The People's Republic of China engaged in a long suppression of the Tibetan people; in 1959 the Dalai Lama fled Tibet and has since lived in the Tibet community in India. Of course it should be self-governing; it isn't going to happen, I am afraid.

China is behaving the way the dominant regional or global powers always behave: they do what they believe they can get away with, all in their national best interests, of course. The Russians, the Soviets, the British, the Germans, the Austrians, the French, the Dutch, the Spanish and Portuguese, the Italians, the Turks, the Japanese, the Burmese, the Americans, etc. etc. etc. have all done the same thing, and most likely will all continue to do the same thing. I don't like it, but I am not sure how much effect people either in China, Tibet, or elsewhere in the world can do about it.

Many years ago I took a class with a professor of Han Chinese ancestry who tried to make a case for Chinese influence in Tibet. This was during the heyday of the Free Tibet movement which has unfortunately lost a lot of its steam in the US.

Anyhow, going off memory (been a very long time) these were some of his major arguments:

1. Tibet has been part of China's sphere of influence for hundreds of years--ever since Mongol Yuan Dynasty of the 13th and 14th centuries.

2. The Chinese government gave the Dalai Lama the option of remaining in the country as either the political or the spiritual leader, but they were adamant that he could NOT serve both functions at the same time. He refused of course, and then fled to India.

3. The Tibetan political and economic system was extremely exploitative before the most recent episode of Chinese involvement in the 1950's. For average Tibetans literacy rates were low (5-10%), access to medical care was almost non-existent, etc. All of these idealistic students flying the Tibetan flag around their college campuses had been hoodwinked by religious exiles into thinking the place was some sort of spiritual paradise, when in fact (according to the teacher) it was a backwards theocracy heavily tilted in favor of the religious elites at the expense of ordinary Tibetans.

4. Tibetan Buddhism is not aligned with the genuine teachings of the Buddha. I remember thinking this rationalization for Chinese domination was silly and absurdly petty, but the professor seemed sincere in his belief that certain alleged sexual views and practices found among Tibetan Buddhists were perverse distortions of the Buddha's teachings. Tibetan Buddhism represented a sensuous and debased offshoot of a noble spiritual tradition which, once again, placed the lamas in positions of power and domination over their countrymen and women.

So the obvious takeaway from his position was that, contrary to public perception, the Chinese government should have been seen as liberators interested solely in the well-being of ALL Tibetans and not primarily motivated by other, less elevated goals like, for instance, the possible geostrategic importance of Tibet in light of China's regional interests. This is clearly a one-sided view, but I think it's good to offer up an alternative perspective even if it's not one that we could lend our support to.

As for my opinion, well, I still don't know enough to have an informed opinion on the matter, but I am inclined to support the right of self-determination for the Tibetans. Probably a little late for that with all the Han migration, I suppose.

As for my opinion, well, I still don't know enough to have an informed opinion — Erik

But you should have enough to recognise propoganda when you hear it.

We’re lucky we’re not conducting this conversation inside the boundaries of the PRC. Otherwise, it would be monitored and if it created enough noise, then the Forum would suddenly go offline.

Oh yes, I hope I made it clear above that I was skeptical of the simplistic and one-sided narrative that he pushed on us. I present the viewpoint of the professor primarily as a way of understanding the obviously self-serving perspective underlying the Chinese domination of Tibet.

But again, even though I sensed the heavy partisanship of his position I like to think I have enough integrity to admit that I may not be sufficiently informed of the political, social, economic or religious aspects of his argument to speak with confidence as to what really is (or has been) the case in Tibet.

I'm eager to learn more, though, and perhaps you can make some general remarks concerning Tibetan Buddhism, with specific mention of the allegedly lurid aspects of it that the prof felt were incompatible with the teachings of the Buddha. Or maybe that's better left for another time?

What you reported by the professor is simply the CCP party line. It is what is churned out on campuses and through Chinese state media, all over the world. (There has been a flap here in Australia recently, about the pernicious influence of Chinese state media on debate and discourse in Australian universities. A book on the matter by a left-leaning Australian academic was withheld from publication in Nov last because of the publishers’ ‘fears of repercussions’. It’s a scary suppression of public debate.)

So what you’re repeating above is simply propaganda. I don’t know much detail about Tibetan history, but I do know the claim that ‘Tibet has always been part of China’ is the leading lie in their extensive body of lies about the subject. I think you would be doing the community a service if you removed the post.

I think you would be doing the community a service if you removed the post. — Wayfarer

Now you're sounding like an ideologue yourself. You just admitted you don't know much about Tibetan history. Why not learn more before taking a stand? Some of what's written in the post happens to be true. That's not to defend China. I'm not a fan of the place or its system.

Why not learn more before taking a stand? S — Baden

I do have an MA in Buddhist Studies, but am honest enough to admit ‘I don’t know much about the history. But it’s blatant propoganda. Even the way it is presented - bullet points, notice. Pumped into an open mind, to be disgorged when the circumstances are appropriate.

And you know something else, Baden - it’s a pretty sure bet, that somewhere in an IT ops room in China, this thread has pinged a report, purely by virtue of the thread title. It’s an obvious keyword match. Minor report, may not get escalated, it’s probably trivial. But it will be noticed.

[Delete] @Baden

We’re lucky we’re not conducting this conversation inside the boundaries of the PRC. Otherwise, it would be monitored and if it created enough noise, then the Forum would suddenly go offline. — Wayfarer

I think you would be doing the community a service if you removed the post. — Wayfarer

Instead, why don't we show them how it's done properly?

[Delete] @Baden

[Delete] @Baden

We very well may get banned in China at some point anyway. Their loss. They've got nothing on me seeing as I've escaped the place. But let propaganda from whatever side be held up to the light not swept under the carpet.

Notice that you can agree with the Chinese party line, as presented by Erik, and still support Tibetan self-determination. Even if the Chinese brought some welcome modernization, the Tibetans may have liked the chance to do it themselves.

OK - fair enough, my bad saying the post ought to be removed. I apologise to the Forum and take it back. But do realise what we’re dealing with here. Clive Hamilton, whose book was withdrawn from publication, is a noted Left Wing journo and commentator here in Australia. Last week he testified before a Senate committee on covert Chinese influence in Australian public life. He said, If you’d have told me a year ago that I would be appearing here in front of a Government committee saying such things, I never would have believed you. You’re dealing with a Government that takes people away in the middle of the night, for things they have published. It’s Stalinist, but because of their excellent media management, nobody seems to be paying attention.

For the record, what I presented was NOT my view. I'm honestly not trying to hide my position behind some fictional teacher. The impromptu talk he gave on the topic was precipitated by some students walking around campus with a Tibetan flag, and it left an impression on me not so much because I found it compelling, but because it was the first time I'd been exposed to that alternative standpoint.

But I do apologize to you, Wayfarer, for the offense I've caused by bringing up possible arguments against Tibetan Independence given by an obviously biased source. I will gladly remove the post--however relevant it is to the topic at hand--if there's even a slight possibility that it may lead to negative consequences for others.

I think it's generally a good idea to get opposing viewpoints on contentious geopolitical topics like this one. I'd say the same for Israel-Palestine (in which case I strongly side with the Palestinians while still trying to understand the Israeli perspective(s)), the dispute over the Kashmir between India and Pakistan, etc.

No apologies necessary, or rather, I apologise to you for becoming so heated.

[Delete] @Baden

[Delete] @Baden

Thank you, I appreciate that. It may be poor taste to discuss these sorts of things--things which adversely affect actual people--in such a detached manner. I'll let it stand though now that so much has been made of it, and hope that those more informed than myself will dismantle the professor's positions point by point.

I think you would be doing the community a service if you removed the post. — Wayfarer

>:O >:O >:O - authoritarian much?

Yes the Chinese often do use the excuse of being the "liberators", but having read seven years in Tibet, I can assure you that the Tibetans were not happy of losing their independence to the Chinese. They loved their simplistic lifestyle, even if they had barely any medicine or much at all and very archaic laws because that is how they have always lived and that is how they want to live. They may have better healthcare but I don't think they are as happy as they once were. — René Descartes

Good stuff. I'm definitely on the side of the Tibetans when the issue is framed as a contrast between voluntary simplicity vs imposed technological progress.

[Delete] @Baden

Propaganda itself can be a good source of information. — René Descartes

But only if all participants recognise it as such. I mean, if you’re arguing about public health against anti-vaccination activists, then do they get equal time? Are their opinions to be put on an equal footing with those of medical specialists?

I was reading recently of some of the atrocities that happened in Tibet, post-invasion. Many thousands of monastic communities were disbanded, buildings destroyed, their scriptures and icons burned in public squares, thousands executed. Monks were forced to kill lamas - their spiritual teachers - or to have sexual intercourse with nuns in front of the troops. There are many such accounts. No, I don’t have all the references at hand, although they could be found without a lot of effort on the Internet. But make no mistake, the invasion and subjugation of the Tibetan peoples was a crime against humanity on an epic scale.

Yeah, I hadn't got that far into the thread yet - my comment was more of a joke of Wayfarer accusing me of being authoritarian in the past anyways.

[Delete] @Baden

But make no mistake, the invasion and subjugation of the Tibetan peoples was a crime against humanity on an epic scale. — Wayfarer

The same can be said for anti-vaccination or climate-change denial. It’s like saying that the murderer and the victim were ‘two participants in a transaction’.

The Dalai Lama is one of the biggest hypocrites on the face of the planet...

Anyway I recall an anecdote, which is the last thing I’ll say on the subject. The Dalai Lama once recounted a story of talking to an old monk, who had been confined a Chinese labour camp for 25 years, and then finally was released. The Dalai Lama asked him what the worst thing about those long years of captivity were. The old monk thought for a minute, and then said, ‘for a while there, I almost began to hate them’.

[Delete] @Baden