I don’t think you can use him as a credible cite. His writings have never been peer reviewed and there are persistent rumors that he may have been somewhat crazy.
True . . . but he did know something about Tibet, particularly the Plateau of Leng.
Might as well be, however lets not forget about what happens to most of the people that take him seriously. A smart man learns from his own mistakes; a wise man - from the mistakes of the smart man.
I think this is the same problem people get into when discussing Cuba and the Soviets. The assumption is that if the system sucks now, it must be a step down from what they had before. That’s a big, big leap in all three cases. Tibet was not a free, thriving nation before Chinese rule. And despite the Dali Lama schlocking nonviolence in his bid to return to being a god-king, the lamas were a standard repressive theocracy. Just like the tsars and Romanovs, you moved from a repressive regime of feudal tyranny to a repressive regime of post-modern beauracratic tyranny.
The likelihood is that the people are better educated, fed, and clothed by the repressive assholes who believe in science and progress, though freedom and prosperity would be preferable to either.
Those who have had to adjust their interpretations of data to fit Marxist, Leninist, and Maoist philosphy might beg to differ with the premise of this statement.
In 500 years, the Romanovs didn’t slaughter nearly as many people as the Stalinists. The Marxist regime was definitely a step backward.
I’m immensely skeptical, given what a poor record the commies have when comes to feeding and clothing anyone.
LonesomePolecat, good cites, you are my new hero.
Historically here is somewhat misleading. There was definite CHinese influence in Tibet from the Manchu dynasty period, but it was not exactly the case that Tibet was ruled by China. Previously, China didn’t really extend far enough to the west to claim it, except for a brief period in the Ming dynasty, IIRC.
Thanks, all! I appreciate the responses showing what China’s side of the story is.
Now, who is right is, of course, another issue and another fiery debate.
WRS
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
In 500 years, the Romanovs didn’t slaughter nearly as many people as the Stalinists. The Marxist regime was definitely a step backward.[p/quote]
Well, as long as some random guy on the internet say so, it must be true!
Have you ever actually studied feudal history? The Romanovs killed millions of Russians through starvation, assassination, and war. They were religiously oppressive, and carried out organized mass murder against the Jews. The Russian economy was based on agricultural serfdom, right up until the 20th century. Any of this sounding familiar?
The idea you are promoting is based on the false premise of comparing the Soviets to an ideal. I’ve already addressed that fallacy, in fact it was my whole point. Do try a bit harder next time.
In other words, you don’t know anything about the Romanovs and are assuming things based on your dislike of the Soviets. The dislike is justified, the assumption is not.
Feudal tyrants weren’t known for the high standards of living in their country either. Stalin was an evil bastard, but he was an evil bastard who built an industrial base and promoted public support for science and engineering. Economically he moved the Soviet Union ahead by hundreds of years.
One major difference between feudal/theocratic tyrants and fascist/communist ones is that the latter organized state-run economies for the end goal of maximizing production. The former organized state-run economies for the purpose of concentrating existing wealth. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China have all experienced explosive economic growth over the failed states they replaced.
Now, if you want a nicer comparison, look at Japan. They moved from feudalism to fascism. This resulted in a huge economic catch-up to the rest of the world. Then they blew it with militarism, the achilles heel of the tyrant state. After we kicked their ass, they embraced a free society and actually became a world leader economically. The political shifts and the economic ones are not coincidence. There are a variety of governments, and when it comes to economic results fascism/communism trumps feudalism/theocracy. It’s just that none of them make for especially nice places to live.
[Moderator Hat ON]
LonesomePolecat, your lengthy diatribe about “stupid minds”, “jerks” and “imbecilic louts of low character” has NO place here. Do not do this in this forum.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Actually from a Chinese POV this is not true, and is actually the biggest gap in understanding between Chinese and pretty much the rest of the world regarding Tibet.
Tibet was part of the Mongolian empire of Gengis Khan, as was China, and much of the world. The Chinese claim the Mongolian empire as part of Chinese history. Chinese also claim that this was a “Chinese” empire as the Mongolians are part of China. Therefore, China included and ruled Tibet during the Yuan dynasty.
Personally, I find the above hard to swallow given that China was a conquored and occupied state by Mongolia. But Chinese logic is that the entire empire was Chinese.
The Mongolians are the ones that named the Dalai Lama (means great ocean) and elevated the Dalai Lama to having both temporal as well as spritual powers over all of Tibet.
Now, IMHO, China has made a very weak arguement that they “ruled” Tibet during the Qing dynasty. I’ve seen the “proof” housed in the Lama temple in Beijing, and the Potala palace in Lhasa. There is plenty of resources to check if someone is truly interested in making up their own minds.
Clearly though from 1911 to 1950 Tibet was de facto if not de jeure independant.
But it WAS funny and obviously not meant seriously, and since the question raised in the OP was answered in the first reply this thread needed something besides a heated comparison of Stalinism and theocratic serfdom to liven it up. From my experience, after the first mention of Stalin there is nowhere for a thread to go but down and Lonesome was doing his part to forestall that inevitability.
This is one of the big stumbling blocks between China and everyone else: they’re arrogant in a weirdly self-absorbed way that even we 'Mericans can’t match. It’s not so much that they lie about things; they just sort of ignore what is in favor of a pleasing self-image.
The Romans, having conquered Greece and Macedonia, believed they were the natural heirs of all the Empire of Alexander, including Mesopotamia and Persia. The Parthians, for their part, believed they were the natural heirs of all of the old Persian Empire, including Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Asia Minor. And so the two empires fought periodically, for centuries, along the eastern frontier of Syria and Palestine, pouring untold gallons of blood into the sands without ever achieving more than a temporary shift in the border. No good ever comes of a country asserting its “historic claims” to territory.
You have a cite that has the Roman Empire laying claim to the Iraq region due to imperial inheritance? I’m actually serious here and not asking in a snarky way. Otherwise I would just attribute the conflict to competing empires and leave it at that.
I read that in Asimov’s Guide to the Bible. The Romans did conquer Mesopotamia too, under Trajan – but they didn’t keep it long.
Again, I really would recommend the movie “Hero” for some insight into the Chinese passion for their nation. It’s also a beautiful, lyrical movie.
I would reccomend that you don’t take “Asimov’s Guide to the Bible” on faith.