Tibetan monasteries 'surrounded by soldiers'

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Wezil
Alright, you asked for it.

I had to remove the indentifying text (national security interests and all that).

We have a big police boat. We don’t get to use it much though.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Lancer
Do the monks have WMDs, that's all I wanna know.

If they are anything like Blake yes, they do. They have the ability to connect anything with Buddhism.

[Wezil]

That is DND not police.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Wezil
That is DND not police.

Wow, but doesn’t Canada’s pacifist stance prevent you from projecting your overwhelming naval power?

[Heraclitus]

Well in any case Slovenian air supremacy would negate any advantage.

Also, we are more than prepared for the next time the evil Germans & Austrians try to use their Stuka dive bombers against us.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Wow, but doesn't Canada's pacifist stance prevent you from projecting your overwhelming naval power?

"pacifist"?

Since when?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Well in any case Slovenian air supremacy would negate any advantage.

Also, we are more than prepared for the next time the evil Germans & Austrians try to use their Stuka dive bombers against us.

Anyway, we should equip teh monks with The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Wezil


"pacifist"?

Since when?

Sorry forgot you have troops in Afghanistan.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by BeBro




Anyway, we should equip teh monks with The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

But will they remember to count to three?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Sorry forgot you have troops in Afghanistan.

That's just the latest. We have more of a war history than that of "peacemakers".

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Wezil


That's just the latest. We have more of a war history than that of "peacemakers".

Right, you burned the US capital to the ground in 1812.

[Wezil]

The Brits did that.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Wezil
The Brits did that.

Then why do I hear Canadians boasting about it?

Anyhow what are Canadians Brits and a few Frenchmen.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Then why do I hear Canadians boasting about it?

Because we can get away with it. Americans don't know their own history.

Anyhow what are Canadians Brits and a few Frenchmen.

I don't know? Is this a joke? What's the punchline?

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Their investment does not change the fact that China invaded and annexed Tibet. It also does not change the fact that the Tibetan people are slated for Sinicization if they remain part of China.

The second part of your comment (Sinicization) I have no issue with, and I think in fact you've probably hit the Chinese government's policy right on the head. They're likely hoping that with an influx of Chinese, the area will one day become politically "safe" enough to relax military control, where an assured majority will be in accordance with the central government's initiatives.

The first part of your statement may be factually correct but a few historical terms need to be explained first. Ethnic Han and ethnic Tibetan power struggles are nothing new, and at several points in history, China has been in control of some or all of the Tibetan plateau. (If you take a look at the various temples preserved in Beijing, you can also see the reverse was true from a cultural-religious standpoint - Tibetan Buddhism occupied a high position and several Emperors were adherents, making it at various point the de facto state religion.)

Admittedly, past occupation does not give de jure entitlement to control the area in the present day (any more than Germany has a right to control Qingdao or Britain has a right to control Hong Kong) but it's important to understand that the 1950-51 occupation did not occur in a vacuum. It was not an unprecedented act of occupation, as some might have you believe. It may well have been unwarranted, and that's a separate avenue of debate there.

Secondly, China's modern claims on Tibet (after a culmination of various satraps and suzerains anointed by Chinese emperors with varying degrees of independence) came about during the Great Game, where Britain preferred a buffer state between Russia's Central Asian holdings and its own "Jewel in the Crown" - the Indian Raj. Britain signed a treaty with the ailing Qing dynasty recognizing its purview over Tibet, which by that time the weak Qing dynasty was largely powerless to enforce.

The Communist party came to power on a platform owing in part to reuniting the country against foreign aggression. Having reclaimed Manchuria from the Japanese and the various port cities from American, German, French, and British interests, the Communists then did so to Tibet. From the central government's viewpoint, this was an exercise of reasserting power over Chinese holdings where the Qing dynasty had been unable to do so. While this does not necessarily excuse their actions, it does serve in part to explain them. Many of the sources I read wrongly state that China had no interest whatsoever in the area and that the occupation was purely a vanity move by the Communists. This is not true - even the staunchly pro-western Kuomintang government clearly demarcated Tibet as under its rule.

Further to the occupation itself is the contentious issue of the relationship between commoners and the monk caste in Tibet. Anthropologists are divided on this subject, with some holding the view of a stratified serfdom, and others holding that the monks, though separate from society, was not an oppressive ruling class and instead were a respected class (similar to what you might see in Thailand, Vietnam, or Burma today).

I don't have sufficient information to comment either way on the anthropological findings, but it may at least aid in understanding the Chinese government's actions if you take into account the prevailing goal of restoring social equality throughout the nation. (A goal that later eyes have observed as being misguided - including Mao's own successor Deng Xiaoping - but which at that time seemed infinitely preferable to what the KMT and imperial rule had to offer.) The government, pursuing a Maoist agenda at the time, declined to honor former indicia of social class - dispossessing landlords and other privileged elites. This went equally for former foreign colony as for hinterland, Han and ethnic minority alike. That Tibetan temples should have been dispossessed just like Buddhist and Christian ones elsewhere is regrettable, but not necessarily discriminatory.

All this is not meant as an excuse, just an explanation. China's policies in Tibet are showing their weaknesses far more clearly than elsewhere, and the government needs to institute better ones quickly. But the prevailing view among Western observers that Tibet was an isolated region, invaded by an aggressive neighbor without historical precedent, only serves to muddy the waters. The Chinese government did have some reasons for asserting its authority over the area, and for the policies it instituted. History may well show that these were misguided, but they were made with the judgment of the times - similar, in fact, to the British treaty formalizing Qing control.

Several Chinese academics and scholars I've spoken to privately feel that Tibet deserves greater liberties. In fact, much of the restoration work done on ruined monasteries are funded by private Chinese donors wishing to preserve cultural heritage, now that the cultureless Maoist manifesto is out of vogue. However, they take great issue with the fact that the same nations that criticize China now were the same ones that historically imposed inequitable relations on the Qing dynasty. Britain is especially egregious in their view, not least because of its century-old undemocratic occupation of Hong Kong and its final demand that the colony become democratic under Chinese rule. While they may agree in principle with calls for greater equity of treatment for Tibetans, they're turned off by what they view as a knee-jerk predilection to "blame China" without taking historical reasons into regard.