14 ms·

Western meddling in Sino-Tibetan affairs by the US government is understandable and is just international politics. But meddling by so-called 'anti-establishme

by awl130 11y ago

Western meddling in Sino-Tibetan affairs by the US government is understandable and is just international politics. But meddling by so-called 'anti-establishment' celebrities is the height of irony. The equivalent of Russell Brandt yelling "Free Tibet" at Glastonbury would be Al Wei Wei (famous Chinese social activist / artist) holding a concert in Shenzhen with proceeds going to some Singapore-based non-profit called "Free Cherokee Nation". The odds of the Cherokee Nation miraculously gaining sovereignty from the USA, and Al Wei Wei's ultimate benefit, if any, are so large and so remote, respectively, that we couldn't help but view such an act as self-serving. And so are all these western celebrities viewed by those in Asia (if at all). It is, in a sense, an self-aggrandizing gesture for a purely Western audience with little effect on China. It is, therefore, a circle-jerk.

guard-of-terra 11y ago
Well, I can imagine things like what you describe (regarding Cherokee Nation) and I won't find that especially odd. But Tibetians are much more numerous and they've lost their independence much more recently, making their case incomparable to that of Cherokee. Your parable is shaky. You seem to think that Dalai Lama issue is either solely about annoying China, or solely about self-presentation. It is not. People are genuinely interested in Buddhism because it looks elegant and less stained than other major religions.
- awl130 11y ago
  Would it help you if it were "Free Hawai'i"? That timeline is comparable. Your last statement confuses me. What does Dalai Lama have to do with Buddhism? The Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism but the head of Tibet, which is a tribe seeking a political state. Tibetan Buddhism is a sect of Buddhism practiced beyond Tibetan borders. Much like a great many Shia Muslims live in Iran, but we would not confound Iranian political independence with Shia Islam. Let's not forget Buddha was "born" in present-day Nepal. Certainly, the Dalai Lama is no fool and uses his religion for his political agenda, seeking to perhaps to conflate the two. By your post it seems he is succeeding.
  - jmagoon 11y ago
    The Dalai Lama is the head of Tibetan Buddhism, because Tibet is (was) a theocracy, much like the Pope is the head of the Papal State and the Catholic Church. (Though this is not an exact parallel due to to the distributed nature of the Tibetan Schools) And, if you read the article, you would see that one of the major points is that the Dalai Lama has dissolved that connection (head of religion - head of state) only relatively recently. Calling Tibet a 'tribe' is also a little bit strange, and smacks of the way Chinese propaganda reduces the legitimacy of Tibet's claim to nationhood (and even legitimate personhood), despite Tibet's governmental and territorial sovereignty from at least 1200 AD onward. Your claim that the "[Dalai Lama] is succeeding...at conflating religion and politics" is the direct Communist Party line, even though that is being directly contradicted by the source article. My personal reading of the article is that the Dalai Lama gave up on statehood in the 80s, and is primarily focused on preserving Tibetan culture, despite the persistent claim that he is a "wolf in sheep's clothing", and that "every word he speaks is a lie".
    - barry-cotter 11y ago
      > Calling Tibet a 'tribe' is also a little bit strange, and smacks of the way Chinese propaganda reduces the legitimacy of Tibet's claim to nationhood (and even legitimate personhood), despite Tibet's governmental and territorial sovereignty from at least 1200 AD onward. It is hilarious how the maps in museums fail to show the Tibetan Empire during any of many, many periods when it was both theoretically and actually independent but to claim that Tibet has been sovereign since 1200 is insane. The Qing dynasty ruled for almost three centuries and they the Tibetans were their vassals.
    - justicezyx 11y ago
      Much like we discredit Cherokee's nation hood?
  - atlantic 11y ago
    >What does Dalai Lama have to do with Buddhism? The Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism but the head of Tibet The Dalai Lama is considered by religious Tibetans to be the incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, the Tibetan Buddhist deity that personifies compassion. So your question makes about as much sense as asking what Jesus has to do with Christianity.
- Alex3917 11y ago
  > People are genuinely interested in Buddhism because it looks elegant and less stained than other major religions. Because it was basically invented by white folks in the last 150 years and designed to appeal to those with scientific mindset. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's a little propagandistic not to acknowledge it.
  - Silfen 11y ago
    I think this is fairly revisionist. This narrative undersells the influence that Buddhist thought had on enlightenment philosophers[0]. IANAHistorian, and am likely well out of my depth here, but I'd venture a guess that the influence worked in both directions, due to overlap in philosophical positions. For example, from the Dalai Lama: Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions emphasize the role of empiricism. For example, in the Buddhist investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of knowledge - experience, reason and testimony - it is the evidence of the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and testimony last.[1] [0]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-david-hume-helped-me-solve-my-midlife-crisis/403195/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-davi... [1]http://www.dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/science-at-the-crossroads http://www.dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/science-at-the-cr...
  - blinkingled 11y ago
    >Because it was basically invented by white folks in the last 150 years Invented by white folks? What? Did you perhaps mean they made it mainstream for white people by giving it a western flavor?
    - Alex3917 11y ago
      No, iirc the religion was constructed pretty much wholesale during the opium wars to convince people that the Chinese were an intelligent people with a rich cultural history who we shouldn't be genociding. There are a bunch of books about it, this blog post gives an overview of the situation and links to a bunch of the books: https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/a-new-world-religion/ https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/a-new-world-rel... I haven't really spent any time reading up on it, but they talk about it all the time on the Buddhist Geeks podcast, and presumably they'd be in the know since they are/were students at Naropa.
- DominikR 11y ago
  > But Tibetians are much more numerous and they've lost their independence much more recently Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the majority of Tibetans were before the Chinese slaves in an absolutist monarchy/theocracy that used extremely cruel torture and punishments. (amputation of limbs, skinning, cutting off ears/noses) Let's be honest here, this whole Free Tibet business is just about pressuring the Chinese government and nothing else. If it advances the US governments strategic goals then they will even support barbarians like ISIS. Unfortunately for the US the Chinese government is quite resilient. They are not even trying to stir something in Tibet anymore, that one has failed. Currently they are trying hard in the Muslim Uighur regions, but apparently it doesn't work any better. The Chinese will just crush any externally supported resistance, they don't give a crap. Nor do the Russians.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    The Free Tibet movement in the West has always had more to do with counterculture than the US government. I suspect most Tibetans were rather worse off during the Cultural Revolution than in the quasi-feudal system that existed before. I'm not entirely convinced they're necessarily worse off today, but the Tibetan refugees risking their lives walking across the Himalayas into an exile where they get to "meet the Lama" couldn't really be any less focused on geopolitics... I'm not aware of any parallel Cherokee diaspora. I don't think the Uighurs' preferences for their own cultural practices is anything to do with them paying any attention to the US either.
    - DominikR 11y ago
      Sure, I don't doubt that these people really want to secede, but undoubtably some rather large component of this is created by external support. Throughout history nationalism, religion and ethnicity has always been used to destabilise countries, this is nothing new. I don't put any extraordinary blame on the US for this, it's what most powerful nations are doing in their quest for even more power. About the Cherokees: Don't know if it is due to their low numbers, or simply because the US is powerful enough to prevent this from happening. Maybe the Cherokees are happy as it is or the right people are payed off by the government. In general this can be exploited best when a country is in severe economic trouble. For example Chechnya after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US is not even remotely in a comparable state.
obrero 11y ago
Eleven hours ago a story was published ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10667986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10667986 ) about how native Hawaiians don't want what is supposed to be their culturally protected landmark mountain, Mauna Kea, handed over to the local university via what a court ruled an illegitimate permit process. So the expected response was that Hawaii's sovereignty be restored to its natives after the 117 year old forced annexation, and their land be kept by them. Of course, if you look in the thread, this didn't happen. The comments are about how they see "the native Hawaiian culture inferior to my own" and such. It's the typical western response, great pain at the Tibetan peasants overthrow of the Dalai Lama's theocracy in concert with Chinese communists, yet nothing but scorn for the natives and traditions of their annexed territories like Hawaii.
powera 11y ago
You do realize that Ai Wei Wei actually had a significant exhibit on Alcatraz, where there were significant Native American protests, right? http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-ai-weiwei-breaking-into-alcatraz-180952742/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-ai-weiwei-bre...
- eric_h 11y ago
  It was a pretty fucking awesome exhibit, too. Glad I got a chance to see it when I was over there.

by awl130 11y ago

guard-of-terra 11y ago

Well, I can imagine things like what you describe (regarding Cherokee Nation) and I won't find that especially odd. But Tibetians are much more numerous and they've lost their independence much more recently, making their case incomparable to that of Cherokee. Your parable is shaky. You seem to think that Dalai Lama issue is either solely about annoying China, or solely about self-presentation. It is not. People are genuinely interested in Buddhism because it looks elegant and less stained than other major religions.

awl130 11y ago
Would it help you if it were "Free Hawai'i"? That timeline is comparable. Your last statement confuses me. What does Dalai Lama have to do with Buddhism? The Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism but the head of Tibet, which is a tribe seeking a political state. Tibetan Buddhism is a sect of Buddhism practiced beyond Tibetan borders. Much like a great many Shia Muslims live in Iran, but we would not confound Iranian political independence with Shia Islam. Let's not forget Buddha was "born" in present-day Nepal. Certainly, the Dalai Lama is no fool and uses his religion for his political agenda, seeking to perhaps to conflate the two. By your post it seems he is succeeding.
- jmagoon 11y ago
  The Dalai Lama is the head of Tibetan Buddhism, because Tibet is (was) a theocracy, much like the Pope is the head of the Papal State and the Catholic Church. (Though this is not an exact parallel due to to the distributed nature of the Tibetan Schools) And, if you read the article, you would see that one of the major points is that the Dalai Lama has dissolved that connection (head of religion - head of state) only relatively recently. Calling Tibet a 'tribe' is also a little bit strange, and smacks of the way Chinese propaganda reduces the legitimacy of Tibet's claim to nationhood (and even legitimate personhood), despite Tibet's governmental and territorial sovereignty from at least 1200 AD onward. Your claim that the "[Dalai Lama] is succeeding...at conflating religion and politics" is the direct Communist Party line, even though that is being directly contradicted by the source article. My personal reading of the article is that the Dalai Lama gave up on statehood in the 80s, and is primarily focused on preserving Tibetan culture, despite the persistent claim that he is a "wolf in sheep's clothing", and that "every word he speaks is a lie".
  - barry-cotter 11y ago
    > Calling Tibet a 'tribe' is also a little bit strange, and smacks of the way Chinese propaganda reduces the legitimacy of Tibet's claim to nationhood (and even legitimate personhood), despite Tibet's governmental and territorial sovereignty from at least 1200 AD onward. It is hilarious how the maps in museums fail to show the Tibetan Empire during any of many, many periods when it was both theoretically and actually independent but to claim that Tibet has been sovereign since 1200 is insane. The Qing dynasty ruled for almost three centuries and they the Tibetans were their vassals.
  - justicezyx 11y ago
    Much like we discredit Cherokee's nation hood?
- atlantic 11y ago
  >What does Dalai Lama have to do with Buddhism? The Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism but the head of Tibet The Dalai Lama is considered by religious Tibetans to be the incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, the Tibetan Buddhist deity that personifies compassion. So your question makes about as much sense as asking what Jesus has to do with Christianity.
Alex3917 11y ago
> People are genuinely interested in Buddhism because it looks elegant and less stained than other major religions. Because it was basically invented by white folks in the last 150 years and designed to appeal to those with scientific mindset. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's a little propagandistic not to acknowledge it.
- Silfen 11y ago
  I think this is fairly revisionist. This narrative undersells the influence that Buddhist thought had on enlightenment philosophers[0]. IANAHistorian, and am likely well out of my depth here, but I'd venture a guess that the influence worked in both directions, due to overlap in philosophical positions. For example, from the Dalai Lama: Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions emphasize the role of empiricism. For example, in the Buddhist investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of knowledge - experience, reason and testimony - it is the evidence of the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and testimony last.[1] [0]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-david-hume-helped-me-solve-my-midlife-crisis/403195/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-davi... [1]http://www.dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/science-at-the-crossroads http://www.dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/science-at-the-cr...
- blinkingled 11y ago
  >Because it was basically invented by white folks in the last 150 years Invented by white folks? What? Did you perhaps mean they made it mainstream for white people by giving it a western flavor?
  - Alex3917 11y ago
    No, iirc the religion was constructed pretty much wholesale during the opium wars to convince people that the Chinese were an intelligent people with a rich cultural history who we shouldn't be genociding. There are a bunch of books about it, this blog post gives an overview of the situation and links to a bunch of the books: https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/a-new-world-religion/ https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/a-new-world-rel... I haven't really spent any time reading up on it, but they talk about it all the time on the Buddhist Geeks podcast, and presumably they'd be in the know since they are/were students at Naropa.
DominikR 11y ago
> But Tibetians are much more numerous and they've lost their independence much more recently Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the majority of Tibetans were before the Chinese slaves in an absolutist monarchy/theocracy that used extremely cruel torture and punishments. (amputation of limbs, skinning, cutting off ears/noses) Let's be honest here, this whole Free Tibet business is just about pressuring the Chinese government and nothing else. If it advances the US governments strategic goals then they will even support barbarians like ISIS. Unfortunately for the US the Chinese government is quite resilient. They are not even trying to stir something in Tibet anymore, that one has failed. Currently they are trying hard in the Muslim Uighur regions, but apparently it doesn't work any better. The Chinese will just crush any externally supported resistance, they don't give a crap. Nor do the Russians.
- notahacker 11y ago
  The Free Tibet movement in the West has always had more to do with counterculture than the US government. I suspect most Tibetans were rather worse off during the Cultural Revolution than in the quasi-feudal system that existed before. I'm not entirely convinced they're necessarily worse off today, but the Tibetan refugees risking their lives walking across the Himalayas into an exile where they get to "meet the Lama" couldn't really be any less focused on geopolitics... I'm not aware of any parallel Cherokee diaspora. I don't think the Uighurs' preferences for their own cultural practices is anything to do with them paying any attention to the US either.
  - DominikR 11y ago
    Sure, I don't doubt that these people really want to secede, but undoubtably some rather large component of this is created by external support. Throughout history nationalism, religion and ethnicity has always been used to destabilise countries, this is nothing new. I don't put any extraordinary blame on the US for this, it's what most powerful nations are doing in their quest for even more power. About the Cherokees: Don't know if it is due to their low numbers, or simply because the US is powerful enough to prevent this from happening. Maybe the Cherokees are happy as it is or the right people are payed off by the government. In general this can be exploited best when a country is in severe economic trouble. For example Chechnya after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US is not even remotely in a comparable state.

obrero 11y ago

Eleven hours ago a story was published ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10667986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10667986 ) about how native Hawaiians don't want what is supposed to be their culturally protected landmark mountain, Mauna Kea, handed over to the local university via what a court ruled an illegitimate permit process. So the expected response was that Hawaii's sovereignty be restored to its natives after the 117 year old forced annexation, and their land be kept by them. Of course, if you look in the thread, this didn't happen. The comments are about how they see "the native Hawaiian culture inferior to my own" and such. It's the typical western response, great pain at the Tibetan peasants overthrow of the Dalai Lama's theocracy in concert with Chinese communists, yet nothing but scorn for the natives and traditions of their annexed territories like Hawaii.

powera 11y ago

You do realize that Ai Wei Wei actually had a significant exhibit on Alcatraz, where there were significant Native American protests, right? http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-ai-weiwei-breaking-into-alcatraz-180952742/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-ai-weiwei-bre...

eric_h 11y ago
It was a pretty fucking awesome exhibit, too. Glad I got a chance to see it when I was over there.