21st Centuary Socialism

　　　　　　　　　 Free Tibet?
Y E S!

All forms of violence, especially war, are totally unacceptable as means to settle disputes between and among nations, groups and persons.
~Dalai Lama


In the April 23, 2008, Japan Times, I read this headline: Dalai Lama seeks help from U.S.
So, let me get this straight, one of the greatest pacifists in the world is asking for help from the most warmongering country in the world, the U.S.A. Ha!

On December 17, 1984, 143 member-states endorse UNGA Res.39/161B, commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial countries and Peoples. The U.S. alone casts an opposing vote.
(And this is one time among many others)

I was never a big fan of that impotent, chubby, bald guy called the Dalai Lama, prancing around in his colorful nightgown. But this tops it all. He is asking for help from the most genocidal country in the history of mankind, the U.S.A, the greatest purveyor of violence on Earth, according to M.L. King. The Dalai Lame is asking for help from the U.S.A, the country that has just caused the death of over a million Irakis (and counting), in yet another illegal war, in an attempt to rob them of their oil.

When I say I was never a big fan of the Dalai Lama, I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one. According to the bits I’ve read, even the younger generation of Tibetans themselves are fed up with him and his impotent ways of dealing with the Chinese ogre. The younger generation of Tibetans are willing to put up a real fight against the Chinese imperialists. Yes, Chinese imperialists! Imperialism is not something that belongs exclusively to the Right. The Soviet Union was an imperialist dictatorship. As for because of my being on the Left I should automatically sympathize with the “communist” China, give me break!
China is as communist as that [DELETED BY EDITORS] Benedict in the Vatican.

Let me make something clear: I am for free Tibet! Tibetans should fight by any means necessary to get free of more than 50 years of Chinese colonial rule!

Now, about all those Western protesters, trying to extinguish the Olympic flame on its way to China or whatever shithole it’s headed for, as far as I am concerned they can piss on it. Where were those Western protesting angels who are so (suddenly) concerned with the plight of the Tibetans, where were they when the flame of shame was heading for Atlanta, Georgia in 1996 into the bloody hands of Uncle Sam? Why weren’t they demanding freedom for Hawaii or its other colonies? Why weren’t they demanding a halt to U.S.A’s support for apartheid Israhell against a free Palestine, its continous bombing of Irak and genocidal economic sanctions against Irak that killed 1.6 million Irakis including 600.000 Iraki children? Not to mention the 1984 Olympics held in Los Angeles.

On April 4, 1984, 13 of 15 Security Council member-states endorse draft res.S/16463, condemning the U.S. policy of aggression towards Nicaragua as violating international law. The U.S. employs its veto to override them (final vote: 13-1-1).

And then what do you think happened? The U.S. went on to get 83 gold medals. Bravo! These are just two examples of Western deadly hypocrisy, not even the tip of the iceberg.
So, why only Tibet? Why suddenly now? What is so special about Tibet? Is it because of that “special spiritual connection” that the empty white Westerner (he thinks) has with Tibet? The empty white vegetarian Westerner would rather have a gentle, cute little Tibetan monk at his/her dinner table than a Fedayin (Palestinian freedom fighter) with his/her head wrapped in a kuffiya holding a Kalashnikov, right? How deep can cowardice and hypocrisy go?

Why is China being suddenly demonized? I mean, what do you expect from a dictatorship when the greatest democracy in the world, the U.S.A, is running a gulag called Guantanamo on stolen land from Cuba?
And, what is it with the Olympics anyway? China should never have gotten them in the first place! None of the Western powers should be allowed anywhere near the Olympic flame, either! Hell, the Olympics should be abolished altogether! It has become painfully ridiculous, to say the least, to hold such an event when the great majority of the population in the world lives in misery, when between 25 000 and 30 000 people are dying daily of hunger in the 21st century. As if there weren’t enough sports on TV already to keep people dumb, we need some more Olympic crap and let us rejoice when instead we should be screaming at the top of our lungs at the injustice that surrounds us!

The Western governments are in no position to criticize China. It’s like a rapist criticizing another rapist. They criticize China but keep doing business with it. Doing business with China is much more profitable than trying to get justice for Tibet. No wonder this injustice has been going on for more than 50 years. Remember how the West profited from its relationship with white apartheid South Africa that lasted up to the mid-nineties?! And Mandela spent almost 30 years in prison so that the West could continue doing business with a bunch of white racists. And they even gave the Nobel Peace Prize to de Klerk who, in a just world, shoul have ended up on Robben Island.

“I was called a terrorist yesterday, but when I came out of jail, many people embraced me, including my enemies, and that is what I normally tell other people who say those who are struggling for liberation in their country are terrorists. I tell them that I was also a terrorist yesterday, but, today, I am admired by the very people who said I was one” Mandela

Socialist/Communist governments cannot take sides with China just out of leftwing solidarity and for the sake of opposing the imperialist West. Peoples do have the right to self-determination!

Although China may be an important business partner of the West, it is mainly seen as a rival. If you look at the map of the world, China is almost totally surrounded by U.S. military bases or military installations.
To get back to the good-for-nothing Dalai Lama, he has done more harm than good to the Tibetan cause. By playing by the Western rules which always demand peaceful methods of resistance on the part of the oppressed peoples whom the West is raping (Look at what has happened to Suu Kyi in Myanmar. Fallen into oblivion. Where is the Western cavalry?), the Dalai Lama and his Western “supporters” have allowed Tibetan culture to go almost extinct, particularly the Tibetan language. In Tibet right now, there are more Chinese than Tibetans, millions were forced to flee, Chinese businesses, casinos, departments stores, brothels, luxurious hotels are flourishing and out of hundreds of Tibetan temples, there are only a few left, among other things. So, what are the D. Lama’s achievements beside a few pictures of him with Richard Gere and Stephen Segal?

The Dalai Lama should be pushed aside by the younger generation of Tibetans. He could easily find a lucrative job as a spiritual guide to the Hollywood lost souls. Tibet should establish stronger ties with the rest of the oppressed third world, arm itself and put up a resistance fight against the Chinese colonizers.

To me, China has become just another player in the capitalist game so it might as well go down. I just hope it takes the West with it. Then maybe we’ll have some peace.
To the West: Fuck off!
To the Dalai Lama: “There is no such thing as part freedom.” Mandela
To the Western hypocrite protesters: where is your (even spiritual) indignation about the Irakis, Palestinians, Chechens, Kurds, Africa, and many, many, many others?
As for the Olympic flame….well, to the flames!

Dejan Pasic
3/5/2008

[Note by editors: Dejan, we request that you do not to post libellous remarks on this forum.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2008 11:24PM by ahab.

Hi Dejan.

Firstly, you have made many factual errors. It would be too tedious to go into them in detail- in any case, most of these errors are cleared up by the Hilary Keenan article 'The unusual suspect' in the main section of this website.

However I will mention two of these errors. You claim: "...the Dalai Lama and his Western “supporters” have allowed Tibetan culture to go almost extinct, particularly the Tibetan language."

The Dalai Lama can be rightly blamed for many things, but this is not one of them. Firstly, because the Dalai Lama is not in power in Tibet. Secondly because there is no 'almost extinction' of the Tibetan culture. The Tibetan language is the majority language in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and it is the main language used in most schools. Also, in the TAR there are 46,000 Buddhist monks, an extremely high number of religious full-timers by international comparison.

You also assert that "millions were forced to flee". Presumably you mean millions of Tibetans under Chinese 'oppression'; if so, this is sheer fantasy. Even the 'Free Tibet Campaign' claims merely that 80,000 Tibetans went into exile.

May I also refer you to a very serious problem with your thesis. You argue for "the right to self-determination!", and you also say: "In Tibet right now, there are more Chinese than Tibetans". It is certainly true that in the 'Greater Tibet' area, over which the 'Tibetan Government in Exile' seeks authority, that ethnic Tibetans are a minority.

So, what would self-determination mean & how would it be expressed? One way of determining whether the people who live in 'Greater Tibet' want independence from China would be to arrange a referendum. How would most people vote? According to you, the majority are of Chinese ethnicity, so I do not suppose that you would imagine that there would be a majority for independence from China.

Or perhaps you have another way of deciding the issue.

Last but not least. You say: "Hell, the Olympics should be abolished altogether! It has become painfully ridiculous, to say the least, to hold such an event when the great majority of the population in the world lives in misery..."

Well, as a wise man observed, 'man does not live by bread alone'. People have always enjoyed participating in & observing cultural activities, of which sport is one of many.

Hi ahab
First of all: Who the heck is Hilary Keenan?
You are saying there many factual errors in what I wrote about Tibet and you are basing your whole argument on one single person, this H. Keenan. How about some more research before barking and biting. You didn't say one word in favor of Tibet's independence or to condemn China.
Tibet is not Chinese, it does not belong to China, just like New Caledonia doesn't belong to France or Hawaii to the Yanquis or Ireland to the Brits or Guantanamo to Uncle Sam....and many, many, many other cases.
Down with any kind of imperialism! Western or Communist!
As for the Olympics, yes, to the flames! That's all we need, more distraction from the sufferings of this world.
Now, you have deleted a part of what I wrote about that parasite Benedict in the Vatican and I've noticed there is some censorship going on on your website.
You would fit right in in China.
Tibet is a colony of China just like the places I enumerated above.
So, free Tibet!
Dejan

Dejan- if you need to ask "Who the heck is Hilary Keenan?", and even "How about some more research before barking and biting", then you clearly don't read the main section of this website. The Hilary Keenan article entitled 'The unusual suspect', which you obviously have not read (otherwise you would not have made the factual errors which appeared in your first post) is extremely well researched, and the information on which it is based is all in the public domain.

If you require more detailed info, specifically repudiating the main allegations made by the 'free Tibet' campaign, you should read Barry Sautman's 'Tibet: Myths and Realities', which you can find here:

[www.marxmail.org]

Thanks but again you are avoiding my main point which is:
" You didn't say one word in favor of Tibet's independence or to condemn China.
Tibet is not Chinese, it does not belong to China, just like New Caledonia doesn't belong to France or Hawaii to the Yanquis or Ireland to the Brits or Guantanamo to Uncle Sam....and many, many, many other cases.
Down with any kind of imperialism! Western or Communist!"

Put away what you've read and tell me where YOU stand.
Dejan

OK. To break down your "main point".

"You didn't say one word in favor of Tibet's independence or to condemn China."

That's true. I didn't say one word in favor of Tibet's independence or to condemn China.

"Tibet is not Chinese, it does not belong to China, just like New Caledonia doesn't belong to France... etc etc"

OK, that's what you say. But at no stage have you advanced any arguments in support of your position. In your first post, at least you put forward some 'facts'- although these turned out to be false. Now you seem to be relying purely on the power of analogy, without any attempt to show how or why the China/Tibet situation is "just like" the other situations which you mention.

"Down with any kind of imperialism! Western or Communist!"

I don't regard China as a Communist country, so I don't quite get your point here.

"Put away what you've read..."

So you are in rebellion against knowledge? Ignorance as blissful militancy?

"...tell me where YOU stand."

This is not an abstract question. The re-emergence of multipolarity helps Third World countries to develop more independence from the US-led bloc, it enables Cuba to survive, and it allows Venezuela & other countries to move towards socialism.

The game of the USA is to frustrate this process. Hence their efforts to undermine the territorial integrity of the People's Republic of China.

The 'Free Tibet' campaign is a US-led, Western-supported, corporate-backed project.

There could be some circumstances in which one should get on board with such projects. Is this one of them? In which case, we should hear some arguments which show that Tibetan 'independence' is in the interests of the majority of people in Tibet, and / or in the interests of most people in the People's Republic of China, and / or in the interests of most people in the world. So far, I don't hear any of this.

Hello ahab, how are things?
You are one jumpy lad. I never wrote that knowledge is unimportant or anything of that sort against knowledge. I admit that what I wrote last time may not have been very clear. What I meant was that after you've read and done research, at some point you must take a stand, make up your own mind and come up with your own thought on the problem and, I repeat, show where YOU stand, which, so far, you keep avoiding.

You wrote that you were gonna break down my "main point". Was that supposed to happen in your last mail? Sorry, but I didn't get it. What I got is that you do lots of analysing, criticising, say things taken out of books, think you are advancing arguments....but not one thought of your own. I ask you one question and you can't answer: Where do YOU stand ahab? Stop procrastinating.You wrote "This is not an abstract question". You damn right! YOU are turning it into an abstract one. It's not like the problem of Tibet appeared 2 years ago out of nowhere. The Chinese occupation of Tibet has been going on for more than 50 years! Maybe, you ahab, need another 50 years to do a bit more research, read a few more books in order to have the courage to grow your own opinion and take a stand?

You wrote that my facts turned out to be false. Be careful when speaking of facts. Don't confuse facts with (in your case) lego facts.
I stand by what I wrote. I wasn't trying to advance any argument. I wrote what I think and feel. That's all. I am not planning on wasting my time exchanging links and books and conditioned opinions with you. What we have on the plate here is close to 60 years of Chinese occupation of Tibet and everything that an occupation entails. And that's a fact.

I have no doubt that the West is behind some of the unrest in Tibet but that fact doesn't make Tibet less of a colony of China.

Why don't you condemn China?

You seem to be concerned with what will happen to Tibet if it becomes independent. There you go with your condescending "socialist" Western mentality.
You don't care about Tibet, the Tibetans, you don't care about a free Tibet. What you care about is a socialist Tibet. For you, Tibet must first have "socialist" traits before it can be free. For me, all I want is a free Tibet! Once free, if they want to have capitalism or go back to feudalism, so be it. It is up to them! Not to us!

Now, about this bit:

"There could be some circumstances in which one should get on board with such projects. Is this one of them? In which case, we should hear some arguments which show that Tibetan 'independence' is in the interests of the majority of people in Tibet, and / or in the interests of most people in the People's Republic of China, and / or in the interests of most people in the world. So far, I don't hear any of this."

There is this book by Edward Said called "Orientalism". On the page before the preface to the twenty-fifth anniversary edition, there is a quote by Karl Marx (I love the guy) from "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" that says:

"They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented."

This is where you fit ahab with your mentality, you and the like of you.

hello Ahab. I'm just writing you to make a comment about Olympic games.
You wrote in one of your last comments that "Well, as a wise man observed, 'man does not live by bread alone'. People have always enjoyed participating in & observing cultural activities, of which sport is one of many", answering to Dejan's post about China and Tibet.
I'll start from the ned first by asking you who is the "people" who are talking about?Who are the ones who enjoy participating and observing cultural and sport activities? I may be wrong but these "people" is You and Me. During Barcelona Olympic games in 1992, I've watched a little documentary on a woman from Bosnia who was training for the 100m.She spent weeks in the cellar with fellociticens, hiding from the serbians bombs all around the hills of Sarajevo.How do you prepare yourself for such a competition when you ve got a few meters for training.How do you prepare for such a competition when UN send blue helmets to keep peace in a country where is not peace?There is a kind of inequality in the "starting blocks".The same today can be noticed with Irak. Do you think that Irakis really care about Olympic games and their "values" of peace? If they want to escape from their daily problems, they've got already their allah.It's easy for an american, for a european to be eager to watch or participate to Olympic games.These ones doesn't play in the same category with an African or a Burman today.It's just a pathetic and cynical message to say that Olympic games are an event of peace and that we shouldn't mix politics and sports. We heard such a shit in our tv programs here in France during demonstrations against the olympics torch.The ones we see on tv (quite the same always) said that sport is sport and we shouldn't mix olympics games and politics. Well, the thing is that when a political problem doesn't keep to long the camera focused on it, this problem should go where the cameras are.These vultures in France made apologies to China by sending there some puppets to explain that France is a friend (and a good client) of China.France has got a lot of economic interests in China (like many countries by the way).That's why China is holding the Olympic games for sure.But never somebody on tv says that we shouldn't mix sport and economy!!!!And this is what happenening always.Well, a bit long a not organised but that was my first point. Then, you mentionned some "wise" guy who don't live only from bread. He's not wise enough to not see that a important percentage of humans don't even eat enough "bread" to be able to concentrate on something else (Olympics games for instance).I'm sure again that You and Me, both on our computers we don't live only from "bread" and water.But this is a typical "white" way of thinking.You think that your needs and preoccupations are the same than everybody on this earth.I'm sorry to disappoint you but you may be wrong.You and Me may have the same problems but we don't live the bombings, we probably eat enough and throw sometimes some food in the garbage.The two things I'm thinking about these last days is the end of an exam and where I'm going on holydays among several choices.I'm not starving and I don't go to the cellar to make a shelter during the night.I'm lucky to be born in this country at that time.But we can't forget the ones who don't have our confort.When everybody will have enough to eat, to drink, to go to school, to have a home, to get medecines, when we will get equal rights betweens us, only then we should celebrate olypipic games.Till this time (and maybe for a very long time) my tv will be switch off during olypic games.Dejan asked you where do you stand many times.Don't tell me, i've guessed.

Hi Dejan & Gajic.

Firstly, Dejan. You said: "I wrote what I think and feel. That's all. I am not planning on wasting my time exchanging links and books and conditioned opinions with you."

Which seems to sum up your approach. Your own feelings and thoughts are primary; the facts are of little consequence to you- so it would be a waste of your time to find out what the facts are and to debate on that basis.

Entirely consistent with this methodology of yours, you refuse to consider the two articles I have cited, by Hilary Keenan and Barry Sautman; both of them full of detailed information. You make no attempt to dispute the sources on which these articles are based, instead relying merely on your own thoughts, based on your feelings, which are based on... what exactly? Perhaps the 'conditioned opinions'- that you have read in the mass media.

Thus you harangue that I "don't care about a free Tibet" and that I don't "condemn China"!

OK. So you are for 'free Tibet'. What is the area which you define as Tibet? The TAR? The 'Greater Tibet' (25% of Chinese territory) as claimed by the 'Government in Exile'? You don't seem to have done your homework even on this very basic question.

Dejan, you are proposing a change in internationally recognised borders, and furthermore you are supporting a cause promoted by US imperialism. Thus the onus is on you to define and argue for your case, and to show that its realisation would do more good than harm.

So far you have not even attempted to do this. You strike the pose of a radical, but you come across as an intellectually lazy dilettante.


Now, Gajic. Obviously, economics and politics are, and have always been, mixed with sports. You, like me, can concern yourself with where you will take your holidays. And you have decided to switch off your television set during the Olympics, until food, housing, health and equal rights are available to all.

That is fine- although I can't quite make out how this will advance the cause of those without basic food, housing etc; or why the Olympics should be your particular target, rather than other things on TV; or indeed, why you should not give up your holidays or other leisure activities until global justice prevails.

But if you believe that the wish to participate and observe sporting events including the Olympics is is a specifically "white" thing, you are bizarrely mistaken.

First, it's question of Olympics because we are talking about China and Tibet.It's not my particular target by the way.Of course,by switching off the TV alone I won't help a lot.If we are all doing this, it may have a different impact.If we are showing that we don't care about their "games", about their"finals", their"oscars"...maybe we will grown up a bit and pretending everything is going well on that earth, like celebrating stupidities like christmas or other religious feasts.Of course you know what I mean.At least I've got my conscience for myself.The difference between us is that I'm conscious that I'm lucky to be born where I am born.I'm conscious that my concerns are pathetic comparing to others.I'm still conscious of that.Do you imagine all the money (who doen't make people happier...in western countries of course) used for these childish ceremonies (we don't have to envy North Korea for the ceremonies)?Well, I don't know either but we can think that it's a lot.If at least, for once, just for one year we try to cancel everything: luxury shopping, expensive shows, big sports events and many other things and used that money to help the basic human needs, would it be so difficult for us?Is it such a sacrifice to not have "Oscars" this year, or kind of things like sports "competitions".No, we won't do that because we are selfish and that's all.We don't want to.and it's only me or you and things will change, but everybody must do.And the mass media, our "democratic" governments are using us as sheep with these things.If I don't give up my holydays and other leisure things it's only because I'm a westerner and I am like you, that's all.And I am trying to help as much as I can (still not enough) according to my life level and possibilities.I'm flying abroad for almost free, I'm using this chance to do something when I am somewhere.I've travelled a lot and "holydays" make me also thinking about these inequality there.
About my skin colour I am as white as this screen on front of you.Beeing "white" is not a question of colour here, it's a way of behaving and thinking.When people says that olympics games or chritmas are events for peace and all that shit, this is for me "white".People are watching these things with their eyes and thinking that it is like that everywhere.Boycoot all these things.We don't need them.They keep us as slaves.

I'd like to answer shortly to your message to Dejan.You condamn is way of resuming a situation. You speak about his "feelings and thoughts".
I've read right now a piece of that article of H.Keenan. I'm not for individual targets or things like this but I'd like also to ask you something.Who is in who's
land? Of course Tibetans have the right to attack Chinese.It is in fact defending them and not attacking. Why this things are only ok when it happens in western countries during world war 2? Why resisting is only a western thing? I am fed up with this typically "white" thoughts.The Irakis have the right to make as much damage to the US army as they can.Palestinian won't stop their human bombs as long as they've got these israelo-nazi in their land.I am happy to hear that Tibetans start to fight against the "great china".oh!!!!it's normal, not? You want them to take pictures with tourists and R.Gere only?
You know, I am telling you something.Taking side it's not only a question of books .I am sure that Dejan is reading as much as you or others.Taking side is also a question of justice.To make it short, Tibetans are chinese?Tibetan language is chinese? So Tibetans have ther right to have their own land.We are not speaking of what land now.If at least we tale a side to them and to other nations without land, it's a big step.To reach this aim, all nations without land and who are persecuted because they dare show their flag, speak their tongue or claim their freedom, HAVE the right to defend by any means if necessary!!!
You are not condamning french resistance during WW2, so why should we be upset today for similar things.
And stop it please.you are still avoiding the problem.Just trying to find another question to a question.For who are you taking side????It's because China is calling itself "communist" that you are avoiding that question.and speaking of what land should deserve Tibet in a hypothetical independance?You never say what is your way of thinking.Moreover, this is the funniest thing I've read today :"you are supporting a cause promoted by US imperialism" when you are speaking about Dejan and his wish for a free Tibet or any free other nations.It's not US imperialism to ask for freedom!!!China is as imperialist as ex-soviet union or USA.What's the matter with you?Where have you seen that asking your independance is a imperialist thing?Ah yes, I am seeing your point now.You'd rather a Tibet under the great socialist China than a free one who could be a USA client!!!Well done.As Dejan said before, let's choose for them they are not able to choose for themselves. Are you Tibetan to choose what is the best for them?They want freedom, let's help them or other to get it.Then,it's up to them to live as they want.You know, living under a dictatorship called China and so called communist won't be easy for them to choose socialism as a model.Kosovo (you know the little little new country on the map in eastern Europe) is free and independant.it doesn't mean that everything will be alright soon.It might going worst.But they ve choose to be free and to finish with Serbia.According to you, each nation should remain under the control of the stronger?they won't be able to live alone.It's up to them.Some nations doesn't speak the tongue, do not follow the same religion or ideology, don't fell sharing things in common with others.They ve got the right to self determination.But this too hard to understand for some people...

Hi ahab, how are things?
I already wrote what I wanted to say in my article and then in my answers to "your" comments.
I stand by it. I really don't know what to say anymore. I've said it.
You seem to be lost as an individual, you sound, your writing sounds very robotic.As I wrote before, you do need another 50 years of Tibetan plight to, this time, ATTEMPT to grow your own thought. And again, nobody knows where YOU stand because you don't have your own opinion, your own thought on the question.
You know, you should reread what you write by placing yourself out of your comfort zone.
Anyway, thank you for teaching me the word "dilettante". I looked it up.
Dejan

Well, Dejan, you have no response to my refutation of your assertions except to 'stand by' your previous remarks. No matter that they were full of factual errors, and that you had not even considered a rather basic matter- the borders of the territory which you would like to 'free' from Chinese control!

Nevertheless, you take comfort in your feeling that I am "lost as an individual", and that my writing "sounds very robotic".

In contrast, you know where you are as an individual, and no doubt you are a very creative individual, one who even 'grows his own thoughts'!

And on this basis you have the confidence to speak of "50 years of Tibetan plight".

So, Mr Pasic. At the start of that appalling 50 years, the average Tibetan had a lifespan of 30 years. At the start of that tragic 50 years, the average Tibetan could not read or write.

It appears that the dreadful communists imposed such a plight on the Tibetans that their life expectancy more than doubled, and they even became literate.

But that has no relevance for you. You have 'grown' a firm, militant opinion about a matter on which you clearly have no knowledge whatsoever- apart from the pre-processed fare which you are fed by the mass media.

[first paragraph deleted by editors]

Now, with this kind of statements:

"So, Mr Pasic. At the start of that appalling 50 years, the average Tibetan had a lifespan of 30 years. At the start of that tragic 50 years, the average Tibetan could not read or write.

It appears that the dreadful communists imposed such a plight on the Tibetans that their life expectancy more than doubled, and they even became literate".

you sound just like those white right-wing politicians [phrase deleted by editors] who now and then would say how colonization wasn't all that bad, how the colonizers built roads, schools and hospitals for the ignorant,illiterate, ungrateful natives. Hell, a few years ago, Jacques Chirac ventured in those waters and caused a shit storm by saying exactly that, that colonization wasn't that bad, that it did some good, too. And, that's what you are saying, right?

I mean, 50 years of occupation and oppression is a small price to pay for an extended lifespan and a literacy program, right ahab? It's not your ass being kicked by the Chinese.

And, who are you to talk about the borders of Tibet? That's for the Tibetans to decide. "Internatinally recognised borders"?! Are you kidding me? Is that supposed to mean anything to me? Am I supposed to recognise apartheid Israhell just because a bunch of Western criminals did so? Give me a break.
As Gajic Daniel wrote to you:" You would rather see an occupied and oppressed socialist Tibet than a free Tibet that chooses to be a client-state of the US.

All you are doing ahab is perpetuating the cold war mentality.
You are right, I am trying to grow my own thoughts and not to be, like you, a pile of data and an ideological slave.

By writing what you just wrote in this last message of yours, you just showed where YOU stand ahab. You are on the side of the Chinese dictatorship, supporting its "communist" occupation and oppression of Tibet "for the good of the Tibetans" who, without China, would still be in God knows what depths of backwardness.

And, I repeat, this is your mentality:

There is this book by Edward Said called "Orientalism". On the page before the preface to the twenty-fifth anniversary edition, there is a quote by Karl Marx (I love the guy) from "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" that says:

"They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented."

Dejan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2008 06:45PM by ahab.

Dejan. Firstly, you will note that two sections of your post have been deleted. There are limits to what is acceptable in constructive debate. If in future posts you make remarks with a similar or equivalent tone and / or content, you will be de-registered from this forum.


To the substance of your post. Your assertions are based on your a priori assumption that Tibet is an oppressed colony of China. Yet you have brought forward no argument that Tibet is a colony of China (as opposed to being a legitimate part of the territory of the People's Republic of China). And the 'facts' which you previously cited in support of your claim that Tibet is oppressed by China turned out to be false. Your militant rhetoric is supported neither by facts nor argument.

You say in respect of the borders of Tibet, "That's for the Tibetans to decide."

Do you really think this? An international border must surely be decided, or at least accepted, by those on both sides of the frontier.

The territory of 'Greater Tibet' as claimed by the Tibetan 'Government in Exile' is a much larger area than the territory which was, prior to the communist revolution, controlled by the Dalai Lama and his group. It is about 25% of the area of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and contains a majority of non-ethnic Tibetans. The Tibetan Autonomous Region, on the other hand, which roughly accords to the area ruled by the Dalai Lama etc previous to the establishment of the PRC, has a much smaller area and is mainly populated by ethnic Tibetans.

It is notable that you have such strong opinions about the need for Tibet to be 'free' from Chinese control, ie, you want to re-draw international borders; yet you have given no consideration to where those new international borders should be.

Your attempt to justify your views by analogy between China and Israel looks desperate. If you want to argue by analogy, you need to show what the similarities are between the two situations, and also to try to demonstrate how these similarities outweigh the rather massive differences. You are welcome to apply your historical and geographical knowledge to this task. Unless you do so, it will be clear that you are clutching at a straw.

On to your issues with white Western politicians etc. Your line of approach here is rather bizarre, given that the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party are not white, nor by any stretch of the imagination can they be considered (in respect of their policy on Tibet) to be acting on behalf of Western political interests.

Lastly to your second-hand quote from Karl Marx: "They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented." Presumably you are not aware of the context and content of this line, which is part of Marx's analysis of the position of the peasants in 19th Century France, in which Karl Marx considered the factors which prevented these peasants from uniting to represent their own political interests. This is the full paragraph from 'The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte':

"The small-holding peasants form an enormous mass whose members live in similar conditions but without entering into manifold relations with each other. Their mode of production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into mutual intercourse. The isolation is furthered by France’s poor means of communication and the poverty of the peasants. Their field of production, the small holding, permits no division of labor in its cultivation, no application of science, and therefore no multifariousness of development, no diversity of talent, no wealth of social relationships. Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient, directly produces most of its consumer needs, and thus acquires its means of life more through an exchange with nature than in intercourse with society. A small holding, the peasant and his family; beside it another small holding, another peasant and another family. A few score of these constitute a village, and a few score villages constitute a department. Thus the great mass of the French nation is formed by the simple addition of homologous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes. Insofar as millions of families live under conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests, and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class. Insofar as there is merely a local interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and the identity of their interests forms no community, no national bond, and no political organization among them, they do not constitute a class. They are therefore incapable of asserting their class interest in their own name, whether through a parliament or a convention. They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented. Their representative must at the same time appear as their master, as an authority over them, an unlimited governmental power which protects them from the other classes and sends them rain and sunshine from above. The political influence of the small-holding peasants, therefore, finds its final expression in the executive power which subordinates society to itself."

Now, this is extremely interesting, in factual and theoretical terms, and it illustrates Marx's (so far) unsurpassed powers of economic, social and political analysis.

But in no way does it assist your position, which could be summarised as 'act now, think later'- or perhaps more accurately: shout now, think... never.

Gajic Daniel, in response to the Hilary Keenan article which commented on the ethnic violence in Tibet in March this year, you remark:

"I've read right now a piece of that article of H.Keenan. I'm not for individual targets or things like this but I'd like also to ask you something. Who is in who's land? Of course Tibetans have the right to attack Chinese."

The people who were beaten, stabbed and burned, 22 of whom died as a result, were shop-owners, workers and children; their only crime was their ethnicity. They were targeted because they happened to be members of the Han and the Hui Muslim communities.

And you assert that the people who carried out these murders had the 'right' to do so!

As the Hilary Keenan article shows, the ethnic violence was encouraged by the USA.

And then you boast: "Kosovo (you know the little little new country on the map in eastern Europe) is free and independant."

Sure. A little little new country with a big big US military base.

[www.satellite-sightseer.com]

ahab (no greeting)

My tone? The content? Threats? Have you noticed that for the past few weeks there's been nobody else on this forum? You wonder why?

You actually want me to "bring forward arguments" that Tibet is occupied by China? Are you serious?.......I have no words. It is sad. I just hope that no Tibetan ever reads your callous comments.

I talk about people, you talk about numbers.
I talk about injustice, you talk about political power games.
I talk about respecting whatever the people choose, you want to choose for them.

My comment about white western politicians, that you found bizarre because Chinese leaders are not white, was about their (white western politicians),and yours, colonial and condescending mentality. That's what I was comparing.

As for Marx's quote, again you miss the point (and why did you send me that passage from Marx's work?), the quote is NOT about that work (The 18th B. of N.B.), it's about how it has been used (by people like you) in a much larger context of colonial and condescending mentality,in THAT PARTICULAR work, Orientalism, by E.Said to illustrate how people like you think they have the right, and are better placed, to decide what's best for "them".

You put everything I've written so far on Tibet together, and I stick to every single word. I do not care if this is not a "constructive" debate to you. Am I supposed to agree with you just because you throw some numbers and lego facts at me?

In your case it would be: act never, think never, argue forever.

OK. I'm done here. You go on without me,as I know you will.
Good luck ahab.
Dejan

Dejan. You started off in this thread by posting statements which you thought were facts. But they were not facts.

You claimed that "millions [of Tibetans] were forced to flee". But in fact only 80,000 went into exile, even according to the 'Free Tibet Campaign'.

You claimed that Tibetan culture has gone "almost extinct, particularly the Tibetan language". But in fact the majority of people in the TAR speak Tibetan, the Tibetan language is taught in most of the schools, and there are 46,000 Buddhist monks.

These claims were the basis of your assertion that the Tibetans are oppressed by the Chinese.

When it was pointed out to you that your 'facts' were false, you sought to evade the issue by using the phrase 'lego facts'; and now you assert that you "talk about people", not about numbers.

For someone who likes to "talk about people", you are remarkably unmoved by the fact that the lifespan of the people in Tibet has more than doubled, and that people who could not read and write are now literate.

And you declaim: "I talk about injustice, you talk about political power games."

Well, do political power games not exist? And by only talking about injustice, can you wish the political power games out of existence? The USA dominates this world not merely by its military, financial and technological might, but by its power games- to the detriment of 80% of the human race.

Re: 'white Western politicians' and "colonial and condescending mentality". Your remarks on this matter are indeed bizarre. Your comment was directed against the fact that I did not condemn the (non-white) leadership of the Communist Party of China, and that I cited the the huge improvement in lifespan and literacy since the communist party came to power.

White Western politicians do control the key national and multinational institutions- the US state, the EU, NATO, the World Bank, the WTO etc; in the interests of the transnational companies and the interests of the minority of First World counties; while 80% of the people on our planet are condemned to live in poverty. The actions of these white Western politicians do not assist the development of health, culture and quality of life. They prevent and restrict that development.

Now, onto your use of the quote from Karl Marx. You cited a line from a second-hand source, devoid of context and content, and drew or made up a meaning for these few words; and, as is clear from the full paragraph, a completely different meaning from that intended by Karl Marx.

You claim of this quote "it has been used (by people like you) in a much larger context of colonial and condescending mentality". Do you have any evidence for this? Or perhaps this claim, like the rest of what you write, is sheer assertion unsupported by facts or argument.

Dejan. You say you "stick to every single word" that you have written on this thread- yet you have written things which are demonstrably untrue, and made assertions which your meagre arguments cannot support.

What I find interesting from the reading of this thread is the presumption of intellectual dominance at the point of contact. Which is of course, a form of bourgeois oppression.

There is a clear establishment of the ‘non-guilt’ of the imperialist expansionist (i.e. ‘invasion’) policies of Communist China, a regime that has, from its very beginnings, had no regard for any other ethnic group other than the ‘Han’ – a racialised identity that has no legitimate basis in genetic theory. Indeed, even the national flag of China denotes one large star – signifiy the dominating Han people, and four smaller stars denoting the ‘other’ and obviously ‘lesser’ ethnic groups. This obvious bais is glossed over by the arbitrary declaration that China contains ’56 ethnic minorities’, (but at the sametime excludes the unique Hakka people from this ‘ethnic’ designation, due possibly to Hakka political aggitation in China’s historical past).

China does however, acknowledge the Tibetan people as a definite minority – and indeed, one of the smaller stars in dedicated to them. The apparent assertion of ethnic rights in China is something of a sham. Formal political ‘acknowledgement’ that something exists in theory, in no way should be taken to mean that it exists in reality. This is obvious from the educational structure of Mainland China, that advocates the learning of ‘putonghua’ (普通話), a language that is in reality the Beijing dialect of Chinese, translated as the ‘language of the common people’. Of course, not everyone in China has an ethnic background where putonghua (also called ‘manderin’ or ‘guanhua’ – ‘官話’) is taught as a first language. Initially, putonghua was a term used to denote the differences between the older, classical Chinese language (guoyu ‘國語’), (as well as ethnic minority languages), with that of modern spoken Chinese (i.e. ‘putonghua’). It was never intended as a ‘replacement’ language, used to usurp ethnic identity, by educating the young away from their ethnic identity.

There is therefore, the apparent contradiction of Communist China acknowledging ethnic identities, whilst at the sametime ensuring that through the nationwide education system, those same ethnic identities are watered down over the generations. Leading to the eventual disappearing of true ethnic distinctiveness. Modern Marxist critique of Communist China, nolonger views China as either a ‘Communist’, or ‘Socialist’ State. But rather as an ideologically moriband regime, desparately seeking somekind of solice in raw Capitalist endeavour. It is the whole-sale adoption of Western Captilalism, without any of the accompany social developments of liberalism, democracy, or individualism.

Like the Western imperialist powers of the last two hundreds years in Europe, China has expanded economically, in the ruthless search for new markets. It has also annexed Eastern Turkestan, as well as Inner Mongolia and Tibet. It has also initiated military invasions into Korea, India and Vietnam. Chinese internal policies have also served to disadvantaged its own ethnic minorities, in favour of the Han majority. The invasion of Tibet was a military campaign, carried-out by the Communist Regime of Mao Zedong. This followed the usual pattern of ‘liberation’, whereby the Peoples’ Liberation Army simply moved into areas of China (formally controlled by the Western backed, Nationalist government), and initiated Mao Zedong Communist control. Both Tibet and Eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang Province, home of the Uighur minority) were treated in exactly the same manner, and subjected to what historically amounts to Han Chinese liberation.

Tibet has become a very muddled and polarised subject. It is interesting to note, that prior to the formal collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union (between 1989-1991), pro-Mainland Chinese support was very thin on the ground in the West, from both the left and right of the democratic political spectrum. Compounded of course, by the 1989 military action in Beijing, against civilians. With the opening up of the East in general, and the pro-Capitalist stance of the Mainland Chinese, interaction between the West and the East has been normalised. There is an exchange of ideas that compete in the international community – Tibet is just one of these ideas. Essentially it is polarised around two broad propositions;

1) The sovereign nation of Tibet has been brutally invaded by a foreign power. This foreign power has inflicted a mode of unfamiliar government on a religious people, and encouraged Han Chinese mass migration into the area, in an attempt to swamp the indigenous Tibetan population. In the process, Tibetan culture has been systematically attacked, and the Tibetan people tortored and killed. Proof of this version of reality lies in the fact that many thousands of Tibetan people have left Tibet, and settled in India, under the guidance of his Holiness the Dalai Lama.

2) The Chinese regime of the Mainland, is the legitimate regime for the majority of Chinese people in the world. Taiwan, the Republic of China, is nothing other than an American puppet, and an example of Western neo-colonialism. The USA supports His Holiness the Dalai Lama, in an attempt to create the false notion that Tibet was a sovereign nation, prior to the invasion of the Communist Chinese. In so doing, and for propaganda purposes, the USA supports Tibetan independence, and seeks to internally destabalise the Communist Chinese regime, in the hope that it will collapse, and liberal democarcy take its place. Mainland China does not support this idea, and firmly believes that Tibet has been part of Chinese political rule for hundreds of years, and is now able to influence Western opinion on this point, directly through (internal and external) governmental edicts, internet interaction, trade, and through the use of Chinese student (and working) migrants travelling and living in the West. In China, the Dalai Lama is portrayed as a lacky of the West, and a deceiver of religion – something akin to a demon in robes. There is nolonger a dichotomy between East and West, as the Bamboo Curtain has been torn asunder by the vigours of international trade. Westerners are of course now able to travel to China, to study, work and learn, etc.

Trade is now the issue of the day. Paradoxically, the West both encourages China to draw near, and at the same time endeavours to keep it away. There is a tension of uncertainty, and this has led to a dscontinuous intellectual response from Western academia. There is no agreed academic approach, as camps can be found that in one way or another, give voice to one of the above views, in various guises. Common ground is hard to come by. By comparion, the Mainland Chinese academia follows a tight political control – equating this process with loyalty to the Chinese Motherland, rather than a stifling of free thought. And much of this control is anti-Western in nature, particularly since the Tiananmen Square issue of 1989, which illicited wide-spread condemnation from Western powers. The Mainland Chinese regime definitely encourages interaction, but always through a one way door. In this sense, the Chinese governmental view, is the only legitimate view. This view, rather uncritically, has found its way into Western academia. And it is the unquestioned nature of this one sided transaction that is the most disturbing aspect of this interaction of ideas. A Chinese nationalism, bordering at times on the ‘racial’, firmly conspires to keep Western influence out of the heartland of China.

The silent voice in all this is not necessarily the Tibetan people – they are represented strongly in the world, in one form or another. Nor is it the Mainland Chinese – their views are clearly known. But it is rather the diasporic Chinese, who left China to escape war, poverty, nationalism and communism. They embody a ‘Chineseness’ often over-looked in the world of thought. A Chinese cultural view, that has not been distorted by excessive political regimes, but has on the contrary, evolved over the years to fit-in to the modern Western world. The emobodiment of tradition, over-layed with liberal democratic habit. They are from a diverse ethnic base, with Hakka, Cantonese, Hokkien and others. They speak a wide array of dialects and languages and follow many religions, including Buddhism.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2009 11:21AM by Red-Metta.

The problem of Tibet still hasn't been solved. Will it be solved in the nearest future? I doubt. Come to your own conclusions or use essays writers help to get more info.

Isn t anything free in this world. You must pay all you want to do.
piese auto import