Indeed whether its just 1 or 20000 people dying, its still deaths. My point is whether its correct for one to be dishonest and lie so that they can get the sympathy vote, even though it may be for a good cause. If so, then where do we stop? How do I know if someone, regardless of good intentions, is telling the truth or just manipulating our emotions anymore?

However, I do agree that China has not done a good job and are also a big culprit in spreading misinformation.

Maybe the non-violent protests of the Tibetians has served them well for a long time. They get a lot of attention in the media compared to 4 million dead in the Congo and nobody even blinks. But it works only up to a point. For China to have to use violence to crack down on Tibet, or rather for it to be forced to use violence, would be highly embarrassing and it has its uses - and like non-violence, it only works up to a certain point.

Mainly it occurred to me recently your bambi theory is quite interesting but it also has its second edge:

A great nation emerges from a terrible century of collective madness, famine, war, Japanese occupation, internectine strife, secret society, unequal treaties, opium.

Enlightenment has finally arrived on its shores. Its industrious people are almost ready to make the leap into the league of advanced nations. The bad old days of collective madness are slowly fading away into the shadows.

Can these people really be the same monsters that are portrayed in the western media?

Or would we rather see glittering visions of Pudong district, Victoria Bay. Touching scenes of little kids (symbolising a new beginning) playing games at dusk in the hutong and running home to their grandparents who put down their erhus for a long enough to deliver a loving embrace.

There is something really bambi-ish about China too when you think about it. We do want to believe that the bad old days are well and truly over and a glorious future awaits.

Maybe the non-violent protests of the Tibetians has served them well for a long time. They get a lot of attention in the media compared to 4 million dead in the Congo and nobody even blinks. But it works only up to a point. For China to have to use violence to crack down on Tibet, or rather for it to be forced to use violence, would be highly embarrassing and it has its uses - and like non-violence, it only works up to a certain point.

Mainly it occurred to me recently your bambi theory is quite interesting but it also has its second edge:

A great nation emerges from a terrible century of collective madness, famine, war, Japanese occupation, internectine strife, secret society, unequal treaties, opium.

Enlightenment has finally arrived on its shores. Its industrious people are almost ready to make the leap into the league of advanced nations. The bad old days of collective madness are slowly fading away into the shadows.

Can these people really be the same monsters that are portrayed in the western media?

Or would we rather see glittering visions of Pudong district, Victoria Bay. Touching scenes of little kids (symbolising a new beginning) playing games at dusk in the hutong and running home to their grandparents who put down their erhus for a long enough to deliver a loving embrace.

There is something really bambi-ish about China too when you think about it. We do want to believe that the bad old days are well and truly over and a glorious future awaits.

Hmm.. interesting u said about 1.2 million.. the following website seems to suggest that this figure could be inflated.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
…The official 1953 census–six years before the Chinese crackdown–recorded the entire population residing in Tibet at 1,274,000. Other census counts put the population within Tibet at about two million. If the Chinese killed 1.2 million in the early 1960s then almost all of Tibet, would have been depopulated, transformed into a killing field dotted with death camps and mass graves–of which we have no evidence. The thinly distributed Chinese force in Tibet could not have rounded up, hunted down, and exterminated that many people even if it had spent all its time doing nothing else.”

I think that my point above is that both sides have their own agenda.

I agree with you that unfortunately Tibetan religion and politics are too tightly knitted. However, I must say that from a Buddhist perspective, this is not necessary and not needed. If anything Buddhism advocates a separation of religion and state and monastics, in a strict sense, are not supposed to involve themselves into the socio-political arena as a participant.

Actually, what I meant by “no point getting angry and screaming murder at China, its like throwing pebbles in the Ocean”, I meant that there should exists better and more constructive methods to engage China and also to bring about constructive and positive change in Tibet. Trying to make China embarrassed or drive them into a corner, does not serve anyone too well and it may turn against the welfare of the Tibetans.

I guess its probably I hold a different view about protest, even though I am a gay activist myself. I personally feel the protest is only effective to a certain degree and the bad point about protest is that it brings about anger and hatred in the people who protests, only very rarely in history are protest no driven by anger or hatred. And anger and hatred clouds our minds from operating objectively and makes us lose out way and forget about our aim at the end of the day

It has been estimated that the Chinese occupation has taken 1.2 million Tibetian lives. While this is small change compared to the 50 million who perished during the Great Leap Forward famines, I think it is pretty serious business.

And about the “no point getting angry and screaming murder at China”, democratic reforms always had to be fought for. No doubt that Tiananmen resulted in a bloodbath but I think it still delivered the kick up the ass that the communist party needed. And protests have produced a Palestinian state, end of apartheid in South Africa, etc.

Thing about bambi, saying “I’m not going to support Tibet because they are bambi” is probably even worse than “I’m going to support Tibet because they are bambi”. At least in the latter you are still going with your gut. But in the end there is no subtitute for checking the facts.

Yes Aung san Suu Kyii is an attractive woman. Does that mean that her cause is unjust? I think we do want to live in a world where when soft power comes up against hard power soft power would not lose.

My article was not to say who is better at whose hands. There are Tibetans who benefited under China’s rule as much as there are those who did not.

Just like how the ASEAN countries could become possible partly due to the occupation of Japanese during WWII. Does that mean that we should have more of such conquest? Of course not, but if we only focus on issues like comfort women and tortures during Japanese occupation, we missed out other other larger aspects of its effects, unintentionally by the Japs of course.

My aim was just to balance the perception that Tibet was a lah lah land and has always been… as much anger was towards China for, you know, killing Bambi.

I have not doubt that Chinese screwed up along the way and in its own way tried to patch things up.. which probably made it worst. No point getting angry and screaming murder at China, its like throwing pebbles into the ocean.

In religious repression, I did say that it was probably due to its linkage to politics that those part of Tibetan Buddhist practice was surpressed, whereas there are Tibetan teachers still teaching in China without been surpressed (too much). So as I reiterate, its not an issue of religious freedom, but religious mixed with politics that got Tibetan Buddhist into hot soup with Chinese authorities.

I agree with you on the misinformation on the Chinese side, esp. the PLA. I don’t know how many Chinese or PLA know the full story on both sides. However, this is a rather common tactics deploy by any warring nation as they need to portrait the enemy as inhuman as possible. This is what the US and its media did with the communists and Japanese and I am sure they did the same things with the terrorists too with their soldiers.

Lastly, I think that we will never know how Tibet will become as history is already written. I think whether it will reform or not, has become unimportant. True, no point looking at history for Tibetan’s violence and I guess it also stands for people trying to turn back the clock, crying for a Free Tibet.

It is more likely that a Tibet governed by a wise and good Dalai Lama would be more akin to a Bhutan or a pre-Maoist Nepal. Maybe even a Thailand, since these are examples of Buddhist monarchies. Don’t forget that there are real life la la lands right next door to Tibet which can show the whole world what life without the occupation would be like.

It is true that you shouldn’t hold against China the invasion of Tibet in 1959. But one of the favourite arguments that justify colonial oppression is that a lot of things have happened in the past. Therefore we say that the slaughter of the Red Indians was firmly in the past and should not be brought up, conveniently forgetting that today, right now, many of them are still eking out wretched existences in reservations.

The reason why Red Indians don’t secede is very simple - they have no means to run, for example, a Sioux nation within the present USA - on their own. If there were a war between them and the USA, expect it to be over in 5 minutes. The same is probably true for Tibet. One of the most important preconditions for a successful insurgency, as any Iraq expert will tell you, is porous borders. Tibet does not have porous borders. So no independent Tibet. Even the Dalai Lama recognises this.

As for religious repression, first you say that there is no reason why the Chinese government would repress Tibetian Buddhism, then you turn around and say that Tibetian Buddhism is associated with politics, so the Chinese government will have to take care of it. Which one is true? I would say the latter is true.

But it is clear that many Tibetians are really dissatisfied with the occupation. All the good jobs go to the Han settlers. There are police everywhere, as any tourist who went to Tibet can tell you. The issue is not about independence, but of the manner of the occupation.

What I find absolutely shameful about this whole affair, though, are the multitudes of Chinese nationals who unconditionally accept the Chinese government’s side of the story without using their capacity for independent thought.

In Quebec in Canada, many of them DO want to separate and form their own country. Rather than ban the protests, Canada had a vote and the
Quebecois voted, by majority, to remain a part of Canada. That was about 10 years ago. That is how civilized countries behave.

You are making it sound like the Tibetans are much better off under China than they were before the invasion. I think that question is better left to the Tibetans. It may be true, but why not let the people living there let us know what they want? If they actually want to split, do you support them? Would China ever allow them to vote on their own future like the Canadians do? Or will they continue to ban journalists who merely want to find out what the Tibetans want?

I think the reason they don’t want journalists in Tibet is because the Tibetans are likely to say that they prefer independence, and I think that is an opinion that we can’t ignore as civilized people. At the very least, they should be allowed to tell the world their opinion. It is a human right.

After the invasion, China gave Tibetans a Great Leap Forward and a Cultural Revolution. How nice of them. How nice of them to bring Tibet so much development, and protect them from their own dangerous opinions.