUC that was the principle grievance leading to peasant revolt in Nepal. Again nothing like the slavery that is mentioned in the very quotes you cite. I daresay peasants in Bhutan, Sikkim, and Nepal are not much worse off than peasants in the PRC, even now, when land privatization has benefited many peasants.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Perhaps. There is a tendency to equate peace with justice and tranquility.

Really? No justice, no peace? Know justice, no peace? Thats for granola eating lefties. While in some contexts i might use a wide definition of peace, here i was thinking only in terms of, you know, war.

Of course you cant be pacifist and punish criminals. Not even with prisons, let alone the punishments common in ALL civilizations before Jeremy Bentham invented the penitentiary. But I dont think anyone here has meant "religion of peace" to mean "religion of pacifists"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
IIRC wasn't one of China's pre-Mongol dynasties from Tibet? A Tibetan warlord invaded China and ousted the previous Chinese dynasty. They were Buddhists too.

At the time of WW2 most Japanese were Buddhists as well as Shinto. Their religious beliefs didn't stop the despoiling of Nanking or numerous other war crimes.

I think the "Active ingredient" in Japanese aggression was the emperor worshiping Shinto stuff - the Zen buddist stuff helped in dealing with where Japan found itself later on. Not that Zen was pacifist.

In any case, did Japanese ever convert folks to Shinto by the sword? Or to Buddism? Has anyone ever been converted to Buddism by the sword. You folks are conflating the use of religion as an essential element of violent aggression for the expansion of given religion, with religion simply legitmizing a society that is otherwise violent.

[snoopy369]

Tibet at no point was in control of Imperial china, to the best of my knowledge. Tibet is generally believed to have come into being as a meaningful entity in the 7th century AD, during the Tang dynasty. They defeated Chinese armies several times, but never outside of the area now considered Tibet or its immediately surrounding areas.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
a Communist calling a Buddhist violent

Wait, you wer ethe guy who instantly blamed Islam....so what are you laughing at?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
2. Tibet versus rest of PRC -cause, you know, while human rights are important, and ISTR posting things about human rights in China proper, its still, within limits, an internal affair of the country in question. Given Tibet ambiguous history wrt to its status in international relations, even those of us who do not call for Tibetan independence, think China has a special obligation to respect human rights and cultural autonomy in Tibet, that it does not have in undisputed parts of China.

Coming from you this is too ironic....