Log In | Register
JACK HUANG
Knowledge is but a means to insight.
Articles Posted: 15; Links Seeded: 272
Member Since: 11/2005Last Seen: 11/28/2009
Member Since: 11/2005Last Seen: 11/28/2009
6 Votes
18 Comments
An Olive Branch From the Dalai Lama
News Type: Opinion — Seeded on Thu Aug 7, 2008 2:27 PM EDT
Article Source: The New York Timesadvertisement
...
One signal is this: For the first time, the Dalai Lama is willing to state that he can accept the socialist system in Tibet under Communist Party rule. This is something that Beijing has always demanded, and, after long discussion, the Dalai Lama has agreed to do so.
"The main thing is to preserve our culture, to preserve the character of Tibet," the Dalai Lama told me. "That is what is most important, not politics."
...
Published to:
- Jack Huang's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Olympics, Open Minded, Political Analysis
- Regions: New York
 | An Olive Branch From the Dalai Lama | The New York Times | Fri Aug 8 | 7 |
 | Dalai Lama says world should be firm with China | Associated Press | Wed Aug 6 | 0 |
| Op-Ed Columnist - An Olive Branch From the Dalai Lama - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com | The New York Times | Thu Aug 7 | 1 |
- Public Discussion (18)
- Olympics
- Open Minded
- Political Analysis
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
5.8
{"commentId":2392147,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
Perhaps, as the author says, public statements have grossly misrepresented the Dalai Lama's current position, but I can't help but be a bit skeptical regarding what he asserts as his current position.
If it's all true, then I agree with the author and think that China should step up and grant a measure of cultural and religious autonomy to Tibet, as they'd done before. However, while this will likely not be the Lama's fault, I see the concession of allowing him free travel in and out of Tibet as conducive to extremist Tibetan movements. The result of that concession will simply be decided by a battle of wits between Dalai Lama's and the respect he commands, versus the anti-Chinese fervor that has been building in Tibet -- due, in no small part, to (mis)interpretations of the Lama's political position.
Further, to delve into even deeper cynicism, the concession of releasing all non-violent political prisoners will certainly be met with controversy, considering the West's current mistrust of what China says. Once such a concession is made, the slippery slope of who to release will inevitably fall in favor of leniency, which will make the Chinese push back, possibly sparking more political tension, and creating more excuses for Western whining.
The West is quick to see the Lama is an untouchably moral figure, and I agree that he's probably generally a good guy, but China will never forget the circumstances of his flight, the murderous rampage of Tibetan monks who slaughtered hundreds of Chinese men, women, and children that eventually brought us to our current situation.
{"commentId":2392147,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 1 vote
#1 - Thu Aug 7, 2008 2:38 PM EDT{"commentId":2400853,"authorDomain":"alkimija"}
Uh... what about the destruction of Tibetan cultural monuments, the torture and oppression of Tibetan people, and the slaughter of Tibetans by Chinese soldiers?
The Chinese have no right to be in Tibet in the first place. The Tibetans have every right to independence.
{"commentId":2400853,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"alkimija"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2401401,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
The Chinese have no right to be in Tibet in the first place. The Tibetans have every right to independence.
In geopolitics, there is no such thing as a "right" to anything.
Israel had no right to simply waltz in and claim Middle Eastern land. European Americans had no right to simply blitzkrieg North America.
But, such is the way of the world.
{"commentId":2401401,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2401460,"authorDomain":"alkimija"}
Typical disinformationalist tactic: change the subject when unable to honestly answer to the points raised.
{"commentId":2401460,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"alkimija"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2401603,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
Ah, what hypocrisy in using accusations of dodging as a dodging tactic.
Your first contention? Sure, they spurred it along, as well, but don't pretend that the Tibetans are these saintly victims of the evil commie pinkos. Of course, to wit, I can also point out that China essentially brought Tibet from the Bronze Age into the modern world, increasing its GDP exponentially. The Chinese have been rather crude in their treatment of Tibet, and even worse at countering pro-Tibet PR spin. However, Tibet is simply another trendy Western "Look, I'm so compassionate!" talking point, much like Darfur.
You'll see that I did answer your second contention, in that it's an empty emotional appeal. I don't see substanceless pleas for vapid pity or hollow demonization as anything better than whatever your definition of disinformation at the moment happens to be.
{"commentId":2401603,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2408014,"authorDomain":"alkimija"}
Double dodge. Triple dodge if you count that post.
Tibetan civilians certainly are victimized by China's oppressive and outright murderous policies.
You'll see that I did answer your second contention
No, you did not. China has no right to be in Tibet. PERIOD.
{"commentId":2408014,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"alkimija"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2408132,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
Double dodge. Triple dodge if you count that post.
Learn to read.
Tibetan civilians certainly are victimized by China's oppressive and outright murderous policies.
Use whatever colorful descriptors you like, as apparently you have little need for reality. However, I don't completely disagree with you, if you bothered to read comment 1.4.
No, you did not. China has no right to be in Tibet. PERIOD.
China has no right to be in Tibet, much like Israel has no right to exist, and the US has no right to... oh, any of the handful of foreign intervention tactics that litter its history. Yet, all of these things happen, and people like you hardly utter a peep.
Simply making proclamations, even if they're capitalized and superficially vehement, doesn't make them true. Most people learn that by the time they move beyond the "stamp your foot and pout" phase of childhood.
You hardly seem willing to discuss anything in any way, but simply to declare empty demonizations from up on high. Almost cute. Almost.
{"commentId":2408132,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2392340,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
As for the Tibet Autonomous Region, singular Tibetan administration is something the Chinese gov't will fathomly never concede, and in this, they have the full support of the Chinese people.
Even the supposed "compromise" of sharply curbing Han Chinese immigration into Tibet is laughably absurd once we try to transplant the proposal into any other nation. I doubt there are more than a handful of people out there who would support a similar measure for, say, a US state, even assuming a large indigenous ethnic population still existed.
While the article begins with a good deal of promise, the author sadly devolves into a whimsical romp through political idealism, touting his "compromise" as a plan that "would resolve the Tibet question and end an international embarrassment, as well as prevent the rise of protests and terrorism for decades to come."
What a meaningless statement. The same could be said of simply giving the Lama a quarter of China to have his way with.
While I agree that the Chinese leadership should oblige a rapport with the Dalai, the author should take a step back, and remind himself that he is not the Dalai Lama, and while China may be conciliatory in certain respects, it will not simply take his assessment of fair compromise at face value.
The ball is hardly just in China's court.
{"commentId":2392340,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
#2 - Thu Aug 7, 2008 2:54 PM EDT{"commentId":2393593,"authorDomain":"jade-log"}
"The main thing is to preserve our culture, to preserve the character of Tibet," the Dalai Lama told me. "That is what is most important, not politics."
This is at the core of Tibetan desires. It would seem they are fast becoming a minority. They want to preserve the culture.
{"commentId":2393593,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"jade-log"}
{"commentId":2393708,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
Of course, and I support that. I think the Chinese are being naive, both politically and for posterity, in destroying a number of Tibetan monuments and disrespecting their customs.
However -- this goes back to my skepticism regarding the Lama's statements -- Tibet and the Lama have made preservation of their culture a driving force in their political activism. They've used it to excuse a myriad array of political conditions, including demands to assume full control of the TAR.
I find it extremely doubtful that, even in the Lama's own mind, he can really separate Tibet's political goals from an unadulterated desire to preserve its culture.
{"commentId":2393708,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
{"commentId":2400526,"authorDomain":"sbutki"}
Ok, so admit my ignorance here but what exactly is it that China and/or you wants Lama to do?
{"commentId":2400526,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"sbutki"}
- 1 vote
#3 - Fri Aug 8, 2008 11:44 AM EDT{"commentId":2400580,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
I think the core of the matter is that I don't think the Lama is really as willing to compromise as he claims, especially with regards to preserving Tibetan culture in a way that stays out of general politics.
Even if he's being entirely truthful in stating his goals, which is to be commended, I doubt he'll be able to bring about changes that are such a departure from the constant refrain we've heard from Tibetan activists and the exiled Tibetan "gov't."
As such, I think the author of the article goes off on an extremely unrealistic tangent, proposing an assortment of points that, while somewhat reasonable if taken in a vacuum, clearly contains a number of "compromises" that China will almost certainly not agree to.
As such, the ball is not out of the Lama's court, yet. It's still being bounced back and forth.
Before making such bold proclamations of compromise with any confidence, I think the Lama has a lot of work cut out for him if he wants politically active Tibetans are fall in line with him.
{"commentId":2400580,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2478736,"authorDomain":"tchuzi"}
To briefly paraphrase Jack's perspective on the matter of Chinese policies and actions in Tibet, "Might IS Right"
Those Tibetans should really recognize their good fortune. Things could have been worse, Look what happened to the European Jews in the 30's and 40's.
I mean, let's be realistic, such things are just the way of the world. Hernando Cortes may have destroyed a number of Aztec monuments and disrespected their customs, but he brought them out of the Stone Age ! And before the Spaniards arrived, they didn't even have a GDP.
Damned ingrate Indians, don't know when they've got it good.
The treatment of the Tibetan people by the invading Chinese has been little better than the treatment of the Native Americans by the European colonists and American settlers.
{"commentId":2478736,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"tchuzi"}
#4 - Sun Aug 17, 2008 7:52 AM EDT{"commentId":2480827,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
To briefly paraphrase Jack's perspective on the matter of Chinese policies and actions in Tibet, "Might IS Right"
You apparently need retake second-grade English class. Even if I did say that, though, the West hardly has a leg to stand on when attempting moral superiority. "Might is right" has been the dominating factor in Western geopolitics for centuries.
The treatment of the Tibetan people by the invading Chinese has been little better than the treatment of the Native Americans by the European colonists and American settlers.
Really? Tibet hasn't been reduced to small plots of lands dotted with casinos. The Chinese didn't nearly exterminate the Tibetans by first introducing disease, the mounting military offensives. The Chinese have had political contact with Tibet for 11 centuries, and for most of that time, has wielded control over it.
Just tiny differences, I'm sure.
Before you presume to make grand and pithy comparisons to attempt sarcasm, learn about the subject matter beyond reading "pro-Tibet" websites.
{"commentId":2480827,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2481847,"authorDomain":"tchuzi"}
"To briefly paraphrase..."you found my comment unintelligible? Or is your argument more, your English is superior to mine (another issue, another time) therefore your ideas are, as well?
I was not attempting to justify what anyone else has done in the past or what they are doing today, I was talking about what the Chinese are doing in Tibet. And they have no need to first weaken their enemy with disease as their enemy has not the manpower or machinery to effectively resist. The Tibetans did attempt to defend themselves but they had about as much chance of resisting China (probably less) as the Hungarians had of resisting the Soviets in 1956.
In the matter of political control and cultural preservation, Tibetian society and culture was a theocracy under Tibetan Buddhism, personified in the Dalai Lama and it is not really possible to place another system of political organization in contol of Tibet without destroying their cultural integrity.
As for the Chinese claim that they are rescuing the poor unhappy Tibetan people from a cruel and repressive theocratic tyranny, I was not aware that the people of Tibet were interested in being rescued from their religious leaders or that they had asked the Chinese to aid them in this matter.
With respect to long-standing Chinese domination of Tibet, you merely have to look at the clear-cut diffence in physical appearance between the Chinese and Tibetans to recognize that these are two distinctly different populations.
If Tibet has, historically, been usually under Chinese control, it has in the past been a very different situation than what is occuring today. Today, the Chinese people are actively colonizing Tibet (which has not been the case in the past), taking the best for themselves and pushing the Tibetans to the margins while actively trying to stamp out Tibetan cultural heritage through state-mandated educational indoctrination for Tibetan children. Tibetans have become second-class citizens in their own land.
I have not been visiting any pro-Tibet websites but given that China is controlling, to the best of its ability, entry into Tibet and what information is allowed to emerge from that area, unless you get your information from some 'unreasonably biased Tibetan source', you are getting what the Chinese government thinks is appropriate for you to hear.
I hope that you have not found me to be too grandly pithy and sarcastic.
{"commentId":2481847,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"tchuzi"}
{"commentId":2482467,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
See, now this explanatory comment is much better than simply "Jack thinks might is right." :-p
personified in the Dalai Lama and it is not really possible to place another system of political organization in contol of Tibet without destroying their cultural integrity.
Actually, Tibet was part of China off and on ever since the 11th century (so, not 11 centuries, but 9 centuries, sorry about that). As such, it's rather clear that such political compromise is possible. Heck, the Dalai Lama himself, in the interview seeded here, said as much. I assume you've actually read the seed here.
As for the Chinese claim that they are rescuing the poor unhappy Tibetan people from a cruel and repressive theocratic tyranny, I was not aware that the people of Tibet were interested in being rescued from their religious leaders or that they had asked the Chinese to aid them in this matter.
The Chinese have rarely ever claimed such a grandiosely noble thing. Unlike the US, China doesn't have a savior complex.
With respect to long-standing Chinese domination of Tibet, you merely have to look at the clear-cut diffence in physical appearance between the Chinese and Tibetans to recognize that these are two distinctly different populations.
And China has 56 ethnic minorities in it, the people of Xinjiang being far more Russian in appearance than quintessentially Han. Your point?
Today, the Chinese people are actively colonizing Tibet (which has not been the case in the past), taking the best for themselves and pushing the Tibetans to the margins while actively trying to stamp out Tibetan cultural heritage through state-mandated educational indoctrination for Tibetan children.
Colonizing? You're assuming Tibet isn't already part of China (which it is)? Did you miss the part where Tibet is presuming to ask for independence (and has been doing so for a while now)? Kinda stupid to ask for that if the Chinese are only now starting to "colonize" it. Further, point out where they're taking the best for themselves and marginalizing Tibetans? As for stamping out Tibetan culture, honestly, if China really wanted to do that, Tibetan culture would have disappeared in the span of a week. Last I checked, it's still there.
unless you get your information from some 'unreasonably biased Tibetan source', you are getting what the Chinese government thinks is appropriate for you to hear.
Ah, so either it's claims of "Yay, Tibet. Evil, evil China" or it can't be anything besides evil conspiratorial Chinese propaganda. Ah yes, that's what I call a balanced view: either you agree with an extremist perspective, or you're giving into brainwashing.
Tibetans have become second-class citizens in their own land.
Tibet is the most autonomous of the Chinese provinces. If the Chinese really wanted to simply take it over and enslave the Tibetans, it'd be done in the blink of an eye.
{"commentId":2482467,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2482727,"authorDomain":"tchuzi"}
I'm sure that you must be aware Jack, that the Chinese government is holding the young boy (the latest incarnation of the #2 man in the Tibetan religious hierarchy) captive in Peking and raising him in isolation from his own culture. This effectively puts the Chinese government in control of the structure of Tibetan Buddhism once the Dalai Lama dies.
As for the rest, I've stated my viewpoints and arguments and you have yours. For my part, I'm comfortable with pursuing the argument no farther and letting anyone who's interested in following up on any of the points raised here do their own investigation and come to their own conclusions.
{"commentId":2482727,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"tchuzi"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2518516,"authorDomain":"tchuzi"}
I must apologise for incorrect information in my last comment.
The young boy that was selected by the Dalai Lama (and according to the customs of Tibetan Buddhism can only be chosen by the Dalai Lama)as the latest incarnation of the Pachen Lama has disappeared along with his family into the custody of the People's Republic and nothing more is known about them.
The boy that is being held in Beijing by the PRC is their chosen successor to the office of Pachen Lama. This selection by the PRC is totally without any legitimacy in Tibetan Buddhism and the PRC's man is commonly referred to as the Pachen Zuma (Fake Pachen) by the people of Tibet.
{"commentId":2518516,"threadId":"327664","contentId":"1728744","authorDomain":"tchuzi"}
- 1 vote
#5 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:49 PM EDT{"canLink":false,"threadId":"327664","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
