Tibet has been blessed by the change in events since its liberation by the CPC from the pseudo-religious leadership of the Dalai Lama. The growth rate was 10.9 percent over the last five years and the lives of the Tibetan people continue to be improved.
Under the Dalai Lama, Tibet was a backward and totalitarian society. A group of elite religious leaders, making up 1% of the population, ruled over the other 99%, which consisted of the serfs. Today, the Tibetan people enjoy religious freedom and economic prosperity. Without the assistance of compatriots in other provinces, Tibetans would not be enjoying their high standard of living.
Tibetians residing in India and elsewhere should join together in calling for the Dalai Lama to adhere to the “one China” principle. Tibet has been a part of China for several centuries and should remain part of China. Any action promoting “Tibetan Independence” will only harm the Tibetan people and favor the foreign aggressors.
The new railway connecting Tibet with the rest of China will further consolidate the Tibetians’ rights as Chinese citizens enjoying religious and human rights unknown under the Dalai Lama.
Blessed? Liberation? Since you obviously have access to the web try typing “Tibet” into google.
And it’s not now? Pray tell what is less totalitarian about China’s regime than Tibets (as was)? Except for the fact that before they had their own totalitarian society and now they have someone else’s.
You’re a comedy turn being put on by the admins, aren’t you? Come on, admit it. Religious freedom in Tibet?
I’m sure there will be plenty of links along shortly to disavow you of that notion. I can’t even be bothered to search the web for you - do it yourself, type in “Religious freedom in Tibet”.
The only “foreign aggressors” Tibet have are China.
"Repression of Tibetan Buddhism was particularly severe in the years following 1959. More than six thousand monasteries, temples and other cultural sites were destroyed. Many suffered sever hardship and torture in prisons, labor brigades and camps. It is estimated that 1.2 million Tibetan people died under a regime which Alexander Solzhenytsin described as “more brutal and inhumane than any other communist regime in the world.” "
“In December 1996, authorities began new crackdown on religion in Tibet codenamed “Strike Hard.” Strike Hard, ostensibly an anti-crime campaign, endeavors to have Tibetans denounce the Dalai Lama, pledge allegiance to the Beijing-appointed Panchen Lama, oppose independence for Tibet, and promise to work for the unity of the Chinese motherland. Monks and nuns have been told that if they will criticize the Dalai Lama they will be okay, but if they refuse, they are arrested and their monasteries or nunneries are closed. As a result thousands of monks and nuns have been fleeing to India. A news report from New Delhi, October 28, 1998 states that refugee arrivals from Tibet have increased tenfold in the month of October.”
This must be part of the provocations you mentioned in your “Yankee” thread. We are provoking China, by supporting the independence of Tibet**?** I remember when China took over Tibet under Mao and China certainly was not the liberating hero then or now. The history of Tibet is filled with interferences from China, but nothing to support the idea that China has any historical claim to Tibet.
Well, as China Guy and I have discussed in the past ( lost threads, I fear ), there are historical reasons to support Chinese claims to Tibet.
They’re just not terribly strong :).
It all depends how much emphasis you want to put on the rather variable state of vassalage China was under during much of Qing period ( at least the middle-Qing after the expulsion of the Dzunghars and up to the disintegration of strong central authority ). Or whether Qing claims based on Mongol claims ( the Khalka Mongols having a little earlier briefly enjoyed a suzerainty of sorts over Tibet and the KM having been peacefully absorbed by the Qing - or stretching back even further to the Chingisids, who the KM claimed to be heirs of ), have any validity.
It’s a bit shaky, since vassalage of course isn’t necessarily the same as ownership. Also said vassalage, as I mentioned, was a bit variable in character and even existence.
I’m actually not a big fan of the quasi-feudal system that Tibet languished under pre-communism. But I dare say the Chinese haven’t been exactly benevolent overlords. I despised the police state of the Shah as well - doesn’t mean Iran is overall all that much better off under the Ayatollahs.
Evidently your definition of “blessed” and the definition used by the majority of the people using English vary wildly.
Evidently your definition of “liberation” and the definition used by the majority of the people using English vary wildly.
The Communist Party of China can’t be all that shy of the “pseudo-religious” leadership of the area as they have taken quite a (unethical) hand in forcing a particular religious leader on Tibet in opposition of the will of both the legitimate ruler and the people themselves.
Well, the growth rate of the economy in “China proper” has improved quite a bit since the Communist Party of China emraced Capitalism, didn’t it now? But, wait just a second there! Isn’t Capatilism diametrically opposit of Communism? What’s going on there? Who liberated the CPC?
Also, evidently your definition of “improved” and the definition used by the majority of the people using English vary wildly. In my mind, forced intermarriage with occupying forces, forced exile from my country, and importation of foreigners for the sole purpose of causing me and my fellow citizens to be a minority in my own country do not count as improvements.
“Backward(s)” is such an outdated term, and one loaded with all kinds of baggage. Just because their economy doesn’t match what you think it should be, their society doesn’t match what you think it should be, and their attitudes don’t match what you think they should be, by no means makes that country backwards. What it does, though, is make it different than China. But that’s not so odd, now, since Tibet is not China.
I really must thank you for this comment. I had a very bad day and it really brightened it up to see that written by someone defending communist rule. But, as I’m sure many other posters would be happy to tell you, I’m kind of a fuddy, so all I did was crack a grin. Now that I have that out of the way, let me ask you something. What percentage of the people in China constitute the Politburo, who are not elected by the people and treat those people like they’re serfs?
You really should know that the people of Tibet do not enjoy religious freedom. If they did enjoy that, then the CPC would not be interfering with the selection of the Panchen Lama, they would not be hiding the legitimate successor somewhere unknown to his family and the rest of the world, and they would not have done what they did to the monasteries there.
Are you perhaps referring to the CPC’s admission in 1993 to mismanaging the country?
Or better yet, Tibetans everywhere should join together in a One Tibet policy since Tibet is a different country. BTW, the CPC did recognize that and then repudiated it in order to occupy the country.
Nice theory. Let’s check a fact or two here…if you don’t mind.
[ul]Shamelessly quoted by Monty from his lawfully purchased Microsoft Encarta '95 CD and therefore properly cited, although it is essentially a paraphrased list.
[li]Prior to the 7th Century AD, the area’s history is uncertain, but not Chinese.[/li][li]Genghis Khan (certainly not Chinese) incorporated Tibet in 1206 AD.[/li][li]1270, political power bestowed on the Lamaist leadership.[/li][li]17th Century AD, China gained sovereignty over Tibet, but lost it over the next two centuries.[/li][li]Chinese officials and occupying troops expelled in 1913.[/li][li]1950, the Communists invaded from China[/ul][/li]Bah! I’m getting tired of repeating stuff you really should be able to find out with very little effort. Suffice it to say, the CPC made agreements and then violated them with the sole idea of occupying and transforming another country.
I was under the (factual) impression that the foreign aggressors are, in fact, the Chinese troops and officials occupying the country.
Well, we do know that the Tibetans (btw, it’s not Tibetians) do not enjoy human rights, they do not enjoy religious freedom, and certainly are not treated as Chinese citizens by the CPC.
Sigh, just another Chinese intel operative spamming the boards.
Or a CIA Gray Ops trawling for insights.
Or a telemarketer doing research.
I wouldn’t count on hearing from Jiang again.
Hhhmmmm. Looks like someone in the Chinese government has discovered the internet & the SDMB. So far I’ve read two of ** Jiang’s ** threads, and they look like Chinese propaganda to me. Not that there’s anything wrong with Chinese propaganda, we do have freedom of speech here, even if China doesn’t. Maybe ** Jiang ** would like to come back to one of the threads he’s started and defend his views. Yea, right!
The following is a website with some historical background of Tibet. One of the articles is written by an American architect, Bevin Chu, the son of a high level diplomat from Taiwan.
http://www.index-china.com/index-english/Tibet-s.html
In fact, the old Tibet had no religious freedom, which is against the western democratic model. Tibetans could only be monks or serfs, to be served or to serve. There is only one religion, viz. Tibetan buddhism. Why would the west try to restore the old Tibetan rule is something to think about.
It must be clear that China has never given up control or recognized an independent Tibet ever since Genghis Kahn conquered it. The communists are not the sole people to blame.
In old Tibet, prisons were hell on earth. Serfs could be thrown in for no reason, where they were tortured, such as having their eyes being poked out.
"which is against the western democratic model. Tibetans could only be monks or serfs, to be served or to serve. There is only one religion, viz. Tibetan buddhism. Why would the west try to restore the old Tibetan rule is something to think about. "
Propaganda indeed! Hey Jiang, why don’t you just follow Nazi party WW2 tactics and drop leaflets on us telling us how bad we are for supporting evil Tibet against the poor innocent CPC who only want the best for them…
Not Genghis. The first substantive expeditions into Tibet didn’t come until 1239-1240 ( well after his death ) and it wasn’t until 1252 during the reign of his grandson Mongke that Tibet was definitively brought under Mongol influence. Even then it was administered as separate appanages from China and in fact was de facto internally autonomous, functioning as a vassal state under the rule of Red Hat sect ( Saskya-Pa ), the Mongols intervening directly in Tibetan domestic politics only in 1290 to crush a rival faction. This Yuan rule ended in about 1354 ( 1349 according to some ), a little before the Yuan dynasty was expelled from China in 1368 ( but serious revolts had begun in 1351 and they’d lost most of China by 1355 ).
The Ming relationship was far looser and Tibet was for all intensive purposes outside the sphere of Chinese political control ( though there was considerable economic trade through Sichuan and Yunnan, but other Chinese instituitions did not cross the border ), whether the Ming Emperors wished to acknowledge it or not. By contrast the relationship of Tibet to the Mongols ( particularly from the late 16th-late 17th centuries ) was quite a bit closer and at various times various parts of Tibet came under the influence of various Mongol factions. Despite stenuous Ming efforts to restrict movement on the Gansu corridor, by the 17th century the Mongol-Tibet alliance/connection was a fact of Central Asia. That didn’t end until the defeat of Galdan Khan in 1697 ( and even then things remained unsettled for decades until the final dissolution of the Dzungar state in 1758 ). So even if for some reason we werre inclined to acknowledged Yuan claims as being significant, it is arguable who were the proper successors to them - the post-Yuan Mongols or the Ming Chinese.
Qing control was loosely established in 1697, more definitively 15-20 years later, and lasted ( very weakly at times ) until the early 20th century. But it often ( especially after the Qing decline ) much firmer than the Yuan had exercised. Tibet was never organized as a normal Chinese province.
So part one ( the Chinese never gave up control ) and part three ( Genghis conquered Tibet ) of your first sentence are flawed. Part two ( China never recognized an independant Tibet ), may or may not be true, formally. But China never recognized a lot of their neighbors, so it is not overwhelmingly relevant.
As I said, feudal Tibet was not necessarily the most enlightened place in the world, but ignoring subsequent Chinese abuses and mismanagement doesn’t lend itself to a fully balanced view. Likewise, it is best to qualify historical analyses with real facts, when possible. Tibet has deep ties to China ( and vice-versa ), but that doesn’t mean Tibet is just another province that was fully assimilated centuries ago that just broke away for a time ( like Yunnan, independant until 1254 as the kingdom of Nanzhao, afterwards fully incorporated into China proper in a way that Tibet was not ).
Well, Jiang, Bevin Chu and the Taiwan view toward Tibet is hardly impartial now is it? The Taiwan Government still maintains the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission. Bevin’s stuff is as a twisted version of the “facts” as yours, or is this your factual cite for your OP. I hardly need to point out that Taiwan still claims Outer Mongolia as an inalienable part of China, which the PRC does not.
Still like to see some reasonably unbiased sources to back up your historical “facts”
**
Hmm, I see that Tammerlane has already addressed this. I would only add that even if China did claim Tibet, that is not the same thing as having legitimate justification. Heck, I can claim to be a Kennedy but that doesn’t mean I can get my hands on their money.
If one were to accept this statement on face value as correct, this would be different from China during the same time in what way? Pot, kettle, black.
How about some cite as to the percentage of population in those prisons?
Simplistic in the extreme. Nomads were not serfs. There was a nobility system. There was a serious proportion of the population that were traders. Becoming a monk was a choice and not something one was born into in a class system.
Tibet did in fact have religious freedom. Many different kinds of religions were extant in Tibet. Although certainly there were periods where members of one sect cracked down on another, and often backed by Mongolians of various stripes or Chinese.
Claiming that Tibetans now have more religious freedom than they did pre-1950 is patently rediculous. Shall we discuss the plight of Panchen Lama. Perhaps the world’s youngest political prisoner – assuming that he is still alive?
