Originally posted by adam warlockThe hackneyed Marxist terminology you use is deeply suspect. For a critique of the Tibetan ancien regime, I'd first look for a variety of Tibetan viewpoints.
It does? How so!? What kind of logic are you using?
I'm intrigued because I've used the word invasion to describe China's action in Tibet.
What would be critical of the State line in Tibet: to endorse the actual enslavement of the serfs?
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSo you have no argument to back up the accusations you just made? You can dislike the terminology I use and call it Marxist (though I fail to realize what's Marxist about it) and call it suspect.
The hackneyed Marxist terminology you use is deeply suspect. For a critique of the Tibetan ancien regime, I'd first look for a variety of Tibetan viewpoints.
I know that the clergy and the elites in Tibet were mighty fine with the regime that was on Tibet in the late 19th to the mid 20th century and I also know that most of the peasants (is this hackneyed Marxist terminology too?) weren't. Given the brutal conditions that they were under I am not surprised that this is so.
But I'd really like to see the logic that you've used to conclude that I find that cultural annihilation is much more liberating.
Care to indulge me in this?
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockTibet is under occupation of China. Tibetans can no longer rule their own country. Many of its inhabitance is refugees in other countries. Do you say that this is good for Tibet?
So you have no argument to back up the accusations you just made? You can dislike the terminology I use and call it Marxist (though I fail to realize what's Marxist about it) and call it suspect.
I know that the clergy and the elites in Tibet were might fine with the regime that was on Tibet in the late 19th to the mid 20th century and I also know th that I find that cultural annihilation is much more liberating.
Care to indulge me in this?
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasOf course I don't.
Do you say that this is good for Tibet?
Do you say it is good for Tibetans to return to a system where all the wealth was concentrated on something like 5% of the population, where peasants had no rights, had basically no freedom, had to do most of the heavy and dirty job and were taxed all the time (the list doesn't end here)?
I don't think that's good either, but if the peasants in Tibet want to return to that way of life I'm nobody to say otherwise.
But the fact is, apparently, for reasons unknown, the peasants in Tibet recognize the Dalai Lama as a spiritual authority but don't want to get back to the old system.
Most of the voices in Tibet you get to hear are from people connected to the clergy and they had it real good in Tibet so of course they want it back.
But the peasants don't want the old way back. A shocker, I know!
Taking notice of these facts apparently makes me a Marxist that thinks that cultural annihilation is liberating...
Originally posted by adam warlockYou're wrong, the system underwent various reforms, such as the suppression of the death penalty by the 14th Dalai Lama's predecessor, which makes the old Tibet, despite its undoubted failings, more humane than modern China. So much for hackneyed propaganda.
So you have no argument to back up the accusations you just made? You can dislike the terminology I use and call it Marxist (though I fail to realize what's Marxist about it) and call it suspect.
I know that the clergy and the elites in Tibet were might fine with the regime that was on Tibet in the late 19th to the mid 20th century and I also know th ...[text shortened]... that I find that cultural annihilation is much more liberating.
Care to indulge me in this?
I'm assuming you're ok with the destruction of Tibetan Buddhist culture as an inevitable consequence of the 'liberation' of the peasants by the Chinese in an obvious landgrab justified by the sort of hackneyed terminology in play.
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhat about the logic that shows that I support the cultural annihilation? I'm still waiting for it.
You're wrong, the system underwent various reforms, such as the suppression of the death penalty by the 14th Dalai Lama's predecessor, which makes the old Tibet, despite its undoubted failings, more humane than modern China. So much for hackneyed propaganda.
I'm assuming you're ok with the destruction of Tibetan Buddhist culture as an inevitable co the Chinese in an obvious landgrab justified by the sort of hackneyed terminology in play.
I'm assuming you're ok with the destruction of Tibetan Buddhist culture as an inevitable consequence of the 'liberation' of the peasants by the Chinese in an obvious landgrab justified by the sort of hackneyed terminology in play.
I see that it is high time for slander in RHP.
I never said liberation while describing China's actions. I called it invasion.
You're assumption is wrong (and for someone that likes to bash the concept of culture every once in a while your use of cultural annihilation and Tibetan Buddhist culture is highly amusing).
You can attack the terminology all you want but I'd like to see some substance. Do you think that besides wild assumptions and lunatic accusations you can give me that?
You're wrong, the system underwent various reforms, such as the suppression of the death penalty by the 14th Dalai Lama's predecessor, which makes the old Tibet, despite its undoubted failings, more humane than modern China.
I never said that the Chinese regime isn't brutal. All I said is that the Tibetan regime under the current Dalai Lama wasn't as pretty as westerners like to paint it.
If you think that's equivalent to saying that China was a liberating force than the problem is in your logic.
Carry on with ad hominem, please.
And me thinking that by using the word invasion it would be pretty clear that I don't support China's regime in Tibet too...
Originally posted by adam warlockI've answered the question, although you didn't understand my answer; it doesn't matter.
What about the logic that shows that I support the cultural annihilation? I'm still waiting for it.
Rose-tinted Western views of old Tibet are about as relevant to the problems of modern Tibetans as reductionist peasant-fetishing narratives of the oppressive ancien regime: that is to say, not at all.
If you've got something to say about Tibet that's rooted in some relevant contemporary discourse stemming from Tibetan sources, I'd be interested to hear it.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageEven though I know I don't support China's invasion, even though I don't support cultural annihilation, I am lead to conclude that indeed I do support it because I think that forced labor being an obligation from generation to generation is a bad thing.
I've answered the question, although you didn't understand my answer; it doesn't matter.
😕
If you have anything relevant to say I'd be delighted to hear it.
Originally posted by adam warlockThat's not what I said 🙂
Even though I know I don't support China's invasion, even though I don't support cultural annihilation, I am lead to conclude that indeed I do support it because I think that forced labor being an obligation from generation to generation is a bad thing.
😕
If you have anything relevant to say I'd be delighted to hear it.
By the way, inherited debt was also done away with by Dalai Lama 13. So your version of events is fictitious. Not that it matters! Dalai Lama 14 has given up on the whole 'free Tibet' thing anyway. Cultural annihilation is an ineluctable process!
Originally posted by adam warlockNever mind the Marx comments. I like Graucho the most. Forget about that.
Of course I don't.
Do you say it is good for Tibetans to return to a system where all the wealth was concentrated on something like 5% of the population, where peasants had no rights, had basically no freedom, had to do most of the heavy and dirty job and were taxed all the time (the list doesn't end here)?
I don't think that's good either, but if ...[text shortened]... cts apparently makes me a Marxist that thinks that cultural annihilation is liberating...
Was the pesants asked before the cultural invasion ? Did they have any say-so? If not, it was unethic.
When USA try their inavsion by establish MacDonalds en mass in my city, I can go elsewhere to my favourite korvmoj and eat there. If every Swede does that the korvmoj owner would be rich, but MacDonalds not.
The point is I have a choice. The Tibetan peasants have not.
If someone abroad tells me that my religion is not good, they want to decide who the new archbishop will be, and this is not my decision. They burn my hole places, and they burn my religious documents. (Oh, they already did that 1000 years ago in Sweden.) If I don't have any choice, then it's unethical.
Today we have an increasing muslim population in Sweden. I can chose wether or not I would like to change my religion.
I chose not to change my religion. The Tibetan peasants cannot chose. Their religious roots are now gouvern from Beijing.
And this is what occupation is about. To bring in the chinese population, and chinesify the culture, religion and moda di vita. After a while Tibet is a part of China, and the old Tibet is gone.
We didn't like Iraq to occupy Quweit. But we accept other occupations in the world. Do we accept the Chinese occupation of Tibet? No, we don't. But since there is no oil in Tibet, we don't care.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageJust to clarify, Bosse:
It's worth pointing out again -- perhaps -- that the Chinese invasion was justified in terms very similar to those used by adam warlock.
Do you think that the Chinese occupation of Tibet is okay?
Yes or no will suffice. Perhaps I come with a follow up question later...
Originally posted by adam warlocka system where all the wealth was concentrated on something like 5% of the population, where peasants had no rights, had basically no freedom, had to do most of the heavy and dirty job and were taxed all the time -
Of course I don't.
Do you say it is good for Tibetans to return to a system where all the wealth was concentrated on something like 5% of the population, where peasants had no rights, had basically no freedom, had to do most of the heavy and dirty job and were taxed all the time (the list doesn't end here)?
I don't think that's good either, but if ...[text shortened]... cts apparently makes me a Marxist that thinks that cultural annihilation is liberating...
you mean America.