Does anyone else worry why so few people know about the humanitarian atrocities that are still occurring in tibet 50 years on? it makes you wonder who decides what is 'news worthy' To help the cause there is one small thing we can do. everytime you see a map on which tibet is not included, you can write to the map makers and request that they include tibet, instead of tyring to erase the country altogether. to date 1.2 million tibetans have been murdered by the peoples republic of china. many more thousand tortured, woman undergo forced abortions and sterilisations. And 5.5 million chinese people have been moved into tibet, making tibetans minorities in their own country. heres a link to some more information. http://www.freetibet.org/info/key_issues.html
Yes, it worries me that the imperialist countries have forogtten about all the chinese attrocities just when hcina becomes an important trading partner. Please though dont be under any illusions about tibet before the invasion, it was ruled by the dali lama who was rpetty mutch an absolute ruler. It wasn't some utopian land that we are told it was.
the dali lama an absolute ruler? well i met the dalai lama and he is the most peaceful lovely man. so i find that hard to believe, may i ask where you got that info from? thanks, Jenn xx
Being a "absolute ruler" does not neccearily mean you are an evil man. Being a person without any political power does not make you "a peaceful, lovely man", either. When Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th and current Dalai Lama, for the first time read Marxist litterature, he was so amazed he even wanted to become a Communist party member. I remember reading a while ago that Bush asking why the government continued to give tax relief to the upper class (I think he said something like "but they are already rich, why give tax relief?"). Historically, many "leaders" are just figureheads. But back to the subject of Tibet: Tibet was a feudal society before the revolutionary changes that started in 1949. There were two main classes: the serfs and the aristocratic serf owners. The people lived like serfs in Europe's "Dark Ages," or like African slaves and sharecroppers of the U.S. South. Tibetan serfs scratched barley harvest from the hard earth with wooden plows and sickles. Goats, sheep and yaks were raised for milk, butter, cheese and meat. The aristocratic and monastery masters owned the people, the land and most of the animals. They forced the serfs to hand over most grain and demanded all kinds of forced labor (called ulag). Among the serfs, both men and women participated in hard labor, including ulag. The scattered nomadic peoples of Tibet's barren western highlands were also owned by lords and lamas. Women were supressed. No women would ever enter the palace of the Dalai Lama. There are reports of women being burned for giving birth to twins and for practicing the pre-Buddhist traditional religion (called Bon). Much like China before the revolution: Infants were often drowned. The lama monasteries possessed 37 percent of the cultivated land and pasture in old Tibet; the secular aristocracy 25 percent; and the remaining 38 percent was in the hands of the government officials appointed by the Dalai Lama's advisors. About 2 percent of Tibet's population was in this upper class, and an additional 3 percent were their agents, overseers, stewards, managers of estates and private armies. The ger-ba, a tiny elite of about 200 families, ruled at the top. Han Suyin writes: "Only 626 people held 93 percent of all land and wealth and 70 percent of all the yaks in Tibet. These 626 included 333 heads of monasteries and religious authorities, and 287 lay authorities (including the nobles of the Tibetan army) and six cabinet ministers." The Dalai Lama's older brother Thubten Jigme Norbu claims that in the lamaist social order, "There is no class system and the mobility from class to class makes any class prejudice impossible." But the whole existence of this religious order was based on a rigid and brutal class system. Serfs were treated like despised "inferiors"--the way Black people were treated in the Jim Crow South. Serfs could not use the same seats, vocabulary or eating utensils as serf owners. Even touching one of the master's belongings could be punished by whipping. The masters and serfs were so distant from each other that in much of Tibet they spoke different languages. It was the custom for a serf to kneel on all fours so his master could step on his back to mount a horse. Tibet scholar A. Tom Grunfeld describes how one ruling class girl routinely had servants carry her up and down stairs just because she was lazy. Masters often rode on their serfs' backs across streams. The only thing worse than a serf in Tibet was a "chattel slave," who had no right to even grow a few crops for themselves. These slaves were often starved, beaten and worked to death. A master could turn a serf into a slave any time he wanted. Children were routinely bought and sold in Tibet's capital, Lhasa. About 5 percent of the Tibetan people were counted as chattel slaves. And at least another 10 percent were poor monks who were really "slaves in robes." The lamaist system tried to prevent any escape. Runaway slaves couldn't just set up free farms in the vast empty lands. Former serfs explained to revolutionary writer Anna Louise Strong that before liberation, "You could not live in Tibet without a master. Anyone might pick you up as an outlaw unless you had a legal owner."
Well that I did not know, thanks. Thats not very in keeping with buddhist ideals is it? Even so, I dont think this should diminish the oppression of tibetans by the chinese. Particularily the kidnapping of the panchen lama who has spent a decade in custody, which is, I think, atrocious.
No. I personally do not think so. But my knowledge on Buddhism is limited, so I won't go there. You probably know a lot more than I do. I agree. I do support Chinese involvement in the start, due to the improvement of people's life. People received healthcare, education, men and women were given equal rights, serfs received land. Radio's, who only the upper class used, was now open to everyone, etc. It is a very isolated area, and China poured in resources in order to modernize Tibet. But after the coup in China in the late 70's, things have gotten worse for the people there. Those people who were part of the coup (the revisionists) only saw Tibet as a strategic resource. Today, Tibet's resources are being thoughtlessly exploited--serving only the rich. The revisionists (those who took over China in the 70's) did not see much reason to mobilize the people to overthrow the feudal landlords. They were chauvinist who looked down on the people of Tibetan -- considering them hopelessly backward and superstitious. When they looked at Tibet, they saw only a border that needed defending, mineral resources to be exploited, and a potential "breadbasket" that could help feed the rest of China. They thought that developing independent industries or diversified agriculture was "inefficient" and a waste of time. So they were, and are still not really interested in the well-being of the people of Tibet. They just care about themselves and those who "have". The "have-nots" (like the people in Tibet) is none of their business. But the history of China and Tibet goes far back. According to Wikipedia (a unreliable source, but none the less) "the Chinese established direct rule for the first time in 1910". Perhaps the situation is more complicated than we living in the West, would think? China is a powerful military force, and in the next decades, it will most likely emerge as the world's superpower. Tibet has a population on 2,62 million (according to statistics of 2000). China's population: 1.3 billion. Carrying out a rebellion will probably only make the situation worse. I personally only see a few possibilities for change in the Tibet-situation: * External pressure * Domestic pressure (from the Chinese and/or the people of Tibet) * Change in the structure of Chinese society Perhaps a combination of all of these could create opportunities and even change.
Sorry but it is well known that the dali lama was a king. He had all the power. Wether you like it or not. He may well be a very nice man but that doesnt change the level of democracy in tibet.
I usually don't agree with Communism, but he (she?) is right, the Dhali Lama ran a horrifically oprresive country. Of course he wants to return to power as a monarch, and keep subjagating his people who lived in absolute squalor before the chinese came. Tibet was a theocracy, ran by a monarch and a rich priesthood, and was much worse then Iran is today. Eye gouging and disembowelment were reported as common punishments for breaking religious law under the priesthood. The Chinese introduced light, electricity, medicine, and secular education, they also crushed as much free speech as possible, and arrested millions of political prisoners, and forced the nation of Tibet into slavery to exploit its resources.
wow,so much i didnt know about the dalai lama, and this is the man won the nobel peace prize? i aggree communism, rebellion is not the answer. but i dont think thats even being suggested by tibetans themselves. (?) I think they hope that external pressure, particularly from the UN will be the solution. I dont know will it.
Bush said 'let's free Iraq' Really. How are you gonna free Tibet without violence. Economic sanctions for China. Yeah rite. Don't think tha's gonna happen. No more jeans, chlothing, noodles, toys, electronics or whatever shit is coming from china. There is no way.
Well, the Tibetan priesthood certainly does have an unpleasent history, but the current Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, was only 15 when he ascended to the head of state in Tibet, and had nothing to do with the history of the priesthood. He was only head of state for a few months before the Chinese rolled in during 1950. He worked with the UN to help pass several resolutions to combat Chinese militantism, and he has also done much charitable work. The Dali Lama is a good guy, and deserved to win the nobel prize but there are a few questionable things he's done. He accepted money from the CIA to sponser Tibetan guerillas which seems slightly hypocritical consdering how much he talks about peace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso I don't know if Tibet will ever be fully autonomous, nor do I know how important that is. I think whats more important is how the Chinese handle Tibet now then trying to force a state on Tibet. The United States and more importantly Asia, have a problem as long as Chinese militantism is still national policy for the PRC. Fortunatly, the US is now in a position with China where we can help the Chinese people institue drastic reforms. Chinese relations should be at the forefront of every US administration from this point forward. China has already gone through many important changes, including banning police brutality. Now as their largest trading partner, Chinas huge economic growth is completly dependant on the United States, and we can use that advantage to persuade China into embracing democracy, and transforming China into what can be one of the greatest nations on earth. It's going to be tricky, but I believe it can be done, and there are important steps we should be taking right now, including getting rid of the notion of Taiwanese independence, and signing a non agression treaty with the PRC to accept Chinese control of Taiwan, with the conditions of no anti-subversion laws, or press controls for Taiwan, and Taiwanese civil elections, including Taiwanese policing of the territory. China would accept this proposal, and this would be a major step in fighting anti-subversion laws in the mainland. Anyway, sparking democrcy in Tibet might be a little more difficult, considering its diplomatic status is less contentious with the western governments, but the United States can probably use its trading advantage to convince the PRC to let the Lama live in Tibet without conditions, and to allow Tibet to have indepndant media.
