Agree.

Emphatically, YES! FREE TIBET NOW! China, you will never receive the respect of the rest of the world until you stop persecuting Tibetans and let them govern themselves.

No one in China governs themselves. It is an autocratic government.

Tibet is certainly unfortunate, but it is not an exception.

Tibet has been included on maps of China for centuries before the communist party takeover.

The true history of Tibet is something that few Tibet supporters want to talk about because it does not perfectly fit their narrative. It was not a paradise and it was not truly independent, merely mostly autonomous due to the weak central government of the Qing Dynasty.

However, there were many Qing warlords who controlled large swaths of Tibet with an iron fist. Some Tibetans did fight for independence when the PRC military showed up to settle matters, but the truth of that is the CIA worked with the Qing warlords to foment the fighting as part of an effort to stop the march of the Communist government.

It's a very complicated situation. You say "Free Tibet". I say, Free China. With the PRC replaced by a democratic government, an independent Tibetan nation is inevitable.

Tibet will never be free so long as China is an autocratic government. I promise you that.

Actually, Tibet has been "semi-autonomous" for many centuries, since it has passed from Chinese influence to Indian influence back to Chinese influence back to Indian influence and so on. But it's always been an autonomous region with its own culture, its own form of religions (not just Buddhist), its own dietary preferences that are different from any other nation around it, and many other distinctions. While it was not a paradise due to extreme poverty, weather conditions, and altitude, "the Land of Snows" also was never part of any other nation due to no one wanting the hassle of living under those conditions. And I do agree "Free China" is a great ideal, but that will only happen when those in South China, who are much different than those in North China, decide they no longer want to live under the rule of Beijing. Good luck to that......

During 821/822 CE, there was a Treaty signed by the Rulers of China and Tibet, establishing their mutual border. This Treaty was written on three stone oblisk, one in each capital city and one on the China Tibet border. The one on the border still exist, for ALL to read, if you can obtain a visa... Ha! Ha!

During the 1200's when China was conquered and then ruled by the Mongols. A unique relationship between the Mongol leader Kublai Khan (r. 1260–1294) and his spiritual superior Drogön Chögyal Phagpa (1235–1280) of the Tibetan Sakya sect. Kublai also made Drogön Chögyal Phagpa the ruling priest-king of Tibet, which comprised thirteen different states ruled by myriarchies...

The Ming emperor Yongle's patronage of Deshin Shekpa, the Karmapa, was an attempt to reassert a relationship with Tibet that Kublai Khan had earlier enjoyed with the Sakya Phagpa lama...

The Ming emperors sent numerous invitations to ruling lamas, but the lamas sent subordinates rather than coming themselves, and no Tibetan ruler ever explicitly accepted the role of being a vassal of the Ming...

Semi-autonomous is not the same as independent.

You are parsing words regarding Chinese monarchy and history.

autonomous region with its own culture, its own form of religions (not just Buddhist), its own dietary preferences that are different from any other nation around it, and many other distinctions

You just described almost every province of China that did not house a national capital for the last thousand years of Chinese history.

There are 56 recognized separate ethnic groups in China.

There are 292 living languages in China.

Tibet is and is not unique, as every person is unique and equally valuable.

The truth is that if semi-autonomous Tibet had ever once dared to declare independence it's resistance would have been utterly crushed going all the way back to before the Yuan Dynasty in the 12th century either by the mongols, or any successive Chinese dynasty.

As for Northern Chinese being different from Southern Chinese... china is especially culturally diverse. There is not so much a northern Chinese v. southern Chinese disconnect as there is a province to province cultural disconnect, which can further be divided into individual districts culturally.

Cultural differences aside, people are prone to being people no matter where you go.

no Tibetan ruler ever explicitly accepted the role of being a vassal of the Ming...

Do a search for any map of the Qing Dynasty following the Ming Dynasty. All of them include Tibet for a reason.

Nepal explicitly recognized Tibet as an independent country, including in its official application to the United Nations. During 1949, Nepal cited its treaty and diplomatic relations with Tibet to demonstrate its full international personality.

Numerous other countries made statements in the course of the UN debates that reflected similar recognition of Tibet's independent status. For example:

1. The delegate from the Philippines declared: " [It is clear that on the eve of the invasion in 1950, Tibet was not under the rule of any foreign country. "

2. The delegate from Thailand reminded the assembly that the majority of states " refute the convention that Tibet is part of China. "

3. The USA joined most other UN members in condemning the Chinese "aggression" and "invasion" of Tibet. In 1959, 1960 and again in 1961, the UN General Assembly passed resolutions (1353-XIV, 1723-XVI and 2079-XX) condemning Chinese human rights abuses in Tibet and calling on China to respect and implement the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the Tibetan people, including their right to self-determination.

Prior to China's occupation during the 1950s, Tibet had its own unique culture, with its own spoken and written language, system of government, currency, postal system, its own style of Buddhism, costume, and architecture.

The International Commission of Jurists has charged the Chinese Government with genocide of Tibetans.

On 10 December 1989, His Holiness The Dalai Lama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. This award was given to him in recognition of his work towards a peaceful solution for Tibet's independence from China, who occupied Tibet by force.

A more current resolution was passed in Mongolia that accepts Tibet as an independent state in Phayul on June 18, 2007.

Mr Dhondup(R) with Mongolian Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr Enkhbold N.(Photo: Dhondup Dorjee/TYC)
Ulaanbaatar (Mongolia): A historic resolution accepting Tibet as an independent state was passed at the recently concluded three-day International Union of Socialist Youth (IUSY) Asia - Pacific Committee Meeting held in the Mongolian Capital, Ulaanbaatar, in the Official Meeting hall of Mongolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Building.

Among other things, the resolution accepts Tibet as an independent State and condemns the illegal occupation of Tibet by China.

More than 25 delegates representing around 10 different Countries from the Asia - Pacific Region participated in the meeting. Mr. Dhondup Dorjee, Information Secretary of Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC), represented Tibet during the meeting. A five-point resolution on Tibet was then passed unanimously except, the resolution number (IV), which was objected only by the ethnic Han Chinese, Mr. Anthony Loke.

From a legal standpoint, Tibet to this day has not lost its statehood. It is an independent state under illegal occupation. Neither China's military invasion nor the continuing occupation by the PLA has transferred the sovereignty of Tibet to China. As pointed out earlier, the Chinese government has not claimed to have acquired sovereignty over Tibet by conquest. Indeed, China recognizes that the use or threat of force (outside the exceptional circumstances provided for in the UN Charter), the imposition of an unequal treaty or the continued illegal occupation of a country can never grant an invader legal title to territory. Its claims are based solely on the alleged subjection of Tibet to a few of China's strongest foreign rulers in the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries.

While the UN and other western governments have turned their back on China's invasion through direct military action or major business acquisitions in many countries. The people of Asia are now awakening to the Han infestation and are uniting through ASEAN and welcoming the US Military presence, new Joint Military bases, and renewed Treaty's...

AC interesting post thanks for taking the time to write it.

From a legal standpoint, Tibet to this day has not lost its statehood. It is an independent state under illegal occupation

This is not remotely true. From a legal standpoint? Whose legal code? It is not an independent state.

From the Qing Dynasty to the PRC government, no one in China's capital recognized their independence.

BTW, you do know that Nepal wants to annex Tibet, right?

True enough, the Lamas made a play for independence along with Qing warlords who were promised to be able to keep their fiefdoms and there was some CIA backing to cause problems with the PRC, but they lost, just like the American South lost its war of secession.

Tibet had an opportunity to secede only because of the fierce toll the bloody revolutionary war had taken in mainland China. The Qing removed the bulk of their troops from Tibet to augment their forces, but lost to the Republic of China forces. The RoC sent an envoy to Tibet to tell them they were still under Chinese rule, but the revolution for RoC wasn't over yet. Qing had fallen but other people were rising to claim a piece of China. All of them were defeated except the PRC, with only Mongolia managing to secure independence. RoC lost to the Communist revolutionaries and fled to Taiwan. Some Tibetan groups members made a play for independence as well in the 25th hour and lost as well.

I had a great big write-up ready for you, but I erased it all when I got to this part:

Han infestation

You need to check yourself.

The last thing that Tibet needs is more race and ethnicity based blood-letting. The world has heard enough of that talk and none of it ever goes anywhere good.

Chris, you sound like you approve of Bejing transporting thousands of Han Chinese to Tibet where they are displacing the culture. The only blood being let in Tibet is that of Tibetans. There is a genocide going on as documented by reporters who take pictures and smuggle them out of Tibet.

I am also curious about why you are so strong on "historical claims" of sovereignty as somehow absolute authority on claims for land. The fact that Beijing rejects Tibet's independence is not proof that Tibet is a part of China. That reasoning is just wrong, or else China isn't independent but is a colony of the Mongols, Afghanistan and Iran can be claimed by the Greeks, eastern Europe is claimed by the Huns, and Britain is claimed by Rome. For that matter the US would have historical claims by the Danes, Spanish, French, and above all, the First Peoples.

Even though Russia conquered many parts of SW Europe does that give them the right to invade Belarus or Georgia and claim it as historical territory? Does that give Turkey the right to claim parts of SE Europe, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia? I reject your statement that some historical claim, dubious in itself, gives Beijing the right to invade and occupy Tibet.

Tibet is a free nation that has been brutally raped by Bejing and has every right to claim independence. The fact that some Chinese rulers in some centuries laid claim doesn't make that claim legitimate. The Chinese have no more claim on Tibet than India, or any other kingdom that once rose in that part of the world.

laughingcat

Chris, you sound like you approve of Bejing transporting thousands of Han Chinese to Tibet where they are displacing the culture.

There are so many thing wrong with that statement, it is difficult to address them all.

I am presenting the other side of the argument, not to play devil's advocate but to show how poorly, and often dishonestly, many in the Free Tibet movement represent their cause. Further, the western Free Tibet person knows very little about the dark past of the pre-PRC Tibetan Rulership. Neither the PRC or Tibet are/were good governments. Tibet was a bit worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXhZRTLdSE4

I think everyone in China would be better off under self-determined rule; Tibet especially. I do not approve of the PRC government at all.

I really don't know that much about Georgia and Belarus, so I cannot comment on that.

Does the PRC respect the Tibetan culture? No. It doesn't even respect it's own historic culture. Mao's government destroyed priceless artifacts, cultural traditions and historical treasures in the name of an idiot's idea of progress.

The only blood being let in Tibet is that of Tibetans.

This is not true at all. There have been multiple cataloged attacks and murders committed by Tibetan separatists on innocent civilians. There is even video tape of separatists ruthless beating random Han Chinese, setting fire to occupied buildings, robbing banks during a riot and otherwise engaging in behavior that is just as bad as any they occused.

I favor justice and compassion for all, not revenge and random bloodletting on innocent people with no more control over the central government than the Free Tibet movement has.

Start referring to an ethnic group as a kind of vermin and you've crossed a line from which there is no turning back.

I do not approve of the PRC government. The PRC will ruthlessly crush anyone who gets in their way or attempts to prevent them from having things the way they want them. The PRC government is an autocratic dictatorship that does not care one whit for human rights but they are not so overtly cruel as some would imply.

The PRC government cruelty is fed more by indifference and nationalism than animosity.

The soldiers and police garrisoned there are a different story. They are mostly poorly trained and poorly educated with all the bigotry a person could expect from poorly trained and educated people.

There is almost no means of regress if you have been hurt by cop or chinese soldier in China whether you are a minority person or not. Naturally, if you are a minority, its even worse. The only way to get anything done in regards to the government if you have a grievance is if you have some connections. Naturally, a Tibetan person is much less likely to have connections because they are a minority, so their grievances are twice removed from a chance at being addressed.

I like and mostly agree with the Dalai Lama. It's some of his supporters that I have problems with.

Just because I don't believe half of what the Free Tibet movement says, doesn't mean that I side with PRC. Tibetan people very good reasons to want freedom from the PRC. Not every reason that the Free Tibet movement gives is based entirely in reality or truth; a great deal of it isn't. Most foreigners who support the Free Tibet movement know much less about Tibet than they know about Euclidean Algebra.

Just because I don't side with PRC doesn't mean nothing they ever say or do is either good or true.

This is the problem people frequently have: they want reassurances they are right, not facts to inform their opinion.

What is going on in Tibet is less a genocide and more a cultural eradication by way of totally ignoring the cultural identity of the Tibetan people.

While I agree with most of what you said, there is still absolutely no basis for China to claim Tibet as a province. And yes, the PRC are ruthless dictators. As for blood spilled, the Chinese should get out of Tibet so that no more of their blood is spilled. But for the fact they have acted as agents for an oppressive regime, they would not be attacked. I didn't mean to imply there is not hooliganism or violence against the Han - but they wouldn't be attacked if they were not there. If I go into the heart of Compton, and someone attacks me, then it's not a question of me "deserving it," as much as if I choose not to go there then I won't attract violence against my person. If you want to argue that all violence is unnecessary and deplorable, then I agree. But if the Han weren't there, much of the tension would also not be there. And yes, ignorant policemen are often heavy handed. Here, there, and everywhere.

I saw the video link. I do not treasure "feudalism," but the dialog on that video only made me think of how feudal ALL the nations of the world are. Every single point made could also be made for countless countries in our world today. Many of the points made by the guy being interviewed is also true for many so-called "civilized" nations today. That doesn't make it right, nor does it mean Tibet would revert to conditions as they existed in the 40s and 50s if HHDL returned as the head of one of Tibet's many Buddhists sects.

I base my view on two main points: 1) HHDL is not a feudalist, nor an agitator. He is no more responsible for the feudal conditions of his childhood than I am for the deplorable conditions in the deep South of the US when I was a youth. And it cannot be asserted that Tibet would return to those impoverished conditions of the 40s and 50s if HHDL returned to Tibet any more than we can assert the same thing if someone from the southern US were elected president. Historically there was such widespread poverty and illiteracy around the world during those times that any comparison between then and now is apples and oranges. HHDL is merely an authority on Tibetan Buddhism, which is a worthy approach to living our lives here on Earth.

2) China has absolutely NO right to dominate Tibet, any more than the Italians can assert the right to dominate Wales. This is not about agreeing with HHDL or the Free Tibet movement in terms of assertions and tactics. But under no circumstances can Bejing justify the "cultural eradication" of the Tibetan culture. Which in other less genteel language could be called genocide. They aren't ignoring the cultural identity - they are slaughtering it, destroying it, tearing down temples, and doing to the Tibetans what we did to the First Peoples. That's genocide.

With the passing of s1867 this past Dec. we have moved closer to the police state agenda favored by both the Dems and Reps. Obama signed off on it and it extended the Patriot Acts powers. The next logical step is to go after protesters. However if history repeats itself the more oppressive a governing power becomes the more ripe its people become for revolution. The problem with revolutions is that a lot of people die and infrastructure is torn up but as soon as the dust settles here comes the old guard who set up shop and start the same old crap manipulations of the populace.

FIGHT.... you DO know that the Patriot act extension passed Congress by overwhelming margins dont you??

Satanick, can you give some examples?

Tom, "fight" made that clear in his first sentence. As for examples, well, how about protesters being rounded up and sent to jail for nonviolent protests? How about reporters being clubbed by police for reporting that the police are clubbing protesters? How about police roughing up people who dare not to stay in caged areas a quarter mile from those they're protesting? How about police roughing up and/or beating people for daring to use cell phones to take pictures of police brutality? How about electronic surveillance of people who have done nothing illegal? How about shutting down cell phone service of those trying to make a statement against the powers that be? Start with Amy Goodman's experience during the Bush era and go from there. Check out news footage of how WTO protesters have been handled in the past. The police went wild on both violent and nonviolent protestors, as well as random spectators, especially those taking pictures of the police.

I was a trained peacekeeper who during nonviolent protests dodged police batons, rubber bullets, and tear gas in the 70s antiwar marches and during the antinuke protests of the early 80s. While 99% of us were nonviolent, the police sure weren't. And if you really want an example, be a nonviolent spectator in the wrong place during a protest of an illegal war, or a protest against those who are ruining our world. You'll figure it out then. Open your mouth to say you're not a protestor, and you'll still get a baton shoved in your face and a jail record. There are literally too many examples to list. I guess you don't watch or read much news.

The so-called Patriot Act needs to go. It should be renamed The Repression of Freedom Act.

Obama just signed in law HR 347 on 3-12. It's now a FELONY to protest on federal land.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIHmdTblRwI

With that move, Obama made it a felony to express freedom of speech in America. The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act that effortlessly passed the House and the Senate is a law that most Americans don't know about but could put them behind bars for up to 10 years. The law states it is a prosecutable offense to without lawful authority enter a building or grounds of a special event of national significance or enter a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting.

Obama thinks that the young people will vote for him again and he thinks the rest are too scared to put a Republican in office because the Congress also voted for these crimes against Americans. It is treason and both the Dems and Reps need to go. It is time to vote in a third party before we find ourselves up against another Fascist state.

Unfortunately, the game is rigged, and any attempt at creating a 3rd party won't work until enough get fed up with the two-headed hydra currently rigging the game. But as long as the two have it locked up, then we're stuck voting for the lesser of two evils, neither of which has our best interests at heart.

laughingcat While I would agree that enough people need to get fed up to bring in a third party, I don't see voting for the lesser of the two evils as an option either. The fact is they are working so well together to strip American freedoms that voting for either party will only get more of the same and the pace has accelerated. There is some historical evidence to support even the threat of a third party to at least back the beast up.

I liked that Ron Paul acknowledged the governments plans to set up situations to push for civil disobedience and then bring the hammer down. Unfortunately he may have ties to white supremacist groups and is definitely still in the cave regarding women's rights. The only way it could work is an across the board sweep out by a third party that was legally responsible to enact platform promises made to the country. It would most likely come from a grass roots movement and have to have some very savvy smart people in it to monitor and make sure their politicians were and stayed clean. These public servants would have to be courageous.Given how easily the human species is manipulated and how sophisticated the tools of manipulation have become it looks like a meltdown is coming.

The further you distance yourself from any source the more diluted the power of that source becomes. Plato alluded to this when he addressed the issue of art. However, as an artist I can not agree whole heartily with his using this as an example.

I believe we've been voting for the lesser of two evils for decades, due to the rules of the rigged game. We're seeing a small variation in VA in this election. If a candidate cannot get on a ballot, it doesn't do any good if a majority of the voters want that candidate. The game itself is rigged so that you MUST be a member of what has been termed "the money party." Dem and Repub are merely two sides of that one party.

Third party candidates usually dilute the vote so that the greater/lesser of two evils gets elected. Ex: in 2000, I was a Green but knew every vote for Nader gave W the advantage. Without Nader in the race, there is no doubt that Gore would not have achieved the distinction of being the first elected preznit not to be inaugurated. And the only way any true 3rd party movement could stand on its own would be to take all the money out of campaigning. Then money wouldn't determine who gets to lie loudest and longest to the American public. They'd actually have to stand and debate what they would do rather than just attack, attack, attack.

laughingcat Yes I would agree that taking votes away does have an impact. However I don't believe that we have had any president in the last 30 years that has had the American people's best interest as their first agenda. Reagan Clinton and Bush all contributed to the stripping of controls on big business especially regulations that had been set in place to protect Americans. Obama has signed off on some very dangerous legislation designed to oppress Americans. Gore was as much a part of that Corporate owned government system as the rest have been. I do not blame Nader rather I blame those who have seduced Americans to think they must continue to vote for this two party one agenda political system. I would also blame Americans who have and continue to let this happen. Nader is a great American and quite frankly the way the American people turned on him making him a cocktail party joke shows how easily people are manipulated.

How sad that history will repeat this unending cycle of oppression revolution death destruction and finally trying to rebuild. You would think with the level of education Americans have had made available to them they would want to do better. Death worship is an integral part of most social structures today.

jediphan I do empathise with your bleak view of what is coming. However as long as we live we should strive to leave some room for hope and prepare for the worst.

No way China will rise while all the internal contradictions subsist.

China will only be a suerpower when it's population rises above abject poverty (and don't come with the Chinese mircle, a few million millionaires do not make a developed country when more than a billion are at the verge of starvation).

To be a superpower your population must be supporting you, not by fear as in China.

You think that China will continue to prosper without the US market? They rely on the US as much as the US relies on them, probably even more so. If the US goes down, so does China. But, that is assuming all things stay the same. Climate change, over population, fossil fuel depletion (not too far off) etc will be a game changer and will likely throw the world power market into the proverbial fan.

It would be tough to do, but we should boycott all Chinese imported goods until they free Tibet and get their jackboots off the necks of their own people.

"the modern version of Rome, the U.S."

Sure the U.S. is a big country, but to compare with Rome, come on now. Or should the U.S. start conquering the world the Roman way? or maybe the Genghis Khan way? should they start cutting heads and declare each country they have been in as U.S. states? If this was the case jediphan, quite a few countries would now be U.S. states, including Iraq, France and Germany.

And while the U.S. haters are so busy hating the U.S., the Chinese government is "having fun" conquering the world in a whole different way (and sometimes the same way), they also have your "modern version of Rome" in a tight rope.

fight for freedom-2341533 The only thing I can think of in Tibet that would be seen as valuable to the Chinese government would be Tibet's resistance to Chinese control. All of the Chinese citizens get a constant reminder that resistance to their governments rule if futile. I see it as the perfect psychological terror for the Chinese government. Very wrong...but effective.

I am a pacifist. I hate war, hate people killing people.

I don't understand this, but when talking about territory dispute, no country is rational, even for an inch, in my opinion.

Points to PonderI think you make an excellent point and I don't doubt that this is one of the advantages of oppressing this small corner of regime. I do think though that there must be some kind of resources there that they want to be able to strip from these people. There is a growing elite in China who are wealthy. They have become extremely exploitive of the poor in China.

Billy who said Give me liberty or give me death? Was it Patrick Henry?

China and India have always "disputed" Tibet, and in the power grab of 1950, China got a buffer zone in case India decided it was tired of Chinese meddling on its borders, including Bhutan, Sikkim, and Nepal, all of which have been somewhat destabilized by Chinese mischief-making. Tibet also serves China's need for territory to export its overpopulation of Han peoples, and yes, Tibet serves as a convenient example to other Chinese of what will happen if they protest. Tibetan Buddhists, being inherently non-violent, pose no threat to the powers in Beijing. You can bet that if in 1950 Tibet had a large population that liked beer, guns, and souped up street machines, whether cars or motorcycles, Beijing wouldn't have invaded to begin with. And to point out the obvious, if Tibet had oil, the US would have, ahem, "done what needed to be done" as we have in other regions.

China has a scarcity mentality. They have to grab it all and use it all up. Then they have to grab some more. Look at all of the bullying they do in the region and in the South Pacific Region. They try to control the waterways/shipping lanes. They must own the Spratleys that are no where near China. The government (not necessarily the peoples themselves) is greedy and selfish.

They keep Tibet because they can. It is not profitable to them to do so. They will tell you that Tibet is of strategic military importance to them, and that might be somewhat true, but what it really boils down to is that it makes them feel powerful to be the overlords of the Tibetans and anyone in China who might disagree with them.

It could happen if the rest of the world quit buying their stuff. I realize that will probably never happen, but it should.

All I can say about that comment is WOW!

Sounds like you're for authoritarian regimes exercising control over smaller regions. There are many small independent countries who don't make the world and more chaotic than it already is. While I agree "people have to learn to live with and respect each other," how does that excuse the Chinese government from destroying Tibetan culture and life?

Frankly, the US has greater "ethnic diversity" than any other nation on Earth, except perhaps the UK. And no government has to foster unrest among the religions. Religions do that quite nicely on their own, and have been doing it for centuries, where they are the ones fostering government unrest rather than vise-versa. You're saying the tail wags the dog, when it's actually the reverse.

Tibet is not an ethnic group. It was a sovereign nation until it was brutally taken over by the Chinese.

Toasty, while I usually agree and recommend almost everything you've written for months, on this I disagree. What's going on is no less than the rape of Tibet in every way imaginable. While you may not trust one guy to have a "better human rights record," in fact Tibet was peaceful for many centuries until the Chinese came in. I tend to distrust most who come to power since it does corrupt, but the Chinese are destroying Tibetan culture, society, and history. It's every bit as bad as what we did to the First Peoples on this continent, which was a genocide. .

Thank you, Toasty. Ther Serfs, as they are called, we emslaved by the tibetan monks. The Chinese gave them freedom. People need to read up before they post BS comments.

Laughingcat, what about the American Indians? Ask yourself that question.

Ryan - You're obviously a shill for the Chinese. I DID reference the Native Americans. The Chinese are doing to the Tibetans what the US government did to the First Peoples. I know Tibetan history better than you do, Ryan, as it was an area of concentration for me both when I received a University degree (where I have a double major, one of which is in the history of large nations dominating smaller ones, both in the Eastern and Western, Northern and Southern hemispheres) and later on through years of independent studies involving Tibetan history as well as what early European explorers found when they explored Asia in the 19th and 20th centuries. There was no "enslavement" by the monks. That's just ignorant and deliberately misleading.

Laughing, before the Chinese came, Tibet was run by a slave-owning theocracy that violently suppressed dissent. Like I said, as bad as things are now, they were far worse under the Lamas.

Absolutely not true. Study the works of Alexandra David-Neel. She was one of the first to go inside the culture a century ago. Before the Chinese came, yes, it was a theocracy, but there was nothing compulsory and violence was rare, mostly among bandits. The Dalai, Panchen, and Tashi Lamas, along with the Karmapa, were the heads of the sects, and there was absolutely no record of violently suppressing dissent according to historical account of 100 years ago. Nor was there any record of such things when Roerich did his expeditions in the 20s and 30s. I don't know where you're getting your history, but there was no violent suppression of anything recorded for the 30 years of those two beings, along with others in their groups, who actually lived in Tibet among the people. Please give me your historical cite for any record of violent oppression in Tibet (other than allegations by the Chinese) at any point between 1900-1940.

Toasty. This rarely happens but I agree with you. That probably means your wrong. Sorry dude. Tibet is a very backwards place and their religion is almost as twisted as Islam. Is there anyone here that actually believe the Dali Lama is the Living GOD on Earth? If he is he should return to his followers. What a stinking coward he is.

He has a MAJOR GOD complex because his whole life people told him he is a god. Yet he travels the world while his idiot followers light themselves on fire. here all the atheists think China is wrong but fight God and religion in our own country. You want to hate our religions but support some primative, mind controlling religion else where. Liberals. Make up your mind. Do you hate religion or not?

Leroy - which religion? Bon? Buddhism? Catholicism? HHDL never has stated he's a god. His followers may consider him one, but he is clear that he's a man. Besides, it's safe to say that Buddhism doesn't accept the concept of a "personal god" but does maintain that if we antidote the sources of human suffering, all of which arise in our minds, then we can find a certain degree of happiness through detachment, dispassion, discrimination, and generating good will and altruistic works. Buddhism is not a religion - it's a way of life that has nothing to do with being a "liberal" or "conservative." It certainly isn't about "mind control" but it is about some reasonable measure of self-control. And I agree that most of us could do better with a little more self control of our mind and negative feelings.

Arrest the ashes. No burn permit, no emmisions control, littering.

Setting yourself on fire is not the "ultimate political statement" -- it's just suicide, leaving a family without a father and increasing the hardship for children left behind.

The problem in under-developed parts of the world is that people often use violence instead of words to accomplish their goals -- killing yourself by burning yourself to death does nothing to advance the political discussion, it just perpetuates an approach to the world that should have ended a thousand years ago.

While I'm not much into suicide for all kinds of reasons, some people in Asia over the decades have used self-immolation to make a political statement that they'd rather die than live under oppressive conditions. As for advancing political discussion, I believe that's how the "Arab Spring" began in Tunisia, and that shook the world to a degree we haven't seen in quite a while. (Not saying it's entirely succeeded in ways we would like, but it did advance political discussion and freedom in some parts of that world.)

Self-immolation is an act of despair that gets the world's attention. Personally I prefer the approach that Gandhi took, but that's just my opinion. I agree that we should be beyond violence at this point in human history, but that's an entirely different discussion. And if in his faith he doesn't believe in the reality of his body as other than a set of impermanent aggregates, then he is being true to his faith by regarding his body as just another burnable object. Sure beats "death bed conversions" here in the western world where a jerk can cause massive suffering for thousands or millions and then believe he's forgiven when he has a "come to jesus moment" on his death bed.

I agree Occupiers aren't terrorist(yet). they are idiots and anarchist. They don't kill people(yet). they just destroy stuff and put a major burden on local Tax resources. That's OK I guess. Hire more cops and fire more teachers. Bravo OWS

BINGO Andrew!

They are OK. The fire can not burn the soul. They all go to heaven and live happily ever after.No losers here. Everyone is a winner. It's like soccer.

You're so funny Leroy. I like your perception of the world.

You are lying on behalf of the Chinese regime. Also see the post below this one. You are stating a falsehood and no one who knows His Holiness believes you. I know more about the history and culture of Tibet than you do. Chinese soldiers are raping Tibetan women, beating Tibetans in the street, seizing their property, and destroying their temples of worship. You are lying.

laughtingcat.........

truth cannot be dented by lies and lies cannot obscure the truth.

Chinese soldiers are people's army (which account for the word people in the term PLA). They are set up to protect the people. What you insinuated is nothing but total lies. Obviously you have no knowledge of Tibetr or China for the matter, but totally delusional and intoxicated by the lies that the western media feed you.

You know you sound like you're reading propaganda from an insecure authoritarian state. If by "protect the people" you mean rape and murder, then your logic is twisted. And from your posts, you obviously can't spell and have very bad sentence construction. That gives it away that you're just a shill for your insecure government. As for your supposed Chinese superiority, only in a few ways, only for a short time. As you were once under the boot, and some are now under your boot, you also will in the future be under someone's boot. As you are obviously from China, you should know that old phrase. China will collapse under the weight of its own insecurity and heavy handed authoritarian rule. Someone else will take your place in history, so enjoy your arrogant smugness while you can. Times change, and a hundred years is but the blink of an eye.

It is easy to identify a Chinese shill...

Because they can not pronounce the word THE, the most used word in the english language. They do not use it in their writing...

Then there are the miss-informed like Toasty...

It is also easy to identy Chinese haters or bashers. Their posts contain nothing but innuendo and hate, and fabricate stories to defame China.(as exemplified by smear report on working condition in Foxconn in China).

These China-haters or bashers hold superior complex and cannot stand China in the rising, as it is beyoond their believe Chinese are smarter and more successful than them. They are nothing but sour losers.

Henrich is a Beijing troll and nothing s/he says is to be trusted. I hear China pays people to clutter up discussions like this because they are insecure and cannot take constructive criticism.

Constructive criticism bases on fact and one should have no problem with it. However tt is entirely different to innuendo and hate comments arising from the posters' delusion and grudge .

Obviously cat is a western troll and what s/he says is to be totally discarded.

I have no problem with facts. YOU are the one who alleged that HHDL was instigating protests, which is factually NOT correct. I am not indulging in innuendo - I have seen the smuggled footage out of Tibet which clearly shows rape and murder by Chinese against Tibetans. You can call it "hate comments," but where in your philosophy is there room for FACTS that contradict your assertions? I have no delusion or grudge - in fact, my family has many historical connections with China, all of them good. The Chinese people are mostly wonderful. My problem is with the powers in Beijing who are destroying Tibetan culture.

As for your assertion of me being a troll, I suppose that you have no original thoughts, since I am the one who introduced that on your behalf. In a battle of wits, you are only half-armed. Better quit while you're behind.

The so-called smuggled footage was most likely a fabricated one as propaganda to defame China and brainwash people like you.It is no difference to Mike Daisey's footageof the working conditions at Foxconn which turned out to be all fabricated and false. I have been to Tibet on 3 separate occasions and spoke to local Tibetan inhabitants who were happy and felt much better off than before. This sentiment was also shared by many expats who travelled to Tibet.

dalai has everything to gain by stirring up trouble in Tibet, and his sole objective is to return to Tibet to regain his serfdom.

You have no proof it was fabricated. Put up or shut up. Show your proofs.

This isn't about Foxcomm, which still has a difficult history outside of whatever was in error in recent reports. People still committing suicide and all that. I am happy you spoke with people in Tibet who were happy. I wonder which authorities were watching as you spoke.

You still prove yourself to be a shill for Beijing authoritarians when you refer to HHDL as "dalai" and "stirring up trouble." You obviously have never heard him speak to Tibetans in the US about his attitude. He NEVER stirs up trouble. He NEVER instigates. He is a teacher of Tibetan Buddhism, and only wishes that Beijing would remember, and I quote him directly, that "More suffering is bad; less suffering is good."

He has no serfdom, nor would Tibet ever return to that mode. That was over 50 years ago. At that time, Chairman Mao and the PLA were presiding over serfs all over China. Does that mean the current powers in Beijing should be thrown out since there are still many serfs in many parts of China?