Dalai Lama ...

Former Member

Any of you support this guy ...even care?
If so ...why?

Former Member

Not sure that "support" is necessarily the right word, but I certainly have a sympathetic view of him and his views. Hard not to really.

I particularly love the way that the Chinese just do not know how to handle him because he is so completely non violent and holds a huge amount of imfluence and they know that they cannot intimidate him in any way really.

Former Member

If he is so peaceful and non-violent then why has he not condemned any of the violoence and rioting that has happened?

Tibet is a lot better off for most of the population under Chinese rule than it was under the old feudal system, which was essentially what we had in Europe in the middle ages. A few ruling elite, lords and high ranking monks, and then mostly peasants underneath. At least now they aren't treated as property and can own their own and make their own way in life.

Teh_Gerbil

Maladjusted wrote: »

If he is so peaceful and non-violent then why has he not condemned any of the violoence and rioting that has happened?

Tibet is a lot better off for most of the population under Chinese rule than it was under the old feudal system, which was essentially what we had in Europe in the middle ages. A few ruling elite, lords and high ranking monks, and then mostly peasants underneath. At least now they aren't treated as property and can own their own and make their own way in life.

Ahahah.

HAHAHA.

You crack me up.

Anyway. He hasn't condemed the violence because you can be a pacifist and still think people being violent are doing it for a good cause. Tibet is actually only having minor benefit, the system they are under with China is a show of extremist capitalism - they are the lowest of the low. They are essentially, to China, cheap labour. Yes, they might have a new rail link, they might be getting new stuff built for them, but the Chinese will always view themselves as better than the Tibetans.

And of course, there is the fact the Violence, let us not forget, was instigated BY the Chinese... so if someone was violent against you and a bunch of friends, and you were a pacifist and just sat back and took the beating... but your friends defended themselves... would you condem your friends?

Former Member

He has condemed the violence -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3574672.ece

The Dalai Lama responded to charges from China that he orchestrated deadly riots in Lhasa to sabotage the Olympics with a pledge to resign as temporal leader of Tibet’s Buddhist people if the violence — on both sides — did not stop.

Former Member

I think when discussing human rights abuses in China, I don't like to seperate Tibet from the rest of China. I don't see many differences between the human rights abuses in Tibet, and the human rights abuses in China in general. The only difference is a more politically active campaign around Tibet. I also don't see much difference between the economic situation of people in Tibet, and the rural population of China in general. And I see no evidence that the economic gap between Tibet and China has increased. I think that in the long run, Tibet will certainly benefit from being part of China. And things like self-rule, freedom of speech/press, democracy, government interference and freedom of religion are issues that need resolving in the whole of China, not just Tibet. I think that in the long run, they're going to have to go the American route of a small central government and more regional powers, which is what the Dalai Lama has called for in Tibet.

Former Member

While he has condemned the violence

I like how china says it was trouble some rioters that killed people, when it looks to be as if security forces and police did.

Former Member

I lean toward the stupid person and the maladjusted one on this.
There are many chinese people married to Tibetans and raising families in Tibet. The Tibetans have been recieving generous government handouts to buy land, renovate and update housing. This money has been paid out to individuals not councils. A lot of old Tibetans seem to be living better than at any other time in their lives. A lot of young ones are recieving free and good quality health care that previous generations couldn't have dreamed of.

Former Member

Teh_Gerbil wrote: »

Ahahah.

HAHAHA.

You crack me up.

Anyway. He hasn't condemed the violence because you can be a pacifist and still think people being violent are doing it for a good cause. Tibet is actually only having minor benefit, the system they are under with China is a show of extremist capitalism - they are the lowest of the low. They are essentially, to China, cheap labour. Yes, they might have a new rail link, they might be getting new stuff built for them, but the Chinese will always view themselves as better than the Tibetans.

And of course, there is the fact the Violence, let us not forget, was instigated BY the Chinese... so if someone was violent against you and a bunch of friends, and you were a pacifist and just sat back and took the beating... but your friends defended themselves... would you condem your friends?

Cheap labour? do you not think China has plenty of that already?

And how is ending essentially being a slave to the Tibetan lords/theocracy only a minor benefit?

Also, people from the UK, USA and Australia aren't exactly ones to talk about violence being committed to people indigenous to a region are they?

Erm... i think you'll find the violence was instigated by the rioters after the initial peaceful protests, if people were rioting and burning buildings over here i think you'd find that tear gas and force would be used too. Although i don't agree with any shootings that may have gone on, lethal force should not be necessary.

And no, if you are a pacifist then you don't believe in violence as a means of solving any sort of problem, although my mistake as pointed out by others if he has already condemned the violence on both sides.

Teh_Gerbil

Pacifism is IMHO like Vegetarianism. You can personally not use violence, and not eat meat, but you do not have to condem every act of violence or meat eating.

Also go ask the Tibetans if they like the new regeime, the old Tibetans who lived free once.

See what they think.

Former Member

Teh_Gerbil wrote: »

Also go ask the Tibetans if they like the new regeime, the old Tibetans who lived free once.

Which ones that lived free? The monks who lived the high life off've the back of the work of the general population? Yeah, I imagine they enjoyed the freedom they afforded themselves. That's like asking Henry VIII whether he enjoyed the freedom he had.

Former Member

Teh_Gerbil wrote: »

Pacifism is IMHO like Vegetarianism. You can personally not use violence, and not eat meat, but you do not have to condem every act of violence or meat eating.

Also go ask the Tibetans if they like the new regeime, the old Tibetans who lived free once.

See what they think.

very few old tibetans lived ...'free.'

Teh_Gerbil

morrocan roll wrote: »

very few old tibetans lived ...'free.'

No-one besides a caveman has ever lived "free" in that argument.

They were alot "free-er" though, when they were not used by the Chinese. Sure, China has bought them techological advance, they might have ipods and whatnot. They are still an occupied and oppressed country.

Would we like it, if we were "backwards" and France came in to liberate us and bring us loads of technology and advance, on the condition they controlled us?

Also the Monks are supported by the people by CHOICE. The people CHOOSE to give the Monks food and supplies. It isn't like the Christian Church where you give to the plate passed round, and if you don't you are a sinner.

Former Member

Teh_Gerbil wrote: »

No-one besides a caveman has ever lived "free" in that argument.

They were alot "free-er" though, when they were not used by the Chinese. Sure, China has bought them techological advance, they might have ipods and whatnot. They are still an occupied and oppressed country.

Would we like it, if we were "backwards" and France came in to liberate us and bring us loads of technology and advance, on the condition they controlled us?

Also the Monks are supported by the people by CHOICE. The people CHOOSE to give the Monks food and supplies. It isn't like the Christian Church where you give to the plate passed round, and if you don't you are a sinner.

How is being a slave to your local tibertan lord/high ranking monk more free than now? had to work for them, had to ask lord permission to move/marry/do anything!

They certainly didn't have a choice in whether they were essentially property or not. I am sure most old tibetans would be a lot happier now than how they used to be unless they were part of the top ruling class.

As for the invasion bit, Tibet has been essentially been controlled by China for centuries already, control wavered a bit during the communist takeover but for intents they were still part of the country. Even the Dalai Lama says that he doesn't want independence from china, just more autonomy, he knows from a support/money point of view that Tibet has quite a good deal

also in regards to pacifists:

pac·i·fism ?noun
1. opposition to war or violence of any kind.
2. refusal to engage in military activity because of one's principles or beliefs.
3. the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war.