4 ms·

I'm pretty sure this generation of Dalai Lama didn't kill anyone, he never had that kind of power, but it should be noted his previous generations have, and con

I'm pretty sure this generation of Dalai Lama didn't kill anyone, he never had that kind of power, but it should be noted his previous generations have, and consistently did. It should be noted that DL was not just a religious leader, but also had the status of a king, with more power than your typical medieval dictator, who just treat people like trash, and kill, and torture, and rape whoever they want, which really shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Although, the Catholic Church have also killed gigantic amount of people anyway, modern day priests seems to continue the habit of raping little boys regardless. Those organizations still exist, and will keep existing, so whatever, that's just this world. I'm forever a non-believer for instituionalized religion for those reasons alone. (Also note DL never did reform Tibet to democratic society on his own, so regardless, I don't think he should be the symbol of Tibet, or as a leader. Afterall, the theme for these last centuries was that ALL despots must be abolished unless they made democratic reforms.)

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
I agree with all but the last point: the current DL never had a chance to change anything in Tibet as he was very young when the Chinese invaded, but he was bent on to doing this in spite of opposition[0]: > In May 1990, as a result of His Holiness’s reforms the Tibetan administration in exile was fully democratized. The Tibetan Cabinet (Kashag), which until then had been appointed by His Holiness, was dissolved along with the Tenth Assembly of the Tibetan People's Deputies (the Tibetan parliament in exile). In the same year, exiled Tibetans living in India and more than 33 other countries elected 46 members to an expanded Eleventh Tibetan Assembly on a one-person one-vote basis. That Assembly then elected the members of a new cabinet. [0] https://www.dalailama.com/the-dalai-lama/biography-and-daily-life/brief-biography https://www.dalailama.com/the-dalai-lama/biography-and-daily...
- beaunative 5y ago
  Well, monarch are not just who they are, they are also what they represent. However, I agree the current DL likely never had the chance, but I don't support that he should be granted the chance. I suspect he will reform even as an adult, had he remained a monarch. All in all, he carries the lineage then he bears and sins and glories associated with it alike.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    I feel that we all people educated in the West might not be able to fully understand the mentality of the whole society at question and the difficulty of the reform from the top. The efforts of the Bhutanese king are a good example. "Yes, we will become a democracy but only to fulfill your will, Your Majesty", "Yes, we will go to vote but only to make you happy, YM". They really think their king is excellent (I'm not saying he's not) and that whoever will be chosen will be inferior (we don't know, but we can't rule it out). Someone changing the very fabric of the society will always meet with an enormous amount of opposition, and will often fail.
mc32 5y ago
If they were honest about being upset by past atrocities by past rulers of Tibet, then surely he’d be upset when mentioning Mao. I’m certain Mao in absolute numbers was responsible for vastly more deaths of his own people.
- beaunative 5y ago
  It's a wonder why Mao always get mentioned in those sort of things. Mao is a problematic leader by today's standard, but would be a saint in pre-modern history. What happened was horrible, but those aren't atrocities. Mao was certain he was doing the right thing, which is exactly the issue at that time. It's radically different from the nobilities who do things to others because they think they are born superior, Mao was obviously not that.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

I agree with all but the last point: the current DL never had a chance to change anything in Tibet as he was very young when the Chinese invaded, but he was bent on to doing this in spite of opposition[0]: > In May 1990, as a result of His Holiness’s reforms the Tibetan administration in exile was fully democratized. The Tibetan Cabinet (Kashag), which until then had been appointed by His Holiness, was dissolved along with the Tenth Assembly of the Tibetan People's Deputies (the Tibetan parliament in exile). In the same year, exiled Tibetans living in India and more than 33 other countries elected 46 members to an expanded Eleventh Tibetan Assembly on a one-person one-vote basis. That Assembly then elected the members of a new cabinet. [0] https://www.dalailama.com/the-dalai-lama/biography-and-daily-life/brief-biography https://www.dalailama.com/the-dalai-lama/biography-and-daily...

beaunative 5y ago
Well, monarch are not just who they are, they are also what they represent. However, I agree the current DL likely never had the chance, but I don't support that he should be granted the chance. I suspect he will reform even as an adult, had he remained a monarch. All in all, he carries the lineage then he bears and sins and glories associated with it alike.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  I feel that we all people educated in the West might not be able to fully understand the mentality of the whole society at question and the difficulty of the reform from the top. The efforts of the Bhutanese king are a good example. "Yes, we will become a democracy but only to fulfill your will, Your Majesty", "Yes, we will go to vote but only to make you happy, YM". They really think their king is excellent (I'm not saying he's not) and that whoever will be chosen will be inferior (we don't know, but we can't rule it out). Someone changing the very fabric of the society will always meet with an enormous amount of opposition, and will often fail.

mc32 5y ago

If they were honest about being upset by past atrocities by past rulers of Tibet, then surely he’d be upset when mentioning Mao. I’m certain Mao in absolute numbers was responsible for vastly more deaths of his own people.

beaunative 5y ago
It's a wonder why Mao always get mentioned in those sort of things. Mao is a problematic leader by today's standard, but would be a saint in pre-modern history. What happened was horrible, but those aren't atrocities. Mao was certain he was doing the right thing, which is exactly the issue at that time. It's radically different from the nobilities who do things to others because they think they are born superior, Mao was obviously not that.