tibetan uprising

[dong20]

where is the USA's moral leadership?
why is the EU taking the lead there?

1. US moral leadership is something of a contradiction in terms these days.
2. The EU has morals too (somewhere).
3. Is there some specific reason the EU shouldn't take the lead?
4. I hear there's a Presidential election campaign on; everyone's distracted by sniper fire.
5. I imagine a fair number of Americans think Tibet is a fictitious place - you know, the snowy place in that Eddie Murphy movie - how can the US invade it?:tongue:

An Olympic boycott will achieve little, cost money and deprive athletes of what may be (for them) a once in a lifetime ambition. Nevertheless, I believe it's the right thing to do.

 

[kalipygian]

The abuses of human rights by the PRC in Tibet are perhaps their most egregious, but far from their only offenses.

They promised to reform when they were granted the '08 games in '01, by some reports they have instead worsened.

An argument from a British EU official:

BoycottBeijing.EU - Why boycott?

 

[Quite Irate]

Really, why so?

Westerners can get away with acting like knowledgeable debaters when discussing western politics, but most look like buffoons when they try to extend that to eastern politics. The majority of people on this forum (the large majority) have no right - well, they have a right, but - no weight on this subject.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Westerners can get away with acting like knowledgeable debaters when discussing western politics, but most look like buffoons when they try to extend that to eastern politics. The majority of people on this forum (the large majority) have no right - well, they have a right, but - no weight on this subject.

But what does visiting a country really mean?
Even people who actually live in a country have a huge range of views.
Look at the differing views of Clinton and Obama from people who are clearly going to be voting Democrat.
A visit doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
Close reading of a wide range of carefully researched journalism might.

 

[kalipygian]

But what does visiting a country really mean?
Even people who actually live in a country have a huge range of views.
Look at the differing views of Clinton and Obama from people who are clearly going to be voting Democrat.
A visit doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
Close reading of a wide range of carefully researched journalism might.

Rubi, I sometimes suspect you of being a bodhisattva of wisdom and compassion.:wink:

 

[SteveHd]

A boycott would spoil the upcoming Olympics and possibly future ones.

With the 80 and 84 boycotts in my mind, I totally oppose a boycott. Someday the Olympics will be in USA or Europe, again. If we boycott these Olympics, China may very well reciprocate. Thus two Olympics would be spoiled.

Just say "no" to a boycott. It would do more harm than good.

 

[dong20]

A boycott would spoil the upcoming Olympics...

Yes, of course.

With the 80 and 84 boycotts in my mind, I totally oppose a boycott. Someday the Olympics will be in USA or Europe, again. If we boycott these Olympics, China may very well reciprocate. Thus two Olympics would be spoiled.

Err, the next games are in Europe.

I can see your point and using athletes as political pawns is contrary to the Olympic ideals - but hardly unprecedented. But then making a personal sacrifice to make a stand is surely a powerful statement too. It's tricky if those making that sacrifice are not doing so voluntarily of course.

If you really believe the Chinese would boycott simply for spite, I disagree, and if they did, so what? If they did so alone they're but one nation among ~ 200. It would be regrettable, certainly. But the Chinese will always act in their best interests. Who knows where China's global political relationships will be in four years.

Just say "no" to a boycott. It would do more harm than good.

No, I'll say yes to a boycott. It may do harm, it may not. Olympic boycotts are nothing new, and I see no evidence of lasting harm in a big picture sense. I don't believe there's a definitive right or wrong on this.

IMO, the biggest single risk to the Olympics is the IOC.

 

[dong20]

But what does visiting a country really mean?
Even people who actually live in a country have a huge range of views.
Look at the differing views of Clinton and Obama from people who are clearly going to be voting Democrat.
A visit doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
Close reading of a wide range of carefully researched journalism might.

I think it can make a difference.

It allows a perspective that mere research (however good) cannot. Research can tell you about the devotion of Tibetan monks, of pilgrims circling the Jokhang on Barkhor Street, even try to tell one why they do it - the 'facts'.

But I'd argue that until one has taken a prayer wheel and walked with them in the cold dawn mist, offered a prayer that that they may return safely to their village. Or, sat quietly and shared butter tea with a monk in the Potala Palace, had him tell you of his concerns big and small, of his fears for the future, how the injustices of the past have affected him - it will really only ever be a one dimensional perspective, even if a factually rich one.

One may read about what's said here on LPSG in great depth, but if one merely reads about LPSG without visiting - would one really have an equal depth of appreciation that comes from a few weeks of actual posting?

I'll agree that merely visiting a place isn't enough. One needs to actually be there.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I think it can make a difference.

I think it can too.
But I was responding to a suggestion that only those who have gone, can have worthwhile opinions.
Some who have not gone will have very worthwhile opinions.
Some who have gone will only speak drivel.
So the distinction between have gone/haven't gone is not in principle worth very much and doesn't really decide anything.

I'll agree that merely visiting a place isn't enough. One needs to actually be there.

I agree. I mean, anyone who can learn a lot through research can learn more by also being on the spot for a meaningful amount of time and integrating research with direct experience. Can't deny it.

Rubi, I sometimes suspect you of being a bodhisattva of wisdom and compassion.:wink:

Kali, I give you a little smooch ... but don't tell Kannon.:wink:

 

[SteveHd]

Dong,

I don't know if China would boycott quid-quo-pro but that wouldn't be "unprecedented" to use your word.

I don't think a boycott of China's Olympics would have a material affect on China's internal policies. How many people today remember why we boycotted Moscow? Did it change the USSR's policies?

 

[dong20]

Dong,

I don't know if China would boycott quid-quo-pro but that wouldn't be "unprecedented" to use your word.

Well, I used unprecedented in a different context. But I don't know if they would either.

I don't think a boycott of China's Olympics would have a material affect on China's internal policies. How many people today remember why we boycotted Moscow? Did it change the USSR's policies?

Perhaps not. But sometimes, you have to just do what you can.

Well, if I recall correctly the USSR elected Gorbachev a year after the USSR Boycotted the LA games, and the USSR effectively imploded around five years later - perhaps it just took a while to kick in?

Yes, I know ...:biggrin1:

 

[dong20]

I think it can too.
But I was responding to a suggestion that only those who have gone, can have worthwhile opinions.
Some who have not gone will have very worthwhile opinions.
Some who have gone will only speak drivel.
So the distinction between have gone/haven't gone is not in principle worth very much and doesn't really decide anything.

I can't disagree.

Indeed, being too invested in an issue can lead to a loss of objectivity and lead to tit for tats that achieve little or nothing, well little or nothing constructive anyway. The plethora of recent O v H threads are a case in point.

 

[kalipygian]

Regarding a possible future boycott by the PRC if the games are again held in the US, our government is certainly not taking the lead in this.

Also, the Olympics have been held many times in the US, other countries should be given a preference for the next several olympiads.

Edit: The 2010 winter Olympics are to be in BC, the 2012 summer Olympics in London, the 2014 winter Olympics in Russia. Competing for the 2016 summer Olympics are: Chicago, Tokyo, Prague, Rio, Baku, Doha, and Madrid.

 

[Drifterwood]

The Palestinians have an uprising almost every day.

Tibet is not a Sovereign State.

The Monks used to run the place, they don't now and they haven't for more than fifty years. Maybe we should reinstate the monasteries in the UK and let them run the place again, and embrace the economic level of that time.

Han Chinese are less than 7% of the population of Tibet.

It wasn't just Tibet that suffered at the time of the Cultural Revolution. That time is deeply regretted by everyone.

Boycotting the Olympics would be pandering to US propaganda.

 

[dong20]

The Palestinians have an uprising almost every day.

Tibet is not a Sovereign State.

The Monks used to run the place, they don't now and they haven't for more than fifty years. Maybe we should reinstate the monasteries in the UK and let them run the place again, and embrace the economic level of that time.

Han Chinese are less than 7% of the population of Tibet.

It wasn't just Tibet that suffered at the time of the Cultural Revolution. That time is deeply regretted by everyone.

Boycotting the Olympics would be pandering to US propaganda.

None of the above points is in dispute (by me anyway), aside from the last one - and the monasteries reference is just silly. None render the situation acceptable by their mere restating

Also, it's not really so much US propaganda ...

 

[Drifterwood]

What isn't acceptable? That a Sovereign State should put down an uprising by an ousted power from which it's people were liberated? I think the Chinese can reasonably claim to have liberated Tibet. The Cultural Revolution apart, the lot of the average Tibetan can also be claimed to be much better. The fact that maybe 200,000 Han Chinese are doing well in business there is no different to any other part of S.E.A..

In the grand scale of uprisings, it looked more like a publicity stunt to me. Yes people died regrettably, but less than in the average month a while back in Iraq.

What do the protesters/upriseres want to achieve? Certainly not an autonomous Tibet. Tibet isn't Hong Kong, it's the size of Western Europe with a population of three million.

The Monasteries are declining - well they can't make the country work for their sole benefit anymore.

The Chinese built a Railway - mmhh well yes, Tibet is strategically significant, why shouldn't they?

The passage of time doesn't make my analogy to our own dissolution of monastic power any less relevant. The Tudors dragged this country out of the medieval mire, the Chinese have done the same for Tibet.

 

[Drifterwood]

Sorry - US propaganda.

It's a good guys bad guys thing. People who get in the way or pose a threat have to be bad guys. I've been watching it escalate over the last five years.

 

[kalipygian]

What isn't acceptable? That a Sovereign State should put down an uprising by an ousted power from which it's people were liberated? I think the Chinese can reasonably claim to have liberated Tibet. The Cultural Revolution apart, the lot of the average Tibetan can also be claimed to be much better. The fact that maybe 200,000 Han Chinese are doing well in business there is no different to any other part of S.E.A..

In the grand scale of uprisings, it looked more like a publicity stunt to me. Yes people died regrettably, but less than in the average month a while back in Iraq.

What do the protesters/upriseres want to achieve? Certainly not an autonomous Tibet. Tibet isn't Hong Kong, it's the size of Western Europe with a population of three million.

The Monasteries are declining - well they can't make the country work for their sole benefit anymore.

The Chinese built a Railway - mmhh well yes, Tibet is strategically significant, why shouldn't they?

The passage of time doesn't make my analogy to our own dissolution of monastic power any less relevant. The Tudors dragged this country out of the medieval mire, the Chinese have done the same for Tibet.

Is it also your view that the Llywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru ought to be suppressed?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Tibet is not a Sovereign State.

Right, because of the Chinese jack boot.

The Monks used to run the place, they don't now and they haven't for more than fifty years. Maybe we should reinstate the monasteries in the UK and let them run the place again, and embrace the economic level of that time.

Irrelevant. Tibetans would in many ways be delighted to return to things as they were, which is impossible even if the Chinese totally left, because you can't go home again.
But, that acknowledged, Tibetans would not be unhappy to go back to the way things were, say, in 1958.
Whereas Brits would never go back to 1100.

Han Chinese are less than 7% of the population of Tibet.

Is this true? Then this must make their control of the place all the more aggravating. A tiny tail shakes the Tibetan dog.

It wasn't just Tibet that suffered at the time of the Cultural Revolution. That time is deeply regretted by everyone.

True, but the Cultural Revolution indignities are added to those of the occupation.

Boycotting the Olympics would be pandering to US propaganda.

Is this particularly an American obsession? If it is, I have to get out more.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I think the Chinese can reasonably claim to have liberated Tibet.

Surely this would require that the Tibetan people agreed with you.

In the grand scale of uprisings, it looked more like a publicity stunt to me.

Of course, it can't go anywhere.

What do the protesters/upriseres want to achieve? Certainly not an autonomous Tibet. Tibet isn't Hong Kong, it's the size of Western Europe with a population of three million.

Why would the country's size determine whether they want autonomy?
Anyway, I'm sure they know that's not in the cards.
Relative autonomy, perhaps, as the Dalai Lama has suggested ... but that's not in the cards either.

The Chinese built a Railway - mmhh well yes, Tibet is strategically significant, why shouldn't they?

How many Tibetans wanted it? Very few.

The passage of time doesn't make my analogy to our own dissolution of monastic power any less relevant. The Tudors dragged this country out of the medieval mire, the Chinese have done the same for Tibet.

You know, there's just a bit of truth to this.
The Chinese are certainly modernizing Tibet.
But who asked them to?
Certainly, virtually no Tibetans.
Maybe in the very long scheme of things, that analogy will be widely held.
But the extraordinary damage to Tibetan culture, which like everything else will one day be forgotten, seems to me a real evil of our day.