Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

God, the FSM, and everything else.
RightsOfMan
Account Locked
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:51 pm

Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby RightsOfMan » Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:50 pm

I was reading the book "God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens. I'm sure some of you here have read it. I was astonished to see that Hitchens criticized the Dalai Lama. True, you can argue that he is not a living Buddha. But Hitchens said that he supported violence when the CIA trained Tibetan fighters and was also hoping Japan would win World War Two.

First of all nobody is perfect, also why shouldn't the Dalai Lam want Japan to win or fight for Tibetan independence? Tibetans are frustrated that non-violence has gotten them nowhere. But that's besides the point. Most Tibetans WANT to go back to the old way of having a God King and would gladly choose religious Buddhist life over oppressive atheistic communism. Atheistic communism has brought them nothing but death (1.2 million) cultural genocide, economic hardship, and environmental damage. I think categorizing the Dalai Lama with violent Muslim Mullah's is totally wrong and also misguided. The Dalai Lama preaches peace, he also is a man of science, dismissing Buddhist teachings if they conflict with new discoveries. (when's the last time a creationist did that!? He also is sporting the idea of having Tibetans elect their own leader and having future lama's serve only a spiritual or ritualistic role. (more than can be said of the Chinese government.

The point is that anti-american liberals and Chinese and Islamic fascists are wrong to say the Dalai Lama is a thug or a religious neaderthal. Tibet deserves autonomy because its people want it, there is no threat to others, and right now, the Dalai Lama seems more modern and progressive than Chinese communism. If Tibetans' everyday life had improved since the Chinese invasion I would say otherwise. But sometimes people want to keep their old ways and I see no problem with that, especially since Buddhism, unlike the 3 monotheism, allows for free choice without threat of hell or erosion of science. What say you all?

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby Flash » Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:48 pm

I say your post reads like a cross between CIA propaganda and the post-hippie flower dream. The Tibetan Buddhists run Tibet since eternity as a feudal fiefdom where all useful land belonged to them and the Tibetans were treated as serfs. It was a backward, feudal entity run by the religious elite.
RightsOfMan wrote:
Atheistic communism has brought them nothing but death (1.2 million) cultural genocide, economic hardship, and environmental damage.

1.2 million dead? Are you kidding? Where did you dug up this figure from, the CIA archives?
Chinese actually brought economic development and more jobs that Tibetans had before. Sure, Chinese are considered foreigners and are not liked but the Dalai Lama's organization in exile, which by the way is sponsored by Western intelligence agencies, is doing it's very best to ferment the unrest.
The point is that anti-american liberals and Chinese and Islamic fascists are wrong to say the Dalai Lama is a thug or a religious neaderthal. Tibet deserves autonomy because its people want it, there is no threat to others, and right now, the Dalai Lama seems more modern and progressive than Chinese communism.

The anti-americam liberals and the islamo-fascists are attacking Dalai Lama? Where did you get this idea from? It's pure nonsense.
Sure Tibet deserves autonomy, it also deserves super highways, million dollar seaside villas and McDonald's on every corner. The fact is that it is a very poor country without resources which if successful in it's separation efforts will stay permanently on Western welfare roll just like the multitude of tiny stupid countries in the Balkans. Therefore, I think that the Chinese who actually have some solid historical claims to Tibet are it's best option.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
bigtim
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:04 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Berserker
Location: Miðgarðr

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby bigtim » Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:24 pm

I call bullsheit on both sides.

Heard an interview with China's Ambassador to the US this morning on NPR. He was very evasive. The question he kept dodging were "do you recognize that the Tibetans have some valid concerns?".


International Tibet Independence Movement
Tibetan exiles generally say that the number that have died in the Great Leap Forward, violence, or other unnatural causes since 1950 is approximately 1.2 million, which the Communist Party of China denies. According to Patrick French, a supporter of the Tibetan cause who was able to view the data and calculations, the estimate is not reliable because the Tibetans were not able to process the data well enough to produce a credible total. There were, however, many casualties, perhaps as many as 400,000. This figure is extrapolated from a calculation Warren W. Smith made from census reports of Tibet which show 200,000 "missing" from Tibet. Even anti-Communist resources such as the Black Book of Communism expresses doubt at the 1.2 million figure, but does note that according to the Chinese census, the total population of ethnic Tibetans in the PRC was 2.8 million in 1953, but only 2.5 million in 1964. It puts forward a figure of 800,000 deaths and alleges that as many as 10% of Tibetans were interned, with few survivors. Chinese demographers have estimated that 90,000 of the 300,000 "missing" Tibetans fled the region.


My favorite....
The Central Tibetan Administration also says that millions of Chinese immigrants to the TAR are diluting the Tibetans both culturally and through intermarriage.

hmm.... that sounds ssssooo familiar.....

History of Tibet
After the Mongol Prince Köden took control of the Kokonor region in 1239, he sent his general Doorda Darqan on a reconnaissance mission into Tibet in 1240. During this expedition the Kadampa monasteries of Rwa-sgreng and Rgyal-lha-khang were burned, and 500 people killed. The death of Ögödei the Mongol Qaghan in 1241 brought Mongol military activity around the world temporarily to a halt. Mongol interests in Tibet resumed in 1244 when Prince Köden sent an invitation to the leader of the Sakya sect, to come to his capital and formally surrender Tibet to the Mongols. The Sakya leader arrived in Kokonor with his two nephews Drogön Chögyal Phagpa ('Phags-pa; 1235-80) and Chana Dorje (Phyag-na Rdo-rje) (1239-67) in 1246. This event marked the incorporation of Tibet into the Mongol Empire.

By the early 18th century, the Chinese Manchu imperial government under the Qing Dynasty sent resident commissioner (amban) to Lhasa. Tibetan factions rebelled in 1759 and killed the resident commissioners after the central government decided to reduce the number of soldiers to about 100. The Qing army entered and defeated the rebels and reinstalled the resident commissioner. The number of soldiers in Tibet was kept at about 2,000. The defensive duties were assisted by a local force which was reorganized by the resident commissioner, and the Tibetan government continued to manage day-to-day affairs as before.

The Chinese [Mancheu] imperial government collapsed by the end of 1911. Taking its place was the Republic of China. This new Chinese republic, with Tibet part of it, was recognized by most of the countries. The only exception came from Britain and Russia. They demanded that "China must make a new treaty to give practical independence to Tibet and Mongolia before she can expect recognition from these two countries." (http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flas ... a/plea.htm)


From 1904 a British diplomatic mission, accompanied by a large military escort, forced its way through to Lhasa. The head of the diplomatic mission was Colonel Francis Younghusband. The principal motivation for the British mission was a fear, which proved to be unfounded, that Russia was extending its footprint into Tibet and possibly even giving military aid to the Tibetan government. But on his way to Lhasa, Younghusband killed 1,300 Tibetans in Gyangzê (as written in "The Great Game" of Peter Hopkirk), because the natives were in fear of what kind of unequal treaty the British would offer the Tibetans. Some documents claim that 5,000 Tibetans were killed by the British army.

The Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906 recognized Chinese sovereignty over the region [Smith (1996), p. 162] and the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, without Beijing's acknowledgement, recognized the suzerainty of China over Thibet [Goldstein (1989), p. 830]. The Qing central government established direct rule over Tibet in 1910. The thirteenth Dalai Lama fled to British India in February, 1910. In the same month, the Chinese government issued a proclamation deposing the Dalai Lama and instigating the search for a new incarnation [Smith (1996), p. 175].

The subsequent outbreak of World War I and civil war in China caused the Western powers and the infighting factions of China proper to lose interest in Tibet, and the 13th Dalai Lama ruled undisturbed. At that time, the government of Tibet controlled all of Ü-Tsang (Dbus-gtsang) and western Kham (Khams), roughly coincident with the borders of the Tibet Autonomous Region today. Eastern Kham, separated by the Yangtze River was under the control of Chinese warlord Liu Wenhui. The situation in Amdo (Qinghai) was more complicated, with the Xining area controlled by ethnic Hui warlord Ma Bufang, who constantly strove to exert control over the rest of Amdo (Qinghai).

In 1950, the People's Liberation Army of the People's Republic of China entered Tibet, after taking over the rest of China from Republic of China during the five years of civil war. In 1951, the Plan for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, a treaty signed by representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, provided for rule by a joint administration under representatives of the central government and the Tibetan government. Most of the population of Tibet at that time were serfs, bound to land owned by lamas. Any attempt at land reform or the redistribution of wealth would have proved unpopular with the established landowners. This agreement was initially put into effect in Tibet proper. However, Eastern Kham and Amdo were outside the administration of the government of Tibet, and were thus treated like any other Chinese province with land reform implemented in full. As a result, a rebellion broke out in these regions in June of 1956. The rebellion eventually spread to Lhasa, but was crushed by 1959. The 14th Dalai Lama and other government principals fled to exile in India.
~
BigTim
"I'm not entirely convinced that ValHalla isn't real."

RightsOfMan
Account Locked
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby RightsOfMan » Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:53 pm

Flash I'm sorry but I think we have a serious disagreement here. You sound like a Holocaust denier. 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed. Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_o ... %931951%29

The Tibetan Buddhists run Tibet since eternity as a feudal fiefdom where all useful land belonged to them and the Tibetans were treated as serfs. It was a backward, feudal entity run by the religious elite.


If the Tibetans prefer this over Chinese domination why not let them have it? Not everyone has a Western mindset. Do you know what happened in the country of Bhutan recently? The King forced democracy on its own people, however they still voted for his royal party, without coercion. Not everyone has to think like you flash. In case you're uninformed here is an article:

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/ ... 6458.shtml

The anti-americam liberals and the islamo-fascists are attacking Dalai Lama? Where did you get this idea from? It's pure nonsense.
Sure Tibet deserves autonomy, it also deserves super highways, million dollar seaside villas and McDonald's on every corner. The fact is that it is a very poor country without resources which if successful in it's separation efforts will stay permanently on Western welfare roll just like the multitude of tiny stupid countries in the Balkans. Therefore, I think that the Chinese who actually have some solid historical claims to Tibet are it's best option.


This has the familiar tone of imperialistic racism. White Americans used to say that bringing "progress, Christianity, settlers, and developement helped American Indians. Pure hogwash. It has the opposite effect, not to mention they preferred having autonomy instead of being ruled by others. And I bring up liberals because while they criticize America, Israel, and Europe they don't seem to care about real world tragedies like Darfur, Tibet or even Palestinians (when the people massacring them are other Arabs) .

And it seems like you ignored the part in which I wrote that the majority of Tibetans revere the Dalai Lama and the Dalai Lama is much more progressive than the Chinese are right now when it comes to environmentalism, human rights and democracy. To say that what the Chinese are doing by committing cultural genocide and then using the rejection of "feudalism" to justify it is not only erroneous, but also sickening.

RightsOfMan
Account Locked
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby RightsOfMan » Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:11 pm

Why isn't anybody responding to this? I put a lot of work on this thread. I thought skeptics were smart, or are you all too western oriented to know much about Eastern thought? 8-)

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby Flash » Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:08 pm

Sorry RightsOfMan I was a little busy living my real life as opposed to the life of my avatar on the net. The former might not be as interesting as the latter but it's got to be lived, wife talked to, children acknowledged, the dog taken out for a walk. My cat is the only one who can be ignored completely after all he ignores me too. :lol:
Your source the Wiki article is very interesting because it looks at three different perspectives on Tibet. One is the Tibetan exile activist side, the other is the Chinese side and the third one is "the other" side by which it refers to mostly Western testimonies and sources.
You totally ignore the Chinese and the third party sources in favour of the testimonials given by the Tibetan exile organizations. In other words, you cherry pick your evidence to support your already formed point of view. Here is what the third party source says about the supposed 1.2 million victims claimed by the Tibetan exiles:
According to Patrick French, a supporter of the Tibetan cause who was able to view the data and calculations, the estimate is not reliable. The Tibetans were not able to process the data well enough to produce a credible total. French says this total was based on refugee interviews, but prevented outsider access to data. French, who did gain access, found no names, but "the insertion of seemingly random figures into each section, and constant unchecked duplication"


Here is another quote which you totally ignore:
A system of serfdom of an appallingly repressive nature actually prevailed there until it was abolished by the Chinese government in 1959. One of the first acts of the Chinese government in Tibet, as reported by Felix Greene, “was to prohibit mutilation: it was still the custom thre to gouge out eyes, cut off ears, and employ similar brutal punishment.” [18] The Tibetans have been regarded in the West as the victim of the Chinese oppression. However, “often forgotten in this controversy was the fact that by 1994 China had invested over $4 billion in Tibet and had initiated over sixty major new infrastructure projects there,” one Western observer notes. He added: “in 1996 alone, Beijing pumped another $600 million into this essentially nonproductive protectorate.” [19] Social Institutions such as schools and hospitals have been built in Tibet since 1951. “The only hospitals in Tibet are those that have been built by the People’s Republic, the only secular schools were begun after liberation, and peonage and the medieval system of land-tenure were abolished.”

So to trumpet Tibetan victimization, compare it to the Holocaust and brand anyone who is skeptical of 1.2 million dead figure a holocaust denier is a bit hysterical and hypocritical. I hope history will one day make the today's situation in Tibet more clear. Who knows whom to believe. The Tibetan exiles have their own agenda, the Chinese theirs and the third party sources although more reliable than the former two might not exactly be impartial either.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

RightsOfMan
Account Locked
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby RightsOfMan » Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:34 pm

Sigh. You only addressed a small part of my post. What about what Tibetans want? They don't want to live under oppressive communism and gladly would choose the old way. You think they are just saying that for fun? How would you like it if someone took your skeptics magazine away, banned skepticism, and threatened you with jail unless you submitted to Shariah law, communism, the church etc, all the while saying it's good for you?

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby Flash » Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:18 pm

RightsOfMan wrote:
What about what Tibetans want?

Well exactly, what do they want? The riots don't really tell the whole story. You can have a relatively small group of people rioting and making news especially if the authorities are first caught off guard. And the Tibetan exiles and their sympathizers in the West will make it look like a popular uprising. Notice that most of the over 6 million Tibetans are not rioting. It's not even close to a revolution you know.
It's interesting to Google "Tibet". What you get is the endless collection of anti-Chinese sites proclaiming victimization of the heroic Tibetan people. There couldn't be that many computer literate Tibetan activists in the West to run all of that. These must be the sites run by the Westerners like yourself with an agenda and very likely even the Western intelligence agencies.
And how do you know that the majority of Tibetans, if given a choice, would chose the old way?
You seem to have lots of rigid stereotypes about this whole thing. I am sure that the Chinese government is not an example of a "true" democracy (neither is the American government). They do have a fixation about control of everything in China which by the way and judging by the Internet activities of the Chinese, they are doing very badly but on a whole things are getting better there. No way you can compare it to the communism of Stalin's Soviet Russia.
Incidentally, the communism in the other countries of the Soviet block such as Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary was different from the Soviet model after the WWII. They did good things too you know. They introduced completely free education including the university education and importantly free medicare and free pharmacare for all. And contrary to what you might think they did not expropriate private agricultural land, only the huge holdings left behind by the absentee owners, usually old aristocracy which mostly ended up washing dishes in the restaurants in Paris, London and New York and bitching like hell.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

RightsOfMan
Account Locked
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby RightsOfMan » Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:45 pm

Would you say the same thing about Arabs who live in Israel? If not you're a western hypocrite because Israel is the only middle eastern country where arabs have the right to vote and have a higher GDP than most of it's neighbors. Let me guess, now you will say that the libs in the west are right and that Israel is the worst. It's like turning the tables on similar situations just in different parts of the world. Let me see if you are consistent. Go on. Respond. I dare you.

By the way here is an attached article about what Tibetans really want. Do you honestly believe it is all made up propaganda?!

EIJING (Reuters) - When China allowed envoys of the exiled Dalai Lama to visit Tibet in the early 1980s as part of a cautious detente, Communist Party cadres told residents not to stone or spit at their one-time masters.
ADVERTISEMENT

But the officials were dumbfounded, and disconcerted, by what they saw: residents in Tibet's capital Lhasa mobbed the envoys, kneeling, crying and clutching their clothing to air grievances.

The incident underlined the inability, or unwillingness, of the Party to comprehend Tibetans and their reverence for their god-king, which analysts say remains the Achilles' heel of China's Tibet policy.

This month, the Communist Party again showed that it was out of touch with popular sentiment in the pious Himalayan region when monk-led protests suddenly erupted in Lhasa and spilled over into Chinese provinces populated by Tibetans.

"The problem is that in the Party, they delude themselves by thinking that Tibetans don't have legitimate grievances," Tsering Shakya, a Tibet scholar at the University of British Columbia, said in a telephone interview.

China has sought to win the hearts and minds of Tibetans by investing heavily in infrastructure and sees Tibetans as "ungrateful natives," Tsering Shakya said.

A Chinese source familiar with the government's Tibet policy said: "The central government invests billions (of yuan) in Tibet each year hoping for stability in return."

"But money cannot buy stability," the source told Reuters, requesting anonymity.

OMEN

The recent unrest is perhaps an omen that the Tibet issue -- an emotive one for many Westerners from the U.S. Congress to Hollywood -- will overshadow the Beijing Olympics with protests likely to plague the international leg of the torch relay.

Many Tibetans complain their religious rights are clipped and that their culture is being slowly snuffed out. China's diatribes against the Dalai Lama also go down poorly.

The flare-up could be a turning point, as the region has a history of violent resistance against Chinese rule.

Tibetan guerrillas, funded and trained by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, ambushed and killed many Chinese soldiers in the 1960s. Fighting ending a decade later when the CIA pulled the plug after then president Richard Nixon's landmark 1972 visit to China.

Today, about 1,000 exiled Tibetans are serving in the Indian army, and there is no guarantee they would not return to guerrilla warfare if the Dalai Lama was to die without resolving remaining problems, analysts said.

China might eventually face a threat from radicalized Tibetans who reject the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize winner's peaceful "middle way," some say.

"The Dalai Lama is the key to the Tibet issue. He can either lock or unlock it," Wang Lixiong, who has visited Tibet about 20 times and written three books on the mountain region.

Tibetan youth have become increasingly impatient with the Dalai Lama's opposition to violence and advocacy of autonomy rather than independence.

"The lack of substantial progress undermines moderates in Tibet and gives hardliners a bigger say," Wang said.

The Dalai Lama might be the sole restraint on radicalization of about 110,000 exiled Tibetans, analysts said.

HARDLINE

Still, Tibet's hardline Communist Party boss Zhang Qingli is struggling for political survival after the worst unrest in two decades occurred under his watch. He has opted to blame the Dalai Lama and his supporters for plotting the unrest.

Zhang would be the last to admit that his repressive policies, such as forcing monks to undergo re-education and denouncing the Dalai Lama, might have actually helped spark the revolt.

Zhang even went as far as to say the Party was a "living Buddha," no doubt offending many in the region. The opening of a railway linking Tibet with the rest of China in 2006 has drawn criticism from international rights groups.

China's confidence that materialism would erode Tibetans' loyalty to the Dalai Lama was dented when many heeded his call not to wear endangered animal furs and burned prized skins.

Some analysts said it might be tough now for President Hu Jintao, who lacks the clout of his revolutionary forebears, to extend an olive branch to the Dalai Lama even if he wanted to.

But Hu is no stranger to seizing opportunity from crisis. He turned the tables during the SARS outbreak in 2003 and China came clean on reporting the epidemic. Hu has also undone many of his predecessor's policies, mending fences with Taiwan and Japan.

Hu would have to persuade hawks in more than 10 ministry-level agencies who have an interest in keeping the Dalai Lama out -- including the provincial governments of Tibet and nearby Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan.

Ultimately, there are unlikely to be winners in this month's unrest.

China has waged a smear campaign against the Dalai Lama and his supporters but few outside China are convinced. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will go ahead and meet the Buddhist monk when he visits Britain in May.

"He's a voice for moderation, he's very respected, he's sincere in his desire to see the Tibetan issue resolved," Minxin Pei, director of the China Programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said of the Dalai Lama.

"The Dalai Lama ought to be a partner, rather than an adversary," Pei added.

(Additional reporting by Lindsay Beck in Beijing and Paul Eckert in Washington; Editing by John Ruwitch and David Fogarty)

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby Flash » Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:38 pm

What the hell have the Palestinians got to do with the topic here? You've brought in to the discussion the communists , now it's the Palestinians. Who else is on your list , the Amazon Indians, Basques, the Pygmies in Congo, the Eskimos, the oppressed mutants in a far away galaxy...? For what purpose?
You seem to have plenty of strong views on Tibet but you have no courtesy to answer my skeptical objections to your interpretation of the situation there. You accept uncritically anything the Tibetan exiles say about it yet you conveniently avoid other sources which don't support your view.
I've pointed out the suspicious nature of the 1.2 million of the Tibetan victims figure, the web and media activity designed to give us a one sided view of the situation, the small number mainly religious (monks) rioters and you still conveniently cherry pick only what you want from your own sources.
And yes, Christopher Hitchens is right about the Dalai Lama and his movement. I am inherently suspicious of the religious leaders muddling in politics or taking over the nationalist movements. The people like the Pope, Dalai Lama, Grand Ayatollah in Iran, Al Sadr, the guy in Lebanon (I forgot his name), the primate of the Polish catholic church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, etc. always have some undeclared agenda in mind which is not compatible with what they say they are fighting for, things such as "freedom" and 'liberation" whatever they mean by it.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

RightsOfMan
Account Locked
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby RightsOfMan » Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:16 pm

Flash for the third time you've dodged the point about what TIBETANS want. Did you read the article? Have you lived in that area? Are you saying Tibetans wouldn't rather be ruled by the Dalai Lama than by Marxists? I've lived in China teaching English and also traveled to Tibet as well as Dharamsala in India. No Tibetan I met says they would not rather live under the old way. Yet you still want to dictate what's best for them. You've got a lot to learn young man!
p.s. like I stated before the Dalai Lama himself stated that maybe Tibetans should have a democratic vote for their next leader.

User avatar
Flea
Regular Poster
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:17 pm

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby Flea » Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:11 am

Flash wrote:It's interesting to Google "Tibet". What you get is the endless collection of anti-Chinese sites proclaiming victimization of the heroic Tibetan people. There couldn't be that many computer literate Tibetan activists in the West to run all of that. These must be the sites run by the Westerners like yourself with an agenda and very likely even the Western intelligence agencies.


Considering that Tibetans have been fleeing the region since the early fifties and ending up in the US, Canada, Europe, Nepal and India, I don't find it hard to believe that a there is a significant number of computer-literate Tibetans born in the US, Europe, etc. who can set up anti-Chinese websites in English. Even Tibetans living in India are likely to be getting some exposure to English and access to the Internet.

Also, I don't know if this has been mentioned yet (I don't see it but I might have missed it): The total number of Tibetan deaths -- the 1.2 million -- probably includes the several hundred thousand (approx. 300,000) who died of starvation during a famine in the early fifties. This famine is attributable to an agricultural miscalculation by the Chinese government, which mandated the planting of wheat rather than barley. When the wheat couldn't survive the Tibetan climate, the crops failed. Since food distribution favored the Chinese, the majority of deaths from the famine were among the Tibetans. Whether or not this counts as genocide would, I imagine, be open to interpretation.
Gravity is a harsh mistress.

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby Flash » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:44 pm

RightsOfMan wrote:
Flash for the third time you've dodged the point about what TIBETANS want
.
How the hell do I know what Tibetans want? Do you? Can you quote any reliable study, a poll? You know, there are seven million ethnic Chinese living in Tibet. Do you know what they want? And in your free referendum, if any, on the future of Tibet would you exclude those people from voting and if so on what bloody grounds? Just because they are Chinese? Wouldn't this offend your democratic feelings and wouldn't this smell of racism?
You know, the riots in Lhasa were specifically directed against a minority there, yes the Chinese minority some of whom died in fires set in their shops. Doesn't this look awfully like an ethnic pogroms to you, it does to me.

I looked again on the pro-free Tibet sights on the web, they are run by all kinds of organizations the Canadian one is called Canada For Free Tibet or CFT. The president Katie Put and the vice president (I don't remember her name) are westerners so is the parliamentary group formed to push Dalai Lama's agenda. There are pictures of "His Holiness" all over the place. The other web sites are nameless. No one is ever identified as running or belonging to them. I would say it's strange but then I am not the believer you are. It's possible that some guy in Langley could run the whole lot of them.

Are you saying Tibetans wouldn't rather be ruled by the Dalai Lama than by Marxists?

No I am not saying that at all because I don't know. What I am saying is the you don't know either and anecdotal account of conversations with a few Tibetans is just that anecdotal and not reliable. By the way, what Marxists? Do you know what you are talking about when you refer to the Chinese government as Marxist? Right now they are as far away from Marxism as you are from any objectivity in this matter.

No Tibetan I met says they would not rather live under the old way. Yet you still want to dictate what's best for them. You've got a lot to learn young man!

Yes, anecdotes again. And I "want to dictate what's best for them"? Stay away from smoking that dry yak's dung. And finally, I've got to say that flattery will get you nowhere although I am having second thoughts.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

RightsOfMan
Account Locked
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby RightsOfMan » Tue Apr 01, 2008 1:22 am

Here are some polls.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ ... 7&nid=&id=

http://vote.pollit.com/webpoll2/111253

http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx ... o+to+polls

These polls are from multiple sources. If you want a poll that says that most Tibetans want to live under a Chinese dictatorship in which ethnic Chinese have taken all the jobs and religious activities suppressed I suggest you go to the website of the Chinese government or the Xinhua news daily.

Now you complain about ethnic Chinese being attacked. it's like the Palestinians who attacked the Jewish settlers wouldn't you say? Now try to think why those things happen. I'm sure you're capable of coming up with a theory.

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby Flash » Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:52 pm

So you've googled long and hard ROM and you came out with this crap? The worldpublicopinion.org polled people in various countries outside Tibet, get it? Not the Tibetans Polls tend to reflect peoples stereotypes and prejudices about China after all the Western anti Chinese propaganda has been going full blast since Mao went on a Long March.

Your second source vote.pollit.com is a commercial organization which will organize a poll for you if you pay them. What is it doing among your sources!???????

The third source polled Tibetans in exile including all those pious monks running around dressed in orange. It`s like polling the Cubans in Miami about Castro. Get the drift?

Yes, in western Tibet there are Chinese new arrivals who opened businesses and incidentally created jobs which Tibetans did not have before but in Eastern Tibet there has been a Chinese majority probably since the ancient times. By the way you seem to worry so much about Tibetan ethnic identity but you ignore the fact that Tibet has never been ethnically homogeneous. Historically, there have been a number of the ethnically diverse tribes that settled in that part of the world one of them for example being of Mongol origin dating back to the Mongol invasions in the Middle Ages.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

Varshi
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:00 pm

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby Varshi » Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:05 pm

I know this post is super old, but with the recent appearance of the Dalai Lama on TV I was curious about it as well. I just wanted to comment on this particular conversation, as it got soo off topic. It is not about whether Tibet should be free or Chinese or whatever. It's about "Is Dalai Lama as bad as Christopher Hitchens says?"
The current situation in Tibet is irrelevant. I want to know is there evidence of how the Dalai Lama acted before his exile.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11015
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:03 am

From the OP, what Hitchens thought was: "But Hitchens said that he supported violence when the CIA trained Tibetan fighters and was also hoping Japan would win World War Two." /// In my book, neither one of those would be a black mark against the Dalai. Leader of a country fighting the invader. No leader would do less. Hitchens was a minority view on most issues, and mostly right. I'd have to read his book to get the best view...and I don't read books that from reviews I already mostly agree with.

Seems to me that history, while always interesting, is somewhat irrelevant. More relevant: the Dalai Lama TODAY.

................... and what is he but mostly irrelevant. A figure head with no power and no hope. I also don't like the way he giggles at every answer...but that is mostly my problem. Ha, ha.....made myself laugh, so I'll stop now.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26757
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:06 am

Varshi wrote: It's about "Is Dalai Lama as bad as Christopher Hitchens says?" . I want to know is there evidence of how the Dalai Lama acted before his exile.


We can't help you. The claim was made by a banned member called Rightsofman nine years ago. None of us know what his religious arguments were way back then.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29416
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Is the Dalai Lama really as bad as Christopher Hitchens says

Postby Gord » Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:18 pm

This is from yesterday's news: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china ... SKBN16E0YX

China's Foreign Ministry called the Dalai Lama a "deceptive actor" on Tuesday, after the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader said in an interview that Chinese hardliners have parts of their brains missing.

Speaking to U.S. comedian John Oliver in India's northern town of Dharamsala, where the exiled Tibetan government is based....

...China brands the Nobel Peace laureate a dangerous separatist. The Dalai Lama, who fled into exile in India after a failed uprising against Chinese rule in 1959, denies espousing violence and says he only wants genuine autonomy for Tibet....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Tibetan_uprising
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE


Return to “Belief, Nonbelief, and Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest