protestors on the golden gate bridge

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

(Xinjiang is an "Autonomous Region", too. I don't see any "Free Turkestan" banners anywhere....why's that?)

they don't have Richard Gere.

[Adam]

I stand corrected. I do think that the aforementioned Buddhist mystique combined with the personal charisma of the current DL are the reasons so many people who probably couldn't point to Tibet on a map are so concerned with its political status.

[Ari]

Not just Buddhist mystique but Buddhists themselves The bay area has a rather large number of Buddhists or people that draw from Buddhist beliefs.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by Stormlight

If the Chinese hadn't intervened invaded would Tibet be a democracy today? Would the Tibetans be better off?

That's an unknowable exercise in counter-factual historical speculation, equivalent to asking whether Italy would still be fascist if the Axis had won WWII.

It's MUCH more useful to ask how well the Tibetans are off now, how well their human rights are respected, and the like. The Chinese administration of Tibet should be judged by these things, not by its historical antecedents. Same goes for Chinese Turkestan, Chechnya, Iraq, or anywhere else where a bunch of people have been shat on by a regime they don't want.

[Listener]

Originally Posted by Stormlight

If the Chinese hadn't intervened would Tibet be a democracy today? Would the Tibetans be better off?

Storm.

I've seen what you said about Tibet and it made me think.

I'm one of those who has been made to think by the Dalai Lama too.

The Olympic games (with all it's faults) is a great world unifying dream.

The Chinese republic is making a fist of turning an enormous third world country into a place where folk can hold their head high with the West.

I seem to be on everyone's side

What's wrong with what we have?

The Olympics will go ahead, the pro Tibet protestors will get their publicity and China will want to come up smelling of roses!



Who cares about flames?

[fragment]

Originally Posted by Adam

I stand corrected. I do think that the aforementioned Buddhist mystique combined with the personal charisma of the current DL are the reasons so many people who probably couldn't point to Tibet on a map are so concerned with its political status.

For sure. We could point to any number of places on the globe where human rights are routinely abused that most people have hardly heard of. We only ever discuss a minor sampling of them here on . The reasons why people pick up certain causes and not others are sociologically and historically contingent. That doesn't mean the causes themselves are questionable, though.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

As for "autonomous"...China would tell you that they provide that....already. (Xinjiang is an "Autonomous Region", too. I don't see any "Free Turkestan" banners anywhere....why's that?)

Well, that's because the Uighurs are Muslim.

However, the claim of autonomy and the practice of autonomy in Xinjiang are two vastly different things, and in practice the Chinese are doing anything and everything they can to supress Uighur nationalism for—what else?—the oil and natural gas.

A "Free East Turkestan" banner would be a nice thing to see once in a while.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Listener

The Olympic games (with all it's faults) is a great world unifying dream.

I've honestly never understood this. What is so great and unifying about the damn Olympics?

Originally Posted by InTheServiceOfZeke

did you forget where i work while surfing the forums to find people to insult to feel better about your horrible little self?

Trying to parse this is fun.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Nullifidian

Well, that's because the Uighurs are Muslim.

However, the claim of autonomy and the practice of autonomy in Xinjiang are two vastly different things, and in practice the Chinese are doing anything and everything they can to supress Uighur nationalism for—what else?—the oil and natural gas.

A "Free East Turkestan" banner would be a nice thing to see once in a while.

Yeah, returning Autonomy in Tibet has about the same ring as bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq.

That said, why is it that the intervention of China is seen as anything other than reclaimation of regions of China alienated by the colonial ventures of western powers? - In this case, Britain and the US. China claimed Tibet as part of the empire of China before the British interlopers forced the Tibetans at gunpoint to open their doors and claim autonomy from China. Of course, this was the same time that the Brits were flooding China with opium, bringing chaos to Chinese international accounts and social structure.

Oh...The Kyrgyz, and the Northern Alliance folks of Afghanistan are Muslims and our fast friends and allies. Not withstanding Borat, the Kazakistanis are pretty friendly. I suspect at least one side in the ongoing Tajikistani civil wars is our friend. We wish the Turkomen were fast friends and allies, but their political leadership has been a little too....volatile...for the typical western businessman. Oil money may change this fast. The Uzbekis used to be our fast friends and allies until we started to tell them how to run their internal affairs....then we were tossed out as ingrates. We could be building stable democracies in a Pan-Turkic alliance to reclaim East Turkistan for a free democracy....

It'd sure get us a shitload more global political currency than trying to intervene to separate Tibet from China. And Pan-Turkic oil could well prove the lever which the rest of the world could use to separate East Turkestan from China.

[BDS]

Here's a recent New Yorker article on the subject:

Holy Man: Books: The New Yorker

I'd glanced through the article previously, and (not surprisingly) the part I remembered was:

In 1934, shortly after the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s death, the reformist politician Lungshar was punished by an ancient Tibetan method of blinding: the knucklebones of a yak were pressed on both of his temples to make his eyeballs pop out.

Of course lots of people acted up, back in the 1930s, and the article does make the Dalai Lama seem like a good and charismatic man, but it doesn't shrink from the other side of the story

[fragment]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

That said, why is it that the intervention of China is seen as anything other than reclaimation of regions of China alienated by the colonial ventures of western powers?

Why should we view Chinese imperialism as any more acceptable than the European kind?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by fragment

Why should we view Chinese imperialism as any more acceptable than the European kind?

Uh...lessee...Because they are a Sino-Tibetan people who live in a region contiguous with the core China? Because they were, before the intrusion of Europeans, part of the Chinese empire for hundreds of years? Because the Chinese subjegated a violent and expansive Tibet to safeguard it's own security? Are you aware that the Grand Lama, who would later become the Dalai Lama, was originally placed upon the throne of Tibet (as a vassal) by Kublai Khan, the Mongol emperor of China?

During the reigns of the previous Dalai Lamas, Tibet was riven with internal civil wars, pitting one group of violent Buddhist monks against another. Here's a description of Tibetan practices up to 1960 by American political scientist/historian Michael Parenti, wherein Tibetan feudal lords are described as torturing peasants, amongst other travesties which persisted until the Chinese crackdown in the late 1950s.

I personally think the Chinese should remove themselves from Tibet, but I think westerners have a very stilted and distorted picture of Tibetan rule and Tibetan autonomy. Some kind "groovy" place of contented sublimity...Shangra-la. It wasn't then, and it isn't now.

But then, I also think that the US and Canada should be broken up into smaller autonomous regions.

I think we need to take care of our own problems before we go telling other nations and peoples what to do.

Just out of interest, when are those North American imperialists of European heritage going back to where they belong, in Europe?

FREE CASCADIA!

US & CANADA OUT OF CASCADIA!!

[fragment]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Uh...lessee...Because they are a Sino-Tibetan people who live in a region contiguous with the core China? Because they were, before the intrusion of Europeans, part of the Chinese empire for hundreds of years? Because the Chinese subjegated a violent and expansive Tibet to safeguard it's own security? Are you aware that the Grand Lama, who would later become the Dalai Lama, was originally placed upon the throne of Tibet (as a vassal) by Kublai Khan, the Mongol emperor of China?

You could redraw the map of Europe any number of different ways on these types of reasons. Plenty of other parts of the globe too. Far too often these are the sorts of justifications mobilised by some bunch of arseholes to justify having power over and extracting economic benefit from others. European imperialism was usually portrayed in ways that made it acceptable to the ideologies of the day... white man's burden, civilising the natives and all that... I really doubt Chinese claims to have liberated Tibet from the Lamas are any different to that.

I personally think the Chinese should remove themselves from Tibet, but I think westerners have a very stilted and distorted picture of Tibetan rule and Tibetan autonomy. Some kind "groovy" place of contented sublimity...Shangra-la. It wasn't then, and it isn't now.

And that's pretty much my position, too.

I think we need to take care of our own problems before we go telling other nations and peoples what to do.

This I'll disagree with, though. I'll criticise governments however much I damn well want to, be they Chinese, Saudi, Kenyan, Cuban, Belgian, of my own country, or of yours.

[Caligulette]

My mom used to be in charge of workman's comp for the Golden Gate Bridge District. This also, for some reason, meant that she would have to deal with the reports of suicides and "accidental overboards" relating to the GGBridge and the ferries. Honestly, the high winds on the Bridge are such that hanging banners and suchlike is an exercise in possible tragedy. Climbing, without the kind of equipment used by the Bridge painters and ironworkers (ie, harnesses, hardhats, etc) is just plain idiotic. To say nothing of the danger caused by distracting traffic. There is no barrier between north-bound and south-bound traffic. Head-on collisions are not uncommon.

In short, I think it's a better idea to close down the financial district. Market Street is generally a mess anyway.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by fragment

You could redraw the map of Europe any number of different ways on these types of reasons. Plenty of other parts of the globe too. Far too often these are the sorts of justifications mobilised by some bunch of arseholes to justify having power over and extracting economic benefit from others. European imperialism was usually portrayed in ways that made it acceptable to the ideologies of the day... white man's burden, civilising the natives and all that... I really doubt Chinese claims to have liberated Tibet from the Lamas are any different to that.

And that's pretty much my position, too.

This I'll disagree with, though. I'll criticise governments however much I damn well want to, be they Chinese, Saudi, Kenyan, Cuban, Belgian, of my own country, or of yours.

Well, that's a mighty tall horse you rode in on, fella.

Is it time to pack up all the British/Irish heritage types and send them packing back to the northern hemisphere? Are you volunteering? After all, the British types have decimated the native population and destroyed it's culture pretty effectively. They've no right to be there at all.

GET THE FOOKIN' HAOLES OUT OF OUR ISLANDS!

Anybody can criticize, it's just that if governments like Britain, the US, Canada, or the other former imperialist powers start climbing up on their high horse, telling other governments how they should run their countries...particularly given some of the issues they have in their own nations....is pretty fookin' hypocritical and silly looking.

The Chinese empire MADE the Dalai Lama, before the Europeans ever got to North America or the antipodes, they should be able to unmake the Dalai Lama, don't you think?

[Ari]

Well sure, if we can find the Chinese empire that made him, maybe they can unmake him. I hear a phone booth or 80s car will be needed for this venture.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Ari

Well sure, if we can find the Chinese empire that made him, maybe they can unmake him. I hear a phone booth or 80s car will be needed for this venture.

Nope...The Chinese empire which made him is still the same one that's there now. China has the longer history as a cohesive nation than any other on the planet. It's the same China, only it now has a native dynasty making the imperial political decisions.

[Ari]

Because obviously our president today is the same as the president 200 years ago, I mean they are both called president.

(to get more to the point, no I don't think that just because an empire created something that it has the right to destroy it.)

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Ari

Because obviously our president today is the same as the president 200 years ago, I mean they are both called president.

(to get more to the point, no I don't think that just because an empire created something that it has the right to destroy it.)

There's even less reason for a bunch of non-involved furriners to destroy it.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Well, that's a mighty tall horse you rode in on, fella.

Is it time to pack up all the British/Irish heritage types and send them packing back to the northern hemisphere? Are you volunteering? After all, the British types have decimated the native population and destroyed it's culture pretty effectively. They've no right to be there at all.

Eh? I don't know where you get the idea I'm talking about sending people packing. I'm talking about the governments and whether they're shitting on people.

Anybody can criticize, it's just that if governments like Britain, the US, Canada, or the other former imperialist powers start climbing up on their high horse, telling other governments how they should run their countries...particularly given some of the issues they have in their own nations....is pretty fookin' hypocritical and silly looking.

Sure, but I'm not a former or current imperialist government.

For the record, I'm plenty critical of the histories of imperialism in the countries I have a personal connection with. In fact it's the recognition of that history which is why I have a problem with seeing similar processes of imperialism and colonisation involving large-scale population transfer happening in other places, like Tibet or Irian Jaya.

The Chinese empire MADE the Dalai Lama, before the Europeans ever got to North America or the antipodes, they should be able to unmake the Dalai Lama, don't you think?

Misses the point. They clearly have the ability to impose whatever regime they like on Tibet, but whatever historical justification they use for doing so, any criticisms of their own actions in Tibet still stand. Things like human rights abuses and imposing government against the wishes of the people and all that.

Further I reject the suggestion that a moral right can be asserted for governmental control of a region based on historical connections. I know it's common enough, but as far as I'm concerned if a government can be said to have any moral rights to control territory whatsoever (I'm not convinced of that one...) then that moral right would have to rest to a large extent on the consent of the people in that territory. Isn't that the principle your country is built on? And even if you reject that government now, wouldn't you want that principle enshrined by the government of Cascadia? How would you react to an argument from the US and Canadian governments that they assert continued control over their respective portions of Cascadia solely on the basis that they have historically done so?

And while China has a longer history as a cohesive nation than any other country, the cohesive part of that nation has never included Tibet. Whatever the diplomatic ties and obeisances to emperors of times past, Tibet has remained culturally distinct from that part of China that can legitimately be called cohesive. They're only now getting assimilated. You can't have it both ways: either China is cohesive and doesn't include Tibet, or China includes Tibet and is not cohesive.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Trying to parse this is fun.

I initially thought that it was "forget[ting] where [ITSOZ] work[s] while surfing the forums to find people to insult" that made me feel better about my horrible little self, which is just stupid. I couldn't care less what he does while he looks for people to insult...the only things that make me feel better about my horrible little self are hookers and blow.

[Smilin]

Originally Posted by Nullifidian

Well, that's because the Uighurs are Muslim.

WHATTTTT??? Uthgar izzz a Muslim? you're shittin' me, aren't yah?

[godfry n. glad]

You've been wacky parsed.

[ChuckF]

The Canadian Press: IOC reviewing Beijing torch problems and future international relays

But the widespread view among Olympic officials and IOC members was that the relay should not be stopped.

"I think that would be tantamount to giving into terrorism," Australian Olympic Committee president John Coates said.