Dalai Lama was a slave master, China tells Obama

When you talk too die hard marxests they will tell you Tibet was a fudel system and had no right too exist and what a great thing it was to destroy a culture in the name of socialism. But then they will tell you the Europeans deatroyed the American Indian culture and they are evil for doing so.

Europeans nearly wiped out the American Indians, who didn't have serfdom. Negligible differences, right?

The truth is they have no real Idea of what the Tabitan culture was about and a sprouting political ecnomic terms to validate there horrific acts.\

O the irony: it's "Tibetan."

Gee, somehow I must have missed where America invaded Massachusetts like China invaded Tibet in 1950.

the indians living in mass. were sure invaded and conquered by europeans, and later americans. The story is about the same. Weak, primitive cultures are defeated by more advanced, powerful cultures.

Gee, somehow I must have missed where America invaded Massachusetts like China invaded Tibet in 1950.

True, the invasions weren't precisely the same. The Chinese used soldiers instead of smallpox.

dsanthony, it's refreshingly surprising that we've actually found a point of agreement on politics. :-P

Somehow I'm doubting that dsanthony was referring to the indigenous population of Massachussets in the original post, as that wasn't explicitly mentioned (and I'm not a mind-reader).

But, if we're going at it from that angle, sure, the Americans - or British at that time - certainly invaded, and engaged in a process of cultural oppression, genocide, and colonisation - just like Communist China.

Weak, primitive cultures are defeated by more advanced, powerful cultures.

Guns and soldiers make a culture better - is that your argument?

Somehow I'm doubting that dsanthony was referring to the indigenous population of Massachussets in the original post, as that wasn't explicitly mentioned

And he then explicitly clarified in 7.2. As such, any doubt in the present tense seems rather foolish.

Guns and soldiers make a culture better - is that your argument?

What makes a culture better is entirely subjective. However, it simply takes an amusingly heavy dose of hypocrisy to wax morally superior about an activity which Western powers have refined to a veritable art form, then tried to whitewash when it became politically inconvenient.

Clarifying after a comment has been made when such a "clarification" completely changes the meaning of the comment, cannot be regarded as an honest attempt at actual clarification.

Unless, of course, you'll accept my "clarification" that in post #7.1, I was actually talking about last night's hockey game.

A pleasure as always, Jack.

Clarifying after a comment has been made when such a "clarification" completely changes the meaning of the comment, cannot be regarded as an honest attempt at actual clarification.

So you absolutely knew the meaning of the first comment? And here I thought you said you only had doubts and that you weren't a mind reader.

I suppose I shouldn't've expected anything but knee-jerk self-superiority from you.

I only knew the meaning so far as it was stated. Wasn't looking any further than that. If they were referring to an indigenous people instead of the state... then they should have said that. But it seems self-evident that they weren't referring to indigenous peoples.

I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything but knee-jerk self-superiority from you.

Unless you want to actually discuss the topic at hand, I'm not particularly interested to humour your attempt to derail this thread.

I only knew the meaning so far as it was stated. Wasn't looking any further than that.

Massachusetts could refer to the current political state, the original political colony, or the geographic region, especially when compared or contrasted with Tibet's situation. I'm glad you didn't look any further than that... oh wait.

If they were referring to an indigenous people instead of the state... then they should have said that. But it seems self-evident that they weren't referring to indigenous peoples.

Yes, self-evident to you but not the original commenter. That totally makes sense.

I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything but knee-jerk self-superiority from you.

Creative.

Unless you want to actually discuss the topic at hand, I'm not particularly interested to humour your attempt to derail this thread.

Cute projection, noting that you explicitly only addressed the first half of comment 7.5. Methinks you have your pronouns confused a tad. ;-)

A: I have jh on ignore, so I'm only reading half of your discussion... but I have found civil debate with him impossible in the past.

I don't know how you could read my first comment as anything but a comparison between the conquest of the cultures that once lived in "massachusetts" with the conquest of the culture of tibet.

Weak, primitive cultures are defeated by more advanced, powerful cultures.

Yes, both the tibetan and american indian cultures were primitive and backward. They have been romanticized by popular culture, but that romantic image bears little resemblance to reality.

Increasingly Jack seems to regard Newsvine as a way to blow off steam rather than actually discuss the topic at hand. The derail he's focusing upon isn't something I'm going to humour.

As for your comment re: Massachussets, I wasn't seeing any comparision to the initial contact and conquest of indigenous peoples by British colonists hundreds of years ago.

I'm wondering what romanticized image it is that you believe I - or anyone else - has about the Tibetans. And exactly what that has to do with the fact that China's invasion was - and is - illegal, and that the Tibetans deserve their sovereignty as a people, regardless of our perceptions about their levels of civilisation.

Statehood is not only for industrialised peoples.

I'm wondering what romanticized image it is that you believe I - or anyone else - has about the Tibetans.

An illusion very similar to the myth of the "noble savage" often accorded to Native Americans, that of some grandly harmonious and peaceful people without the trappings of corruption and oppression.

And exactly what that has to do with the fact that China's invasion was - and is - illegal, and that the Tibetans deserve their sovereignty as a people, regardless of our perceptions about their levels of civilisation.

Illegal according to which set of laws?

Also, regarding deserving sovereignty, what are your specific criteria? Do the Basques deserve full sovereignty if they were to break away? Do Texans? (After all, Texas was once independent)

Statehood is not only for industrialised peoples.

Nor is it only for trendy geopolitical underdogs. It's for groups that can earn it through their own actions.

I wasn't asking you, Huang. I was asking dsanthony. I can see how you could honestly have been confused. But I don't romanticize the Tibetans. They're human beings, like the rest of us, who share the same good qualities and bad qualities the rest of us have.

Illegal according to which set of laws?

International law. Brush up on it.

Also, regarding deserving sovereignty, what are your specific criteria? Do the Basques deserve full sovereignty if they were to break away? Do Texans? (After all, Texas was once independent)

Feel free to consult my bio. I'm an indigenist.

It's for groups that can earn it through their own actions.

How do they earn it, in your opinion?

I wasn't asking you, Huang. I was asking dsanthony.

I wasn't aware this was a private conversation.

But I don't romanticize the Tibetans. They're human beings, like the rest of us, who share the same good qualities and bad qualities the rest of us have.

Yes, with a long history of oppressive serfdom and tyrannical rule.

International law. Brush up on it.

Which one, specifically?

Feel free to consult my bio. I'm an indigenist.

Ah, so you just as vehemently support giving Canada, the US, Australia, Taiwan, and Japan (among others) back to aboriginal cultures and exiling their modern gov'ts? Funny how you don't ever seem to mention such grand ideals.

Further, indigeny is not set-in-stone. Populations constantly move, as evidenced by humanity's endless history of back-and-forth conquest. How far are you willing to dial back the clock to assign "true" indigeny (especially in the case of European and African nations)?

How do they earn it, in your opinion?

By fighting for it, either militaristically, politically, or economically, not whitewashing your history and mewling at arm's length about your grand plight.

Which one, specifically?

There's a huge amount of information about Tibet and China out there. If you're asking me, it's either to waste my time if I'm foolish enough to attempt to humour this disingenuous request, or because you don't know anything about the topic, in which case it would also be a waste of my time to attempt to educate you.

Try Google. I'm not your personal librarian.

Ah, so you just as vehemently support giving Canada, the US, Australia, Taiwan, and Japan (among others) back to aboriginal cultures and exiling their modern gov'ts?

I have no problem paying taxes to indigenous government. I have no problem abiding by their laws.

How far are you willing to dial back the clock to assign "true" indigeny (especially in the case of European and African nations)?

That question doesn't have any meaning.

By fighting for it

War is peace, slavery is freedom, eh?

But even according to your twisted view of how a people would earn their sovereignty, the Tibetans qualify. They've certainly never given up politically agitating for their independence.

There's a huge amount of information about Tibet and China out there. If you're asking me, it's either to waste my time if I'm foolish enough to attempt to humour this disingenuous request, or because you don't know anything about the topic, in which case it would also be a waste of my time to attempt to educate you.

Try Google. I'm not your personal librarian.

I apologize for asking you to support your claims. I should know better than to think that your claims aren't super-special enough to warrant automatic credibility.

I have no problem paying taxes to indigenous government. I have no problem abiding by their laws.

You didn't answer my question regarding active support for such reform, instead dodging with a declaration of absolutely passive compliance. Do you clamor for aboriginal rule of the US, Canada, and Australia as fervently as you presume to take up the Lama's cause?

That question doesn't have any meaning.

Actually, it's one of the very first issues raised in the Wikipedia article for "indigenism."

War is peace, slavery is freedom, eh?

Cute non sequitur.

But even according to your twisted view of how a people would earn their sovereignty, the Tibetans qualify. They've certainly never given up politically agitating for their independence.

Neither have the Basques. Do you similarly think that Spain should simply hand over half of its real estate simply because the Basques have been whiny for a while? It's a simple yes or no question.

I find it amusing that you so fervently refuse to affirm that you have a self-consistent stance.

I'm not your personal librarian. There's no need for me to "prove" something that is common knowledge for those allegedly familiar with the subject at hand.

Do you clamor for aboriginal rule of the US, Canada, and Australia as fervently as you presume to take up the Lama's cause?

Fervently? Really? I wasn't aware that I was fervently promoting any cause here at Newsvine.

But, to answer your question, yes, I'm a strong advocate and supporter for indigenous sovereignty worldwide.

Actually, it's one of the very first issues raised in the Wikipedia article for "indigenism."

Feel free to clarify it to make it more relevant to the topic at hand.

Neither have the Basques. Do you similarly think that Spain should simply hand over half of its real estate simply because the Basques have been whiny for a while? It's a simple yes or no question.

Firstly, the Basques aren't asking for half of Spain. The Basques' traditional territory is actually quite small (link) within Spain. Secondly, if the Basques vote to declare independence, yes, I believe that this should be recognized by the international community and I believe that Spain should not oppose it in any way.

I'm not your personal librarian. There's no need for me to "prove" something that is common knowledge for those allegedly familiar with the subject at hand.

So, yet another dodge when asked for evidence supporting your claim. Noted.

Fervently? Really? I wasn't aware that I was fervently promoting any cause here at Newsvine.

Most people don't endlessly and snippily moralistically browbeat casually. Then again, perhaps that does not hold true for you.

But, to answer your question, yes, I'm a strong advocate and supporter for indigenous sovereignty worldwide.

Yet there's curiously no apparent evidence for this supposed evenhandedness. Curious.

Feel free to clarify it to make it more relevant to the topic at hand.

Essentially, how far back are you, as a self-proclaimed indigenist, pegging indigeny at? From the Wikipedia article (wowzers, look at how I used a link and a quote to actually support my claim!):

The question of who is indigenous may be less than straightforward, depending on the region under consideration. Thus, for the New World, in the Americas as well as in Australia, the question is rather straightforward, while it is less easy to answer in the case of South Africa.

So, since you apparently think the answer to "who is indigenous?" is so blatantly obvious as to make the question dismissively useless or entirely irrelevant, how do you personally pick where your absolutely crystal-clear indigeny line is?

Secondly, if the Basques vote to declare independence, yes, I believe that this should be recognized by the international community and I believe that Spain should not oppose it in any way.

Fair enough. I appreciate the self-consistency and actual use of supporting link there. Let's take it one step further:

Does the same go for any attempts by the aboriginal cultures of North America and Australia (the continents with the simplest histories of indigeny) to stage wholesale takeover/exile of the US and Canadian governments?

Oh, and one more thing. You posed a general statement regarding "statehood" and "sovereignty" early in this discussion about Tibet. You do realize, as someone who's allegedly familiar with the subject at hand, that the Dalai Lama has explicitly denied that he wants Tibetan independence, right?

I'm going to ignore the personal sniping. Irrelevant.

Yet there's curiously no apparent evidence for this supposed evenhandedness. Curious.

If you're really so curious, you could take the time to look through the articles I've posted regarding stateless minorities here at Newsvine. I even have two groups dealing with a couple of the world's largest stateless groups: the Kurds and the Uyghurs.

It's curious that you didn't notice that.

Asking about South Africa isn't really relevant to the topic at hand - that's derailing - which is Tibet. Try focusing on the topic at hand.

Does the same go for any attempts by the aboriginal cultures of North America and Australia (the continents with the simplest histories of indigeny) to stage wholesale takeover/exile of the US and Canadian governments?

I'm not certain that they'd have to attempt any takeover or exile any governments to achieve sovereignty. That's a rather simplistic take - that sovereignty for one nation automatically equals the complete destruction of another.

The Dalai Lama's a great person and religious figure. However, as an indigenist, I support the Tibetan's people quest for sovereignty. I don't automatically throw my support completely behind even the most charasmatic of figures.

I'm going to ignore the personal sniping. Irrelevant.

...

It's curious that you didn't notice that.

Cute.

Asking about South Africa isn't really relevant to the topic at hand - that's derailing - which is Tibet. Try focusing on the topic at hand.

I never asked about South Africa -- that was a direct quote from Wikipedia. Learn to read.

Of course, if South Africa is magically off-topic, then so are your views on the Kurds and Uighurs, but you had no qualms whipping those out.

I'm not certain that they'd have to attempt any takeover or exile any governments to achieve sovereignty. That's a rather simplistic take - that sovereignty for one nation automatically equals the complete destruction of another.

When coming from the perspective of indigenism, and noting the current occupation of historical American Indian lands (nearly the entirety of North America) by foreigners, then yes, indigenism would require advocacy of wholesale replacement, unless you think that having a few scattered reservations counts as sovereignty for the indigenous peoples of North America.

Further, I didn't say destruction. I simply said takeover. Try not to look further than "the meaning so far as it was stated."

The Dalai Lama's a great person and religious figure. However, as an indigenist, I support the Tibetan's people quest for sovereignty.

Noting your opposition to my idea that indigenism mandates total control of historical lands by indigenous peoples, would you be satisfied if China simply gave Lhasa (or any arbitrary patch of real estate in the TAZ) to an independent Tibetan government? If not, how do you reconcile that with your earlier statement about not requiring American Indian takeover of North America?

Also, I find it rather curious that you're clamoring for something more than what the religious, spiritual, and political leader and representative of the Tibetan people is asking for, and presuming to do so on behalf of Tibet.

Ok, the "learn to read" comment is where I stopped reading. If you can't bother with basic civility, I won't bother engaging you further in discourse.

Does anyone (DS Anthony OR Washington_Park) have PROOF of what they are saying? Are there books on Tibet from this point of view (From ANYONE besides CHINESE???)

Do you have any "PROOF" of the opposing view from a source not affiliated with the Free Tibet movement headed by the Dalai Lama? (Also, I don't think dsanthony is Chinese)

but the only time I hear this kind of garbage is when it comes out of Chinese mouths!!!

And everyone knows that Chinese people can't be trusted, but Tibetans are perfectly objective about Tibet.

The Dalai Lama is the LIVING EMBODIMENT of the buddha... (Whether YOU believe it or NOT is NOT the point) as long as the Tibetan's believe it!!! The fact that you can't understand this mindset is YOUR PROBLEM!!! You're either westerners who are convinced that the only way is YOUR way OR you are communist sympathisers!!! Either way you are looking at it from the WRONG perspective!

Glad to know that you'll simply sweep anything inconvenient to your own point under the rug, falling back to an infantile argument based upon religious proclivity.

Well, there are of course the "Ahnenerbe" expeditions of the 1930's that are showing pictures of the conditions at the time, with descriptions by the participants about pretty harsh types of ruler-ship and absolute powers by the Lama and the upper Tibetan class.

But the question is then again; will you accept those sources as "proof"?

An intro on Youtube is here: The Nazi Expeditions to Tibet

To my knowledge, the Nazis were the only non-Chinese to have entered Tibet before 1950 and during the lifetime of the present DL.

But - and this is crucial: In 1950 the Dalai Lama was 15 years old. Hardly a person to step up on the plate against the religious establishment. Therefore, with regards to the present DL, the Chinese comments are a bit hollow.

On other hand, well, it is considered today common history account that Tibet was a brutal absolutistic society before the Chinese entered - and it is up to each and every to judge if the Chinese entered Tibet for the purpose of liberating the Tibetans, or for "other reasons" (uhum, I know what I think about it, but nevertheless, let's leave that open). But this "common history account" is one of Chinese on one hand and Nazis on the other. The last DL had much better ties to the Germans than to others who wanted to enter the place. It was widely considered a "forbidden country" at the time.

I saw on the a documentary on the History Channel about the DL... Chairman Mao of China met with him (Supposedly with "Good intentions")... but when Mao leans in and whispers in the ear of a RELIGIOUS LEADER "Of course... you KNOW... ALL religion is POISON!" According to the documentary this is why the DL went into exile...

I don't KNOW what happened... I only have what I have seen on these documentaries to go by...

But let's just say that China's record of observing SO MANY HUMAN RIGHTS of those that don't do as they say *SMIRK* makes China NOT EXACTLY ABLE TO STAND ON ANY MORAL HIGH GROUND!

SO.... Jack Huang... Washington_Park... DsAnthony... you're all saying the Tibetan's are BETTER OFF under the rule of the Chinese?

REALLY???

But let's just say that China's record of observing SO MANY HUMAN RIGHTS

Nope, China does not have a good human rights record. I agree.

of those that don't do as they say *SMIRK*

Oh, you mean like the US's moral lecturing whilst torturing extra-legal detainees at Gitmo? That kind of "those that don't do as they say *SMIRK*"?

makes China NOT EXACTLY ABLE TO STAND ON ANY MORAL HIGH GROUND!

China does not presume to lecture from up on high about other nations' human rights records. In that respect, the US has it soundly beaten in the hypocrisy department.

SO.... Jack Huang... Washington_Park... DsAnthony... you're all saying the Tibetan's are BETTER OFF under the rule of the Chinese?

REALLY???

Feel free to feign indignant incredulity when you demonstrate that you have any knowledge of what Tibet was like before 1950. Till then, your arsenal of hectoring tools appears to be a one-trick pony of emptily trendy moral posturing. My suggestion: diversify.

Oh, you mean like the US's moral lecturing whilst torturing extra-legal detainees at Gitmo? That kind of "those that don't do as they say *SMIRK*"?

Jack: WHAT does that have to do with the point at hand? WE WEREN'T DISCUSSING THE US!! STAY ON TOPIC!

China does not presume to lecture from up on high about other nations' human rights records. In that respect, the US has it soundly beaten in the hypocrisy department.

RIGHT... they don't LECTURE them... the people just MYSTERIOUSLY disappear!!! But that was OBVIOUSLY their OWN FAULT right???

Feel free to feign indignant incredulity when you demonstrate that you have any knowledge of what Tibet was like before 1950. Till then, your arsenal of hectoring tools appears to be a one-trick pony of emptily trendy moral posturing. My suggestion: diversify.

HOW OLD DO YOU THINK I AM? I mean OBVIOUSLY you're PSYCHIC... you just told me I am "Feigning indignity"

I ASKED YOU A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION... AND BECAUSE I DIDN'T GO WITH WHAT YOU SAID YOU JUMPED DOWN MY THROAT... hmmm

sounds like you may be in the Employ of the Chinese Government eh?

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIBET WAS LIKE... AS I SAID "ALL I KNOW ABOUT IT IS WHAT I SEE ON THE DOCUMENTARIES I WATCH!"

but since you can't be bothered to answer my question without resorting to a PISSING contest... forget it!!! Obviously you're more interested in telling us what a GREAT GUY chairman Mao was!

WOW

BEAM ME UP SCOTTY... THERE IS NO INTELLIGENT LIFE HERE!!!

I mean OBVIOUSLY you're PSYCHIC... you just told me I am "Feigning indignity" I ASKED YOU A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION... AND BECAUSE I DIDN'T GO WITH WHAT YOU SAID YOU JUMPED DOWN MY THROAT... hmmm

"REALLY????" is a simple question without any rhetorical loading? You keep thinking that.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIBET WAS LIKE... AS I SAID "ALL I KNOW ABOUT IT IS WHAT I SEE ON THE DOCUMENTARIES I WATCH!"

So why the *SMIRK*-ing self-superior smarm?

RIGHT... they don't LECTURE them... the people just MYSTERIOUSLY disappear!!!

Yep, just like US rendition to Gitmo, except that the US does lecture as well. Do you *SMIRK* (or perhaps *UBER-SMIRK*) about the US, as well? I'm simply wondering if your apparent anger regarding China's human rights record has a modicum of moralistic self-consistency, or if you're simply hopping on the China-bashing bandwagon.

Obviously you're more interested in telling us what a GREAT GUY chairman Mao was!

Actually, you mentioned him, not me.

BEAM ME UP SCOTTY... THERE IS NO INTELLIGENT LIFE HERE!!!

He said in all-caps. ;-)

So in OTHER WORDS JACK... no... you don't have anything for me to "enlighten myself" on this subject... you just want to tell me that China is BAD... but SO is the U.S.... OK... thanks... (I REALLY hope you never plan on being a parent) It's OBVIOUS you're not a TEACHER... at least I HOPE NOT!

(Here comes another DEFLECT) right JACK!

(I REALLY hope you never plan on being a parent) It's OBVIOUS you're not a TEACHER... at least I HOPE NOT!

I don't presume to attempt to teach anything about China to someone who whips out "OMFG, you must be a commie or paid commie shill!" when met with disagreement. There's no use trying to lead a blindly hydrophobic horse to water.