7 ms·

What would be the endgame for Tibetan independence. I can see it going straight to theocracy.

by peppertree 5y ago

orangepurple 5y ago
Self-determination
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Is it really self determination if you swap out one group of despots for another rather than installing a democracy?
yumraj 5y ago
It's for them, as in Tibetans, to decide, not China, not CCP nor anyone else.
- peppertree 5y ago
  What are we going to do when Tibetans are ravaged by a theocratic government? Air drop some freedom and democracy. And maybe a few flag emojis on twitter.
  - mbg721 5y ago
    We can put a wager on it suddenly being Catholics again, and then we can continue being lazy.
  - yumraj 5y ago
    What is wrong with a theocratic government if the people want it and it suits their way of life, especially if it is a peaceful spiritual way of life and makes people happy. Last I checked Bhutan, which is also Buddhist, was doing well. Also, I hope you're not saying that the way of the China/CCP is better than how Tibetans were before Chinese invasion. I don't think they were ever ravaged, unless you're referring to the Chinese propaganda to show them as the savior. And, if they were such a savior why are people killing themselves? Moreover, I'm assuming you're on a similar crusade against the Pope and other theocratic governments, of other religions, in the world.
    - peppertree 5y ago
      Bhutan government has done some brutal things to Nepalis in the 90's. Catholic church was much worse when it had actual power. State propaganda can be overwhelming to weak minds but a little history lesson can cure it. To be clear I'm not for CCP or any autocracy. I'm against theocracy.
      - dash2 5y ago
        I wonder why you think Tibet would become a theocracy if it were independent. I don't think the current Dalai Lama would support that. Many places were not democratic before falling under foreign rule, but became democratic afterwards.
      - DomainEater247 5y ago
        You described some example of Theocracy's that performed brutal acts against those that were perceived as "others". USA is responsible for many deaths and is constantly invading countries. Since using examples of bad things a government type has done is enough to say that the type of government is bad, democracy in turn must be bad. /s Any form of government once formed is hard to change. How many governments do you see regularly changing from democracy to communism to theocracy to etc... Theocracy is a perfect valid form of governance. Religion's just like governments have multiple sides to them. Which side the rulers decided to focus on changes which actions are performed.
        JoeAltmaier 5y ago
        Yes but unlike say a democracy, you can't vote the theocracy out. You can't be treated fairly if you are not of the official religion. You become an outsider, never to be treated like a full citizen, because of who you are. Imagine if instead of religion it was skin color, or gender, or hell even height - only people over 2 meters could be in government. Can we whitewash those too? Are they as legitimate as Theocracy? Why not?
    - lordnacho 5y ago
      What's wrong with theocracy? Really? How about that you can't change it very easily once you have it? Or that it's based on authority, mostly of a small set of people? Or that religious issues have caused the slaughter of millions of people? Are you really abandoning liberal democracy because you happen to have found a religion you like?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Is it really though? Does this generation get to decide that all generations following it should live under a theocratic dictatorship? I'm not sure that's a whole lot better than Chinese control. Anyone who thinks the old Tibetan monarchy/aristocrat system was a good form of government should really read up on it and not just assume it was paradise for the Tibetan people. They still had serfs and slaves.
  - cuteboy19 5y ago
    There are many kinds of "theocracy". The islamic republic of Pakistan is significantly better than Saudi Arabia. Or would your rather have them both as "rightful Chinese territory"?
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      Religious based government is bad all the way around. It leads to persecution of other religions and even sects of the same religion (Sunni vs Shia). It's a bad thing to have at the core of your government. This used to be a 1st principal in the USA but the lines are becoming blurred by alt-right ideology that is seeping into and starting to control the republican party. I really hope it has peaked and is on the down swing because there are finally some GOP people pushing back against a Trumpist coup in 2024.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      Sure, but are you at all familiar with the history of pre-CCP Tibet? Their "theocracy" was likely worse than Saudi Arabias, both in terms of the sorts of punishments they inflicted upon their populace (routine gouging of the eyes, chopping of the limbs, and then hanging up for display) as well as the autocratic (serf-like) structure built up.
      - cuteboy19 5y ago
        I am more familiar with the history of pre British India. Thankfully the British "civilized" my country. Surely China will do the same to Tibet. The excuses people make for colonialism remain the same as centuries pass by.
micromacrofoot 5y ago
if that’s what they decide then that’s ok
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rigden33 5y ago
Well good for you cause the Tibetan Government in Exile and the Dalai Lama do not want independence. https://tibet.net/important-issues/the-middle-way-policy/ https://tibet.net/important-issues/the-middle-way-policy/
- yumraj 5y ago
  Of course they do want the independence, why would they not. It's just that after decades of occupation and China's economic rise, they feel that that is an impossible goal, at least until China implodes like the USSR did - which may or may not ever happen. So, they are asking for the next best option as a compromise - even the proposal is called middle-way for it is a compromise.
  - rigden33 5y ago
    There are benefits to being associated with a global superpower in regards to quality of life improvements. Obviously they are not worth the cultural and human costs that Tibet is currently experiencing, but if we can get true autonomy, I don't see why you wouldn't want both. I say that as a Tibetan in exile. There are some Tibetans that don't think true autonomy is possible with the CCP and thus still want independence though.
_bfhp 5y ago
Question: What do you think of Israel's governance and military?
- _bfhp 5y ago
  Big talk about theocracy but silence on the ethno-state that's given millions of dollars a day in military aid by the U.S.?
analyst74 5y ago
I think when China defeated the theocratic rules, it was an improvement for Tibetan people. But a government's legitimacy is constantly re-evaluated by the governed, and it's the ruling party's job to earn the support necessary for maintaining a stable society. Using force to ensure conformity can work for the short-term, but history shows even the strongest dictators will fall eventually, if they lose the support of the people.

What would be the endgame for Tibetan independence. I can see it going straight to theocracy.

orangepurple 5y ago

Self-determination

stjohnswarts 5y ago
Is it really self determination if you swap out one group of despots for another rather than installing a democracy?

yumraj 5y ago

It's for them, as in Tibetans, to decide, not China, not CCP nor anyone else.

peppertree 5y ago
What are we going to do when Tibetans are ravaged by a theocratic government? Air drop some freedom and democracy. And maybe a few flag emojis on twitter.
- mbg721 5y ago
  We can put a wager on it suddenly being Catholics again, and then we can continue being lazy.
- yumraj 5y ago
  What is wrong with a theocratic government if the people want it and it suits their way of life, especially if it is a peaceful spiritual way of life and makes people happy. Last I checked Bhutan, which is also Buddhist, was doing well. Also, I hope you're not saying that the way of the China/CCP is better than how Tibetans were before Chinese invasion. I don't think they were ever ravaged, unless you're referring to the Chinese propaganda to show them as the savior. And, if they were such a savior why are people killing themselves? Moreover, I'm assuming you're on a similar crusade against the Pope and other theocratic governments, of other religions, in the world.
  - peppertree 5y ago
    Bhutan government has done some brutal things to Nepalis in the 90's. Catholic church was much worse when it had actual power. State propaganda can be overwhelming to weak minds but a little history lesson can cure it. To be clear I'm not for CCP or any autocracy. I'm against theocracy.
    - dash2 5y ago
      I wonder why you think Tibet would become a theocracy if it were independent. I don't think the current Dalai Lama would support that. Many places were not democratic before falling under foreign rule, but became democratic afterwards.
    - DomainEater247 5y ago
      You described some example of Theocracy's that performed brutal acts against those that were perceived as "others". USA is responsible for many deaths and is constantly invading countries. Since using examples of bad things a government type has done is enough to say that the type of government is bad, democracy in turn must be bad. /s Any form of government once formed is hard to change. How many governments do you see regularly changing from democracy to communism to theocracy to etc... Theocracy is a perfect valid form of governance. Religion's just like governments have multiple sides to them. Which side the rulers decided to focus on changes which actions are performed.
      - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
        Yes but unlike say a democracy, you can't vote the theocracy out. You can't be treated fairly if you are not of the official religion. You become an outsider, never to be treated like a full citizen, because of who you are. Imagine if instead of religion it was skin color, or gender, or hell even height - only people over 2 meters could be in government. Can we whitewash those too? Are they as legitimate as Theocracy? Why not?
  - lordnacho 5y ago
    What's wrong with theocracy? Really? How about that you can't change it very easily once you have it? Or that it's based on authority, mostly of a small set of people? Or that religious issues have caused the slaughter of millions of people? Are you really abandoning liberal democracy because you happen to have found a religion you like?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Is it really though? Does this generation get to decide that all generations following it should live under a theocratic dictatorship? I'm not sure that's a whole lot better than Chinese control. Anyone who thinks the old Tibetan monarchy/aristocrat system was a good form of government should really read up on it and not just assume it was paradise for the Tibetan people. They still had serfs and slaves.
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  There are many kinds of "theocracy". The islamic republic of Pakistan is significantly better than Saudi Arabia. Or would your rather have them both as "rightful Chinese territory"?
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Religious based government is bad all the way around. It leads to persecution of other religions and even sects of the same religion (Sunni vs Shia). It's a bad thing to have at the core of your government. This used to be a 1st principal in the USA but the lines are becoming blurred by alt-right ideology that is seeping into and starting to control the republican party. I really hope it has peaked and is on the down swing because there are finally some GOP people pushing back against a Trumpist coup in 2024.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Sure, but are you at all familiar with the history of pre-CCP Tibet? Their "theocracy" was likely worse than Saudi Arabias, both in terms of the sorts of punishments they inflicted upon their populace (routine gouging of the eyes, chopping of the limbs, and then hanging up for display) as well as the autocratic (serf-like) structure built up.
    - cuteboy19 5y ago
      I am more familiar with the history of pre British India. Thankfully the British "civilized" my country. Surely China will do the same to Tibet. The excuses people make for colonialism remain the same as centuries pass by.

micromacrofoot 5y ago

if that’s what they decide then that’s ok

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rigden33 5y ago

Well good for you cause the Tibetan Government in Exile and the Dalai Lama do not want independence. https://tibet.net/important-issues/the-middle-way-policy/ https://tibet.net/important-issues/the-middle-way-policy/

yumraj 5y ago
Of course they do want the independence, why would they not. It's just that after decades of occupation and China's economic rise, they feel that that is an impossible goal, at least until China implodes like the USSR did - which may or may not ever happen. So, they are asking for the next best option as a compromise - even the proposal is called middle-way for it is a compromise.
- rigden33 5y ago
  There are benefits to being associated with a global superpower in regards to quality of life improvements. Obviously they are not worth the cultural and human costs that Tibet is currently experiencing, but if we can get true autonomy, I don't see why you wouldn't want both. I say that as a Tibetan in exile. There are some Tibetans that don't think true autonomy is possible with the CCP and thus still want independence though.

_bfhp 5y ago

Question: What do you think of Israel's governance and military?

_bfhp 5y ago
Big talk about theocracy but silence on the ethno-state that's given millions of dollars a day in military aid by the U.S.?

analyst74 5y ago

I think when China defeated the theocratic rules, it was an improvement for Tibetan people. But a government's legitimacy is constantly re-evaluated by the governed, and it's the ruling party's job to earn the support necessary for maintaining a stable society. Using force to ensure conformity can work for the short-term, but history shows even the strongest dictators will fall eventually, if they lose the support of the people.