Tibet - do people really care ?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
As a Swede, presumably your knowledge of the Sami struggle against cultural obliteration reinforces your feeling of solidarity with the people of Tibet.

Is this cultural obliteration of the Sami being imposed by force of law?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I care for Tibet.
I care for the Tibetan culture, their traditions, their religion.
I see the Chinese attempt to chineesify Tibet.

This is an occupation of Tibet, and this is the right time to tell people all over the world what's happening. Therefore The Olympics are good for Tibet.

What does Chineseeify mean ?

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
What does Chineseeify mean ?

Oh, Chinesify... To force another culture into being Chinese.
I correct it in the posting.

Originally posted by Palynka
Is this cultural obliteration of the Sami being imposed by force of law?

No, since around 1950 the Sami have been allowed to speak their own language at school, and now there are Sami parliaments in Finland, Sweden and Norway (but not Russia). So, the state-orchestrated exercise in cultural obliteration (no different to Australian policy towards the Aborigines, for example) is fortunately no more. That doesn't help with the economic pressures, but that's a different story.

Originally posted by Palynka
Is this cultural obliteration of the Sami being imposed by force of law?

I don't know the history of it, but it was in the 1800s the Sami people was not allowed to speak their sami language, doing their shaman religion, they tried to make the Sami people Swedish in Sweden, Norweigean in Norway and Finnish in Finland. Nowadays, they are treated from the governement as anyone else. They have Sami radio and television, newspapers in the Sami language, Sami schools, and so on.

I am a southener, and do not know much about the northern Samis a lot.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
No, since around 1950 the Sami have been allowed to speak their own language at school, and now there are Sami parliaments in Finland, Sweden and Norway (but not Russia). So, the state-orchestrated exercise in cultural obliteration (no different to Australian policy towards the Aborigines, for example) is fortunately no more. That doesn't help with the economic pressures, but that's a different story.

Do you think it's possible or desirable to insulate such cultures from economic pressure? Is there a way to do this that doesn't reek of paternalism and authoritarianism?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Oh, Chinesify... To force another culture into being Chinese.
I correct it in the posting.

Teaching a common language is hardly Chinesifying. Tibet is part of China, so certain uniformaty is expected. I'm sure that if Tibet was left in it's aboriginal state (correct the terminology please), it'd be a humanitarian crisis we'd be talking about here, and how bad the Chinese were for not providing the basic living conditions. The previous system of Tibetan Governance was hardly perfect, and although i understand about the religious angle what with China being Communist and against religion as such, i think there is a certain glossing over of the fact at play here.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
Teaching a common language is hardly Chinesifying. Tibet is part of China, so certain uniformaty is expected. I'm sure that if Tibet was left in it's aboriginal state (correct the terminology please), it'd be a humanitarian crisis we'd be talking about here, and how bad the Chinese were for not providing the basic living conditions. The previous sys ...[text shortened]... against religion as such, i think there is a certain glossing over of the fact at play here.

Ah... The noble colonizers, bringing quality of life to the 'aboriginal peoples'.

Mankind has been there before.

Originally posted by Palynka
Ah... The noble colonizers, bringing quality of life to the 'aboriginal peoples'.

Mankind has been there before.

No, just China growing to the outer reaches of it's own borders, and the locals not happy. That's the normal progression of civilisation.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
No, just China growing to the outer reaches of it's own borders, and the locals not happy. That's the normal progression of civilisation.

Ah, social control by using repression and force as the 'normal progression of civilization'.

God save your Queen.

Originally posted by Palynka
Ah, social control by using repression and force as the 'normal progression of civilization'.

God save your Queen.

What do you think would happen to your Peaceful eden like dreamworld that you percieve Tibet to be, if China wasn't the owner ?


I find the oversimplification of the issue to be laughable.

Originally posted by Palynka
Do you think it's possible or desirable to insulate such cultures from economic pressure? Is there a way to do this that doesn't reek of paternalism and authoritarianism?

No need for insulation -- just a fair deal. I'd give them the land they claim is theirs and wish them the best of luck.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
What do you think would happen to your Peaceful eden like dreamworld that you percieve Tibet to be, if China wasn't the owner ?


I find the oversimplification of the issue to be laughable.

Who said anything about a 'peaceful eden like dreamworld'? Keep attacking your own simple strawman.

But it's curious. I also find your oversimplification of the issue to be laughable.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
No need for insulation -- just a fair deal. I'd give them the land they claim is theirs and wish them the best of luck.

Then you could braid you friend's hair,and hug trees till dinner...good plan.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
No need for insulation -- just a fair deal. I'd give them the land they claim is theirs and wish them the best of luck.

Sounds perfect to me.

I felt you were digging deeper than that when you mentioned economic pressures. My mistake.