Tibetan monasteries 'surrounded by soldiers'

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Let's face reality. Tibet has not "always" been part of China and in fact it has been independent several times. It's history is more like that of Mongolia which was sometimes part of China but more often then not independent.

Which at this point doesn't really matter much. There is no country in the world (heck, not even Taiwan) that does not recognize Chinese soverignty over Tibet at this point. And given that China is a major power with a permanent seat in the UNSC, nothing is going to change.

The likelyhood of Tibetan independence is about as likely as the independence of Kashmir at this point, or Aceh, or Mindanao, or countless other parts of bigger countries that have had their own long histories of self rule.

[DaShi]

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199902/tibet-china

Here's an interesting article that may give some people further insight into Tibet-Chinese relations. It's by Peter Hessler, who has travelled and written much about modern China.

[DanS]

Yeh, Hessler of River Town fame.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Funny, when Israel does anything like that, you scream bloody murder. When a nominally Communist government does, you make excuses.

What strikes me as odd is that China has taken a somewhat anti-Israel stance in recent years, perhaps merely because of Israel's closer historic ties to America and the Arab countries' historic ties with the Communist bloc.

The odd thing is that China gets a fair bit of its American military hardware from Israel secondhand.

[Blake]

China is pretty much stupid. There's no two ways about it. They are competing with USA for the title of most stupid and harmful country on earth. That's just plain stupid.

[Lancer]

I like China because it makes America look good.

USA! USA! USA!

[Colon™]

Originally posted by DaShi

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199902/tibet-china

Here's an interesting article that may give some people further insight into Tibet-Chinese relations. It's by Peter Hessler, who has travelled and written much about modern China.

Interesting indeed. It's true there's something askew with the typical Western stance towards Tibet. If we mostly agree on the notion that economic development is good, then why disagree with a railway to the Chinese heartland? If we broadly take a kind view on cultural diversity in the West, than why insist Tibet should remain culturally "pure"? It's quite paternalistic really.

[GePap]

Good article Dashi

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Colon™
If we broadly take a kind view on cultural diversity in the West, than why insist Tibet should remain culturally "pure"? It's quite paternalistic really.

One could say - and the article seemed to confirm that too - that China is already - willingly or not - destroying cultural diversity there. That seems also to be the line of the Dalai Lama (though something like "cultural genocide" is of course debatable). I found the references to American natives interesting. Another comparison would be colonialism, because it came certainly as "modernization" in some ways too, still often with quite bad consequences.

[Colon™]

I have the feeling you missed the point. Put it like this: if you don't find that a Chinaman opening a restaurant in Bonn is colonialism or threatening native culture, then why should it be viewed as such if he does so in Lhasa?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Colon™
I have the feeling you missed the point. Put it like this: if you don't find that a Chinaman opening a restaurant in Bonn is colonialism or threatening native culture, then why should it be viewed as such if he does so in Lhasa?

It shoudn't as such, but if it's part of a wider effort to "modernize" Bonn into something that fits more into Chinese Gov ideas, without considering the perspective of the "natives" already living in Bonn I'd say it gets another character.

[Colon™]

From the article it appears Han Chinese are migrating on their own iniative. Whether it was a intended byproduct of economic development doesn't really matter, since immigration usually goes along with it. Lamenting the influx is akin to arguing the Chinese government should strive to keep Tibet isolated and undeveloped or that it should restrict freedom of movement. Maybe it should, but most Westerners usually hold different standards.

[BeBMan]

The article also mentions that it's seen as a duty, even a sacrifice to go there.

But that's not so much my concern. I don't argue in favor of isolation, but IIRC (well, I'm a little short on time right now, so I check later) the article clearly mentioned a complete disrespect for Tibetan history and culture in many ways, both from Chinese individuals, and from Chinese policies. Only for a short period in 1989 it was different. That's IMO the main problem here, that one side just decides what's good for the rest, and then wonders why the "rest" doesn't appreciate it too much. It's bad policy, and reveals a quite limited view on what a "modern" society really means.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by BeBro
The article also mentions that it's seen as a duty, even a sacrifice to go there.

Which refers to officials, not to the greater numbers of ordinary workers:

This influx is far more significant and disruptive than the importing of Han cadres, and it's also harder to monitor. One common misperception in Western reports is that these people are sent by the government: the image is of a tremendous Han civilian army arriving to overwhelm Tibetan culture. The truth is that the government has little control over the situation. "How do you cut off the people moving out there?" asked one American who had spent much time in Tibet. "What mechanism are you going to have to prevent that? They don't have any restrictions on internal travel—and we always beat them over the head about not having those, because to institute them would be a human-rights issue."

But that's not so much my concern. I don't argue in favor of isolation, but IIRC (well, I'm a little short on time right now, so I check later) the article clearly mentioned a complete disrespect for Tibetan history and culture in many ways, both from Chinese individuals, and from Chinese policies. Only for a short period in 1989 it was different. That's IMO the main problem here, that one side just decides what's good for the rest, and then wonders why the "rest" doesn't appreciate it too much. It's bad policy, and reveals a quite limited view on what a "modern" society really means.

I'm not denying the Chinese have little respect for Tibetan culture, but there's a strong whiff of romanticism and double standards revolving the issue.

[Alinestra Covelia]

The same arguments against the Chinese government's policies today could be made against any given type of globalization. In fact, many mainland Chinese are resentful of what they view as the erosion of their culture by Hollywood movies, Western-influence pop songs, and South Korean soap operas.

Granted, there's a world of difference between losing your culture because your youth are pining for Western or foreign things, and losing it because a foreign army bulldozed your temple, as happened in the 1950s. But the modern Chinese government policy towards Tibet has generally tried to be softly-softly on military power and much more economic in its influence. The fact that the economic policies might have been crude or clumsy is less attributable to outright discrimination and more attributable to the command style economy common to any socialist government. It's regrettable that it created social schisms and inequalities, and supremely regrettable that it caused the violence and bloodshed on both sides.

It's a similar argument you could make when the race riots erupted in various cities at various times in America. The system may have failed black citizens the same way the Chinese system has failed its Tibetan citizens - take a look in any given city and the types of work done by one segment may be very clearcut and separated from the other. (I have a reminder of this every day when I go to my law school, where the majority of the professors are white and the majority of the cleaning staff are black.) Is this intentional discrimination by the government? Perhaps a long time ago, it might have been, but today it's less an intentional goal, and more a regrettable result of years of indifferent government policy. Of course, in China, the time scale is much shorter, as Tibet's grievances stem from the 1950s instead of the pre-Emancipation years of slavery. But I'd say the current pro-capitalist Chinese government leadership has much less to do with the ideologically-driven oppression of the Maoist days, and is currently much more interested in maintaining peace and profits at all costs.