Mechanical

Tibet - What's Going On?

A lot of people talk about "Free Tibet". The basic idea seems to be that since China invaded an independent nation and took them over, the Tibetans have every right to have their country back.

Tibetan history is actually far more complicated than that, but few saying "Free Tibet" seem to know that. Mind you, I'm not saying that China's behavior is appropriate or that the Tibetans don't have a right to independence, but it would be nice, for a change, if people actually gave a damn about the truth and then formulated their opinions (don't even get me started on the Israeli-Palestinian situation). Failing that -- after all, it's easy to rush to judgment -- we should at least be willing to consider that our views may be wrong or simplistic.

So just for an interesting bit of contrast, here's an interesting report about the Dalai Lama suppressing freedom of worship. I'm not saying I know that this information is true or an accurate representation. I'm saying that it's worth knowing if you care about the situation in Tibet.

  • Current Music: David Bowie | Velvet Goldmine
Tags: ,
I'm pretty sure that for the most part the question in peoples' minds when calling for a free Tibet isn't one of jurisdiction or even national or cultural sovereignty, but rather refers to the treatment of Tibetans by China. Whether China is an occupying power or just a government gone horribly awry doesn't really matter that much to me; the treatment of the populace, however, does.
we should at least be willing to consider that our views may be wrong or simplistic
What is wrong or simplistic to consider that the way China handle the Tibet problematic is definitely not wise?
By calling for a free Tibet, people raise up against the treatment of Tibetans by China, against the regular killing of people...
Even if the history between Tibet and China is rather complicate, I am sorry but it would never justify or explain the massacre, or the repression of the population.
Re: we should at least be willing to consider that our views may be wrong or simplistic
In the US, many death penalty opponents ask "why do we murder people to show that murder is wrong?" While I agree that the death penalty is wrong, it is, by definition, not murder. Using fallacious arguments like that undermines our case and shouldn't be done.

By the same token, people who use a simplistic "China invaded a sovereign nation and took them over" are using an argument that is, at best, rather weak. I agree that China's behavior is atrocious and that the Tibetans should have the right to have their own state, but people should focus on arguments that support their case, not on arguments that confuse the situation.
Re: we should at least be willing to consider that our views may be wrong or simplistic
Just to play Devil's Advocate here - why should they have the right to have their own state?
Re: we should at least be willing to consider that our views may be wrong or simplistic
Because I believe that nations should be allowed to form their own states, if they so desire, and our current state system is wrong. I realize that changing this is just a pipe dream, though, and not something that's going to change.
When Buddhism becomes religious, in my opinion, it loses all its intrinsic value and wisdom. External gods/demons have no place in the Buddhism that I know. The beginning of this is simply drama--stories.