dong20
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Posts
- 6,058
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 28
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The grey country
- Sexuality
- No Response
...That a Sovereign State should put down an uprising by an ousted power from which it's people were liberated?
The above only makes any sense if you're asserting recent events were orchestrated directly by the exiled Tibetan Government? Do you have direct, citable evidence of this?
I think the Chinese can reasonably claim to have liberated Tibet.
The Chinese can claim whatever they want, reasonably or otherwise, it doesn't make it so. It does however beg a few questions; generally speaking when 'liberating' a people it's not usual to try and eradicate their centuries old cultural heritage, demolish some of their most significant buildings oh yes and torture, kill and suppress the basic rights of many of its citizens. Also, when a people are 'liberated' is it normal that they spend the next sixty years trying to re-instate their former oppressors?
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 an economic sense that's not in dispute. But rather misses the point - what occurred during the Cultural Revolution merely added insult to injustice.
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.
Irrelevant. The only comparison being that in both cases the deaths resulted directly or indirectly from an unwanted, illegal military occupation. If 1000 had died, would your view be different, how about 10,000? At what point would it become clear that what occurred, and is occurring in Tibet is not an outpouring of gratitude by liberated Tibetans.
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.
Very few Tibetans I spoke to wanted independence, or had long since abandoned that hope. What most wanted was to be left alone, few bore serious ill will toward the Chinese. I imagine that may have changed a little of late.
And I have to ask; what does population density have to do with this? Tibet's is pretty close to that of Australia, are you suggesting Australia should be occupied by China also - for having too few people? Never mind, it was rhetorical.
The Monasteries are declining - well they can't make the country work for their sole benefit anymore.
The ones that are left anyway.
The Chinese built a Railway - mmhh well yes, Tibet is strategically significant, why shouldn't they?
What does that have to do with anything? It suits the Chinese more than it benefits Tibetans who likely don't use it much - where would they go?
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.
If only it were so simple. Henry was more interested in bleeding the church dry and securing his power base than addressing abuses of the peasantry by clerics. Many of the concomitant benefits of his actions were almost accidental and came close to being undone anyway.
While I doubt many British would like a return to their pre reformation era, it appears a good many Tibetans don't seem to mind the idea at all. If only the Chinese hadn't liberated them.
What made me laugh (and not in a ha ha way) a few years back (May 2001) was China celebrating the 50th anniversary of its 'Peaceful liberation of Tibet from imperialist forces'. While the true independence of Tibet is dubious, but this is almost a side issue. It had been de facto independent for close to 300 years.
The Chinese can call it whatever they wish, it wasn't liberation, it was occupation. It's not been universally bad, but denial of actual events and their motivation merely makes a bad situation worse.