16 ms·
Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth (2003)
- pritovido 6y agoWhat a sectarian article: So there is a distressing symbiosis between religion and violence but the Cultural revolution was a "mistake". So the most violent and murderous event in Human's History was just a mistake. Communism has the biggest distressing symbiosis with violence and murder ever: Lenin killed the highest number of religious people ever, and they did not defend themselves. In Spain the communist also killed from 6.000 to 10.000 religious people that by the way did not apostatize or defend themselves. Stalin killed millions of their own people. Pol Pot millions. Mao killed hundreds of millions. This article is a piece of propaganda in order to defend the invasion of China of a foreign country. Now the big lords are the Chinese communist and Tibet and Nepal continue being extremely poor.
- ianleeclark 6y ago> Mao killed hundreds of millions. Engaging in genocide olympics is bad enough, but this is probably the most overt example of bad history I've ever seen. You've managed to even surpass the black book of Communism (100 million claimed) in your reaction.
- fqye 6y agoMao didn't kill millions. Yes millions died in China from 1950 to 1960. But it was a combination of failed social experiments, aka communism and central planning of everything, and natural disasters. Mao was brutal to his political opponents but he never ordered massive massacres.
- hirako2000 6y agoThanks for this less biased view on Tibet society.
- ArtDev 6y agoMany people here have been to Tibet. The occupation is a tragedy and a human rights crime. I have seen it. Go away bots.
- LaGrange 6y agoFrom the article: > To support the Chinese overthrow of the Dalai Lama's feudal theocracy is not to applaud everything about Chinese rule in Tibet. This point is seldom understood by today's Shangri-La adherents in the West. > The converse is also true. To denounce the Chinese occupation does not mean we have to romanticize the former feudal régime. One common complaint among Buddhist proselytes in the West is that Tibet's religious culture is being destroyed by the Chinese authorities. This does seem to be the case. But what I am questioning here is the supposedly admirable and pristinely spiritual nature of that pre-invasion culture. In short, we can advocate religious freedom and independence for Tibet without having to embrace the mythology of a Paradise Lost. Who's the bot now?
- ArtDev 6y ago> ..allows that "contrary to popular belief in the West," the Chinese "pursued a policy of moderation." They took care "to show respect for Tibetan culture and religion" and "allowed the old feudal and monastic systems to continue unchanged. That not what happened though.
- simion314 6y agoAre the facts presented fake? If yes would help if you put a bit of effort to link to something. For me looks very human, same as in other places - so I would like to see details if in fact in this place and history period there was more a fantasy land with pace and harmony.
- ChrisMarshallNY 6y agoReminds me of what happened in Burma/Myanmar. This guy is a Buddhist Goebbels: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashin_Wirathu https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashin_Wirathu
- peteretep 6y ago> what happened what _is still_ happening
- ChrisMarshallNY 6y agoThis is true. My sister has been heavily involved in trying to address the Rohingya disaster. It’s a horror show.
- ArtDev 6y agoIs this what they brainwash Chinese youth to think what the history of Tibet is? Because its rubbish. Ask any Tibetan.
- stormdennis 6y agoI think however that history has shown that it's generally more tolerable to be oppressed by your own kind than by occupiers and colonists.
- dash2 6y agoThis seems to be true, but I have always wondered why? Is it just psychology? Or is there some rational basis? If your rulers are locals, are you more likely to have some basic control over them?
- RNCTX 6y agoWell, in European history the answer is because wars and conquest were profit-seeking ventures, and those who managed to amass foreign lands intended to squeeze them for as much profit as possible. It's easy to oppress people you never see, who are just numbers in a ledger. People you see every day and must rule face to face is another matter.
- nmeofthestate 6y agoPeople don't generally like their culture being destroyed by an invading one, even if they enjoy some improvements while being converted into an ethnic minority in their own country? Could be that.
- jacobush 6y ago” The rich and powerful of course treated their good fortune as a reward for -- and tangible evidence of -- virtue in past and present lives. ” This is very similar to how “the Family” (of the congressional prayer breakfast) reasons. Except in their it’s because they are “the chosen”, not that they had past lives.
- arethuza 6y agoSounds like "Just-world" thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
- jacobush 6y agoClose, but not quite, IMHO. The people in the "Family" wants the rest of believe in the Just World Hypothesis, so we toil. They themselves are not bound by such considerations. Whatever they do, they are chosen, by God. That is why they have power. They are the representatives of God on Earth. It's not that they can do no wrong - they can. But if they do, they are still the chosen.
- dash2 6y agoI'd definitely welcome some thoughtful, unbiased commentary on Tibet. I'd like to be certain that this is it (and not, e.g., the work of a hack for hire). I have to say that googling Michael Parenti does not fill me with encouragement, but I'll be happy to be corrected. I met some Tibetan exiles working in the market in Dalhousie in India, 20+ years ago. They had fled Tibet to seek freedom and opportunity. If the border guards had seen them, they would have been shot.[1] So, I am not a huge fan of Chinese control of Tibet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nangpa_La_shooting_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nangpa_La_shooting_incident
- ArtDev 6y agoTheir stories of escape are harrowing and tragic. You need to actually visit Tibet to see how brutal the occupation actually is. Once there were these drunk Chinese soldiers who stole this old Tibetans tractor and were doing broodies in the center of town. That was wild I wish I had it on video (though if I had would I be here today?).
- trasz 6y agoThing is, "Psychologist and writer Colin Goldner[78] alleges that although human rights abuses carried out by the People's Liberation Army, especially during the Cultural Revolution, cannot be justified, the pronouncements of Tibetan exiles cannot be trusted, because "These are, if not totally invented out of thin air, as a rule hopelessly exaggerated and/or refer to no longer actual happenings." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Tibet#Verifiabilty_of_exile_pronouncements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Tibet#Verifiab...).
- aspenmayer 6y agoWe could know more with the cooperation of China in the TAR, but they won’t let foreign observers in. Later in the same Wikipedia article: > American sinologist Allen Carlson is of the opinion that it is nearly impossible, without substantial field research in Tibet, to verify the numerous allegations of violations advanced by China critics. He does, however, state, "my analysis of Beijing’s policies and practices has left me with the impression that the Chinese leadership has no reservations about using whatever means necessary to secure Chinese rule over Tibet." > According to Amnesty International "The Chinese authorities have turned down as “inconvenient” requests for visits to the TAR by several UN human rights experts."
- eridan2 6y agoIt happened 300 years ago, but similar overtaxing policies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_conquest_of_Altishahr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_conquest_of_Altishahr
- mtts 6y agoI’m always baffled by Buddhism getting such a free pass from otherwise perfectly sensible westerners. Many Buddhist societies are amongst the worst slave states know to history (the Tibet from this article, but also Burma and oh-so-beloved Thailand). And this is not despite Buddhism but because of it. In all societies where it is dominant misfortunes such as being born poor (or worse) are seen as being justified somehow, leading to astonishingly callous mistreatment of the poor and unlucky - think the wholesale enslavement and transport of complete populations such as in Thailand not too long ago and in present day Burma. Zen Buddhism, too, is a spectacularly nasty piece of work. It originally existed in two variants: one for the peasants, which taught them to accept their miserable lot, and one for the warrior class which taught it that life is fleeting and death inevitable (it is this variant of Buddhism that was used to indoctrinate Kamikaze pilots in WW2) So why we in the west should think that this is an especially enlightened religion is beyond me. If you must do religion, why not Christianity or Islam? At least these two make a point of encouraging charity and kindness towards others.
- ArtDev 6y agoWell they certainly aren't fairing very well under the iron fist of China either.
- trasz 6y ago[citation needed]. Compared to their previous situation, of course.
- indigo945 6y agoThe thing with feudal Tibet was that the monks didn't actually interfere with the average Tibetan's life too much. Unlike authoritarian China, dissenters in Tibet were by and large tolerated. For example, the newspaper Tibet Mirror was widely circulated in Tibet before the Chinese invasion, particularly among the ruling clerical strata, despite propagating Christian ideas and calling for political reform. That stopped very quickly after 1950.
- gandalfian 6y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy
- sbmthakur 6y agoThe article mentions Heinrich Harrer, who was a Nazi. During the war, he was interned by the British in India and eventually landed in Tibet where he spent seven years. There are a book and a movie about his experience. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120102/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120102/
- roenxi 6y agoI'll go a step further and say anywhere where ordinary people have very little money is going to be a very sad place for ordinary people to live. It is hard to be oppressed when you make $50,000/annum. It is hard not to be if you make $365/annum. Culture is a problem insofar as it makes it hard to add 0s on the end of your income, and a matter of taste otherwise. To me some of the more backwards Arab states are the exception that proves the rule; it took wealth literally welling up out of the ground to have a dominant culture that is both wealthy and unable to let women drive cars. And even then the ban was eventually ground down.
- notahacker 6y ago> It is hard to be oppressed when you make $50,000/annum. I'm not sure that's true. A decent amount of disposable income certainly means one is unlikely to consider indentured servitude a possible means of survival, but it doesn't pay for law enforcement to remove their knee from your neck. The last century saw relatively prosperous industrialised countries carry out genocides of certain subsets of their middle classes. It's certainly true it's hard not to be oppressed on starvation incomes though.
- leoedin 6y agoLast year I was staying in a mountain hut in Nepal, near the Annapurna range and a 3 day hike to the nearest road. A helicopter flew up from the nearby city (a 10 minute flight!) and I was surprised to see it contained buddhist monks. They took a bunch of photos, had a cup of tea and then all piled back in the helicopter for the flight back to the city. A helicopter ride like that probably costs $500 a head, in a country where the average annual income is $862. I think it was so surprising because my naive western viewpoint was that monks live a simple life. I'd love to know more about the reality of organised religion in that region!
- tim333 6y agoApparently it's fairly common for successful business men to go off for a stint as a monk in later life. Most of those have money.
- carlsborg 6y agoList of tibetans who have self immolated in protest of the occupation. Perhaps the Tibetan people are not as grateful for taking their liberties away as this article suggests. https://savetibet.org/tibetan-self-immolations/ https://savetibet.org/tibetan-self-immolations/
- trasz 6y agoHow many of these were monks - after all, the temples were the main benefactors of feudalism - or subjects of religious brainwashing?
- aspenmayer 6y agoIt’s considered rude to mock their sacrifice of life by trivializing their act as lacking virtue or faith. To take another religious figure oppressed by the state as an example, what makes the monks’ protest actions any less religious than those of Jesus allowing himself to be killed by the state? How is he any less brainwashed in your view, and why is your view relevant in this case if not in my example?
- pfortuny 6y agoNot to nitpick or simplify your argument but there is a huge difference between "doing nothing in self-defense" and "setting oneself on fire".
- aspenmayer 6y agoIf it’s holy in the sight of their god, who are we to judge. If they were willing, it could be argued that no harm was done, even to those who ceased to exist. They chose to cease living to cast their prior life up to that point in starker contrast to their surroundings and peers in time, place, and belief. [This post does not advocate self-harm. Please seek help from those you trust if you have urges to do so. I care about you, person reading this right now. Please be well.]
- trasz 6y ago
- peter_retief 6y agoThe article naively suggests that the Communists freed the Tibetan people. Because there was a feudal system didn't negate their right to run their own affairs. The United Kingdom is a feudal system should it be invaded and a caretaker government be installed? Communism is an evil system that has systematically stripped people of their basic humanity. Let us never stop to demand that Tibet be free.
- macspoofing 6y agoThe United Kingdom isn't 'a feudal system'.
- arethuza 6y agoThe last tiny vestige of actual feudalism in Scotland was only removed in 2000! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Feudal_Tenure_etc._(Scotland)_Act_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Feudal_Tenure_etc...
- peter_retief 6y agoIt was a feudal system that changed. The Tibetan people should have been given the same opportunity.
- peter_retief 6y agoKingdom?
- macspoofing 6y agoMonarchy does not imply feudalism. Certainly not a Constitutional Monarchy.
- peter_retief 6y agoMy point is that Tibet deserved to develop its own system of government not effectively be colonized by China. Obviously the UK has a modern democratic system of government that developed through stages of feudalism and monarchy.
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y agoThat's interesting. The article seems to be extremely biased, portraying the worst that happened over the centuries, and glorifying the benefits of the Chinese occupation. Basically it repeats line by line what the Chinese say. But I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle, otherwise dozens of Tibetans wouldn't self-immolate every year in protest agains the Chinese regime.
- orbifold 6y agoI think it is relatively obvious that the popularity of the Dalai is partially the result of a CIA psy-op (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program)
- zerof1l 6y agoSounds biased. Very pro-China article. Everything was horrible and then saviors occupants came and live got better. Reminds me of all other occupations throughout the history as well as some recent ones. My country was occupied by Soviet Union in the past. Overall I prefer when my country is independent.
- trasz 6y agoQuesion is, would you rather be an ordinary citizen in China-occupied country, or a slave in an independent one?
- fqye 6y agoJump in here to share some of my random views as a mainland Chinese for what CCP did to Tibet and Xinjiang, and China in general. I have said somewhere else and to my western friends many times that despite all the horrible things CCP has done or might just have been pinned on to it by Western propaganda, CCP did three great things to China, Tibet and Xinjiang as well: 1. Liberation of women I couldn't emphasize enough of it. China as a country, including Tibet and Xinjiang, by the country's law, women are equal to men. Mao Zedong himself said women are half the sky. Yes there are inequalities of course, there are no institutional discrimination against women. 2. Literacy education CCP went extra miles to teach poor people to read and write. Han Chinese has a tradition of valuing education but it was a privilege just among privileged class. After 1949, CCP launched many campaigns to teach soldiers and peasants read and write. And CCP also made it law of 9 years free education for everyone, even for those living in the remotest villages, though it took years to actually achieve that. 3. Freed Chinese from the burden of religion This is debatable according to if you are religious or not. Combined with advancement of education and science, Chinese people believe in science and technology. Now many Chinese are puzzled by the now anti-science movements, such as anti-vaccine or flat earth theory in the U.S. At least in the decades after opening up, CCP also tried hard to bring those to Tibet and Xinjiang. I hate romantization of the old golden religious days of Tibet and Xinjiang and anywhere in the world. It means only one thing: a few privileged ruling the majority with religion, cult and brutality.
- mr_gibbins 6y agoThe author's Wikipedia page and bibliography implies he has socialist political tendencies, and this article is written supportively in favour of the Chinese. I don't dispute some of the examples but I do note his references don't work - they are simply lists of sources without details (i.e. #34, 'Los Angeles Times'). He makes comments such as that Harrer, who wrote a book about his travels in Tibet, was a member of Hitler's SS. Yes, he was - but only after Austria was annexed, under duress, and was later cleared of any wrongdoing (the Pope was a Hitler Youth member, btw). Overall a very biased, slanted piece, written in an interesting way but without any credence from well-linked citations and fails to take into account the reported atrocities committed by the Chinese after their occupation.