5 ms·

> DL was a monster, killer, some demonic being aiming at the destruction of China Or he is a democratically elected peaceful spiritual leader (like a reincarna

by est 5y ago

> DL was a monster, killer, some demonic being aiming at the destruction of China Or he is a democratically elected peaceful spiritual leader (like a reincarnated pope) from an independent theocratic serfdom kingdom?

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
This is the general tone that China justifies the invasion: Tibet was feudal, people were slaves, we liberated them, now everybody is happy. There had been many bad things going on in Tibet, but it does not mean you can just invade the country, destroy all forms of religion, put people in prisons, starve and kill your victims, grab the resources, make the life of Tibetans miserable, and pretend you are the great liberator - only because of superior military power. Many witnesses of what happened in the 50s are till alive, some managed to escape to India. When you read their testimony[0] all arguments of China become bleak. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Tibetan-Monk-Palden-Gyatso-ebook/dp/B019M8KEQA https://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Tibetan-Monk-Palden-Gya...
- est 5y ago
  This is the general tone that Lamas justifies the Buddhism invasion: Tibet was feudal, people were slaves, Lamas liberated them, now everybody is happy. One particular Lama even assassinated Langdarma, the last King of Tibet. In fact as of today the 14th DL actively suppress native Tibetan religions like Dorje Shugden. If you think Lamas were peaceful monks, check out how many "independent states" they have invaded in the 20th century https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48wkBskmYnE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48wkBskmYnE > some managed to escape to India More like India invaded those independent "princely states"
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    I don't think that any lama claims what you say. The assassination if Langdarma took place 1200 years ago. But all this is not the point - it's obvious that there were many bad things going on before the Chinese invasion. The Chinese never address things like "you invaded a country, you were killing people, putting them in prison, starving to death". Instead, they turn to arguments like: "But lamas were very bad, they were abusing ordinary people". Of course the past system was bad and abusive. The problem is, the current system is so much worse that ordinary people prefer to self-immolate than to live in it.
    - est 5y ago
      > But all this is not the point Why? I thought you were arguing with your colleague whether DL is good or bad? > it's obvious that there were many bad things going on before the Chinese invasion So yeah, Tibet was in bad shape when DL reigned. That's the whole point. > so much worse that ordinary people prefer to self-immolate than to live in it If you look up news closely, you'd see that only privileged Lamas self-immolate.
      - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
        "Privileged lamas"... Seems like they are not so privileged after all. https://freetibet.org/about/self-immolation-protests https://freetibet.org/about/self-immolation-protests
        est 5y ago
        just search their name you'd see they were monks. Tibetan/Mongoila monks were a grand scheme invented by the Chinese to sterialize tribes with their no-marriable policy, for a local family only 1 or 2 boys are allowed to breed and labor, rest of siblings were all destined to be Lamas in remote places. Tibetan and Mongolia's working & total population dropped dramatically after the school of Gelug took power and no longer pose a threat to east & central asia. The title of Dalai & Panchen were invented and installed directly by the Qing rulers (Jampalyang) to manipulate the Gelug hierarchy. 14th DL is a guy gone rogue and sold Tibet to East India Company.
    - beaunative 5y ago
      I don't think the current system is so much worse. It's just not possible. DL is an actual dictator in a world without news coverage, just imagine. That's also not just the CCP's argument, it's the same argument for most modern day states that's desposed of monarch. Self-immolate is an act of religious fervert, it would be out of the ordinary to reason with. Generally, I think most people simply don't kill themselves like that, unless they believe there is something to be gained after death. The same reason for suicidal bombing. For people who are generally not happy or find live unbearable, they wouldn't kill themselves using those kinds of excruciating and painful methods, unless of course, they were trying to achieve something, which are most likely religious or it just doesn't make sense.
- RyEgswuCsn 5y ago
  > There had been many bad things going on in Tibet, but it does not mean you can just invade the country, destroy all forms of religion, put people in prisons, starve and kill your victims, grab the resources, make the life of Tibetans miserable, and pretend you are the great liberator - only because of superior military power. Is it just me or the sentence also makes perfect sense if Tibet is replaced by Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya?
  - est 5y ago
    It makes perfect sense if op want a Balkanized Tibet
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    I agree, there is very little difference between these. The invasion on Afghanistan was one of the most senseless, impulsive actions on the part of the USA: Bush desperately wanted tho show a strong reaction to 9/11 but was too stupid to do something that would have some actual positive impact and in the end made the situation worse. Also, he hasn't managed to kill Bin Laden, Obama did. Iraq seems even worse. They admitted they invaded it on false grounds and the supposed WMDs haven't been found to this day. And it was just the beginning, because the invasion created an even greater evil, ISIS. As for Libya, it's true that many people hated Kadafi and he was a cruel man (just like Hussein, Bin Laden and the rest of the crew), but the final result for ordinary people was a disaster. So whenever someone proposes "let's kill a dictator and al problems will disappear" for me such a person is a lunatic.
    - G0ther 5y ago
      ISIS, 9/11 and the invasions were planned you don't think people in high places are just some kids getting angry and acting on it, do you? the dictators when you try to reasonate anything they're doing, you can see clearly they're working for someone, and you guess who might this one be. because of course, destroying a whole country, violating human rights etc, isn't going to guarantee you a good long life for you and your family unless you have someone stronge enough to make you trust him tell you otherwise. most dictators are against what the population believe and are enslaving people more or less. it's just the modern unseen slavery of the west. By the way, USA made Al Qaueda and they were called the freedom fighters or something like that inb4. What changed? the USSR ended and now they found another use for them, to stereotype the muslims and cause distress and push them off their religion to the new world-wide religion, humanity, ps. sugar-coated atheism.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  I think China would argue that it wasn't really an invasion, because Tibet had for a couple of hundred years kowtowed to the emperor, and was therefore really part of the empire. Note that if you read the testimonies of those who escaped to India, it's hardly surprising that they are uniformly critical of the occupation. A more balanced history shows that prior to the occupation, peasants were generally the property of the landowner; a peasant needed the permission of his "owner" to get married, and that would not be granted if the intended was from another estate; and that many lives were objectively improved by the occupation. I'm by no means a supporter of the occupation/invasion; it's been racist and kleptocratic since the beginning. But let's be clear: pre-occupation Tibet was no Shangri-La.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    I cannot disagree. It was similar in Central Europe, for example in the Kingdom of Hungary the feudal system ended in 1931, some hundreds years later than in France. On the other hand, I know several people whose lives are made worse by the occupation. There was a period of some limited freedom a few decades ago, now it seems worse. As a Westerner you can't just visit Tibet and go where you want. And when you go there, you can notice that apart from official and public situations, Tibetans will avoid any contact with you. Many of them are simply afraid of accusations of spying or collaborating with the enemy etc. They try to keep a low profile and be obedient to stay away from prison. They cannot possess objects like a picture of the DL and so on. So even though from a material point of view their lives might look better, when you talk to them, there is no happiness inside.
    - est 5y ago
      You are just regretting the fact Tibet is no longer a large anthropology zoo that westerners can freely visit and observe, like the romance recorded by Ernst Schäfer or James Hilton in the 30s. It's mystic, primitive and slavery culture destroyed by CCP while locals are adopting welfare and education and modernizing to yet another indifferentiable boring place like an average Chinese town.
      - 5y ago
- toss1 5y ago
  Yup, and let's be even more clear about this. This Chinese tone that "justifies" the invasion creates these kinds of side discussions, which serves the same purpose as Whataboutism, even if that isn't the intent of the speaker/writer. A thought experiment: Assume that Tibet was actually some kind of horrific feudal empire that did whatever horrible things to its people you can imagine. Even if that is some kind of justification for an invasion, e.g., the people had pleaded with the CCP to get freed - which they did not, it is CCP's actions ever since the invasion that betray's their intent. If the goal had been to free the Tibetean people, they would have removed the leadership, which was done in days, and then freed the people. But CCP has done the opposite, consistently holding more tightly to the land, eliminating the Tibetian's culture and freedom, and claiming ownership. It is as if the US had not only invaded Iraq to remove the dictator who annexed adjacent countries, but then claimed the land and oil as it's own, and also started systematically removing all mosques, moving US families into each town, and imposing American culture on Iraq. China are illegitimate occupiers, and wrongfully claim stolen Tibetan territory as their own. Full Stop.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    It's a bit more complicated than that. Tibet was internationally recognized as part of China - not as an independent country. After the Chinese revolution of 1911, China fell apart, and Tibet became de facto independent. But that occurred throughout China, as various warlords took control of different parts of the country. China was in turmoil (the Japanese invasion and near-constant civil war) until 1949. Once the country had a strong central government, that government immediately tried to reassert its authority over the territories that were de jure part of China, including Tibet. You can think of this what you want, but it's not at all similar to invading a country in the other side of the world.
    - toss1 5y ago
      Right, not at all similar - China is not only invading, it is claiming it for itself, purposefully erasing Tibetan culture and religion, and claiming the resources for itself, all against the will of the Tibetean people. The fact that there was some prior recognition is quite irrelevant. Should the EU nations claim their pre 1911 boundaries against the will of the people living there, by force? Should the Lenape Native Americans whose predecessors sold Manhattan to the Dutch be able to reclaim it by force? How about the Dutch? Your argument is sophistry, and nothing but inane justification for an authoritarian and expansionist regime. Moreover while that regime repeatedly proclaims that no one should interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, it feels completely free to interfere and claim other nations, including, Tibet, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (yes it was leased and returned, but they are already violating the terms of the return). This is not a regime to defend.

by est 5y ago

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

This is the general tone that China justifies the invasion: Tibet was feudal, people were slaves, we liberated them, now everybody is happy. There had been many bad things going on in Tibet, but it does not mean you can just invade the country, destroy all forms of religion, put people in prisons, starve and kill your victims, grab the resources, make the life of Tibetans miserable, and pretend you are the great liberator - only because of superior military power. Many witnesses of what happened in the 50s are till alive, some managed to escape to India. When you read their testimony[0] all arguments of China become bleak. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Tibetan-Monk-Palden-Gyatso-ebook/dp/B019M8KEQA https://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Tibetan-Monk-Palden-Gya...

est 5y ago
This is the general tone that Lamas justifies the Buddhism invasion: Tibet was feudal, people were slaves, Lamas liberated them, now everybody is happy. One particular Lama even assassinated Langdarma, the last King of Tibet. In fact as of today the 14th DL actively suppress native Tibetan religions like Dorje Shugden. If you think Lamas were peaceful monks, check out how many "independent states" they have invaded in the 20th century https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48wkBskmYnE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48wkBskmYnE > some managed to escape to India More like India invaded those independent "princely states"
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  I don't think that any lama claims what you say. The assassination if Langdarma took place 1200 years ago. But all this is not the point - it's obvious that there were many bad things going on before the Chinese invasion. The Chinese never address things like "you invaded a country, you were killing people, putting them in prison, starving to death". Instead, they turn to arguments like: "But lamas were very bad, they were abusing ordinary people". Of course the past system was bad and abusive. The problem is, the current system is so much worse that ordinary people prefer to self-immolate than to live in it.
  - est 5y ago
    > But all this is not the point Why? I thought you were arguing with your colleague whether DL is good or bad? > it's obvious that there were many bad things going on before the Chinese invasion So yeah, Tibet was in bad shape when DL reigned. That's the whole point. > so much worse that ordinary people prefer to self-immolate than to live in it If you look up news closely, you'd see that only privileged Lamas self-immolate.
    - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
      "Privileged lamas"... Seems like they are not so privileged after all. https://freetibet.org/about/self-immolation-protests https://freetibet.org/about/self-immolation-protests
      - est 5y ago
        just search their name you'd see they were monks. Tibetan/Mongoila monks were a grand scheme invented by the Chinese to sterialize tribes with their no-marriable policy, for a local family only 1 or 2 boys are allowed to breed and labor, rest of siblings were all destined to be Lamas in remote places. Tibetan and Mongolia's working & total population dropped dramatically after the school of Gelug took power and no longer pose a threat to east & central asia. The title of Dalai & Panchen were invented and installed directly by the Qing rulers (Jampalyang) to manipulate the Gelug hierarchy. 14th DL is a guy gone rogue and sold Tibet to East India Company.
  - beaunative 5y ago
    I don't think the current system is so much worse. It's just not possible. DL is an actual dictator in a world without news coverage, just imagine. That's also not just the CCP's argument, it's the same argument for most modern day states that's desposed of monarch. Self-immolate is an act of religious fervert, it would be out of the ordinary to reason with. Generally, I think most people simply don't kill themselves like that, unless they believe there is something to be gained after death. The same reason for suicidal bombing. For people who are generally not happy or find live unbearable, they wouldn't kill themselves using those kinds of excruciating and painful methods, unless of course, they were trying to achieve something, which are most likely religious or it just doesn't make sense.
RyEgswuCsn 5y ago
> There had been many bad things going on in Tibet, but it does not mean you can just invade the country, destroy all forms of religion, put people in prisons, starve and kill your victims, grab the resources, make the life of Tibetans miserable, and pretend you are the great liberator - only because of superior military power. Is it just me or the sentence also makes perfect sense if Tibet is replaced by Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya?
- est 5y ago
  It makes perfect sense if op want a Balkanized Tibet
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  I agree, there is very little difference between these. The invasion on Afghanistan was one of the most senseless, impulsive actions on the part of the USA: Bush desperately wanted tho show a strong reaction to 9/11 but was too stupid to do something that would have some actual positive impact and in the end made the situation worse. Also, he hasn't managed to kill Bin Laden, Obama did. Iraq seems even worse. They admitted they invaded it on false grounds and the supposed WMDs haven't been found to this day. And it was just the beginning, because the invasion created an even greater evil, ISIS. As for Libya, it's true that many people hated Kadafi and he was a cruel man (just like Hussein, Bin Laden and the rest of the crew), but the final result for ordinary people was a disaster. So whenever someone proposes "let's kill a dictator and al problems will disappear" for me such a person is a lunatic.
  - G0ther 5y ago
    ISIS, 9/11 and the invasions were planned you don't think people in high places are just some kids getting angry and acting on it, do you? the dictators when you try to reasonate anything they're doing, you can see clearly they're working for someone, and you guess who might this one be. because of course, destroying a whole country, violating human rights etc, isn't going to guarantee you a good long life for you and your family unless you have someone stronge enough to make you trust him tell you otherwise. most dictators are against what the population believe and are enslaving people more or less. it's just the modern unseen slavery of the west. By the way, USA made Al Qaueda and they were called the freedom fighters or something like that inb4. What changed? the USSR ended and now they found another use for them, to stereotype the muslims and cause distress and push them off their religion to the new world-wide religion, humanity, ps. sugar-coated atheism.
denton-scratch 5y ago
I think China would argue that it wasn't really an invasion, because Tibet had for a couple of hundred years kowtowed to the emperor, and was therefore really part of the empire. Note that if you read the testimonies of those who escaped to India, it's hardly surprising that they are uniformly critical of the occupation. A more balanced history shows that prior to the occupation, peasants were generally the property of the landowner; a peasant needed the permission of his "owner" to get married, and that would not be granted if the intended was from another estate; and that many lives were objectively improved by the occupation. I'm by no means a supporter of the occupation/invasion; it's been racist and kleptocratic since the beginning. But let's be clear: pre-occupation Tibet was no Shangri-La.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  I cannot disagree. It was similar in Central Europe, for example in the Kingdom of Hungary the feudal system ended in 1931, some hundreds years later than in France. On the other hand, I know several people whose lives are made worse by the occupation. There was a period of some limited freedom a few decades ago, now it seems worse. As a Westerner you can't just visit Tibet and go where you want. And when you go there, you can notice that apart from official and public situations, Tibetans will avoid any contact with you. Many of them are simply afraid of accusations of spying or collaborating with the enemy etc. They try to keep a low profile and be obedient to stay away from prison. They cannot possess objects like a picture of the DL and so on. So even though from a material point of view their lives might look better, when you talk to them, there is no happiness inside.
  - est 5y ago
    You are just regretting the fact Tibet is no longer a large anthropology zoo that westerners can freely visit and observe, like the romance recorded by Ernst Schäfer or James Hilton in the 30s. It's mystic, primitive and slavery culture destroyed by CCP while locals are adopting welfare and education and modernizing to yet another indifferentiable boring place like an average Chinese town.
    - 5y ago
toss1 5y ago
Yup, and let's be even more clear about this. This Chinese tone that "justifies" the invasion creates these kinds of side discussions, which serves the same purpose as Whataboutism, even if that isn't the intent of the speaker/writer. A thought experiment: Assume that Tibet was actually some kind of horrific feudal empire that did whatever horrible things to its people you can imagine. Even if that is some kind of justification for an invasion, e.g., the people had pleaded with the CCP to get freed - which they did not, it is CCP's actions ever since the invasion that betray's their intent. If the goal had been to free the Tibetean people, they would have removed the leadership, which was done in days, and then freed the people. But CCP has done the opposite, consistently holding more tightly to the land, eliminating the Tibetian's culture and freedom, and claiming ownership. It is as if the US had not only invaded Iraq to remove the dictator who annexed adjacent countries, but then claimed the land and oil as it's own, and also started systematically removing all mosques, moving US families into each town, and imposing American culture on Iraq. China are illegitimate occupiers, and wrongfully claim stolen Tibetan territory as their own. Full Stop.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  It's a bit more complicated than that. Tibet was internationally recognized as part of China - not as an independent country. After the Chinese revolution of 1911, China fell apart, and Tibet became de facto independent. But that occurred throughout China, as various warlords took control of different parts of the country. China was in turmoil (the Japanese invasion and near-constant civil war) until 1949. Once the country had a strong central government, that government immediately tried to reassert its authority over the territories that were de jure part of China, including Tibet. You can think of this what you want, but it's not at all similar to invading a country in the other side of the world.
  - toss1 5y ago
    Right, not at all similar - China is not only invading, it is claiming it for itself, purposefully erasing Tibetan culture and religion, and claiming the resources for itself, all against the will of the Tibetean people. The fact that there was some prior recognition is quite irrelevant. Should the EU nations claim their pre 1911 boundaries against the will of the people living there, by force? Should the Lenape Native Americans whose predecessors sold Manhattan to the Dutch be able to reclaim it by force? How about the Dutch? Your argument is sophistry, and nothing but inane justification for an authoritarian and expansionist regime. Moreover while that regime repeatedly proclaims that no one should interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, it feels completely free to interfere and claim other nations, including, Tibet, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (yes it was leased and returned, but they are already violating the terms of the return). This is not a regime to defend.