straight outta lhasa

[rone]

Apparently, the Golden Gate Bridge has been silently supporting the Chinese invasion of Tibet.  Or something.

For some reason, it's trendy to support Tibet against China (frankly, i blame the Beastie Boys).  I would direct the curious with some time on their hands to read motis's lengthy treatise against irrational activism, which includes a discussion about depleted uranium, as well as the current state of affairs in Tibet.

Comments

[vampyrecat.livejournal.com]

I skimmed the treatise and paid particular attention to his Tibet sections. I call it a load of crap. His argument, basically, is: "I met a few Tibetans in China and based on a few anecdotes I say everyone else in the world is wrong about the current and historical relationship between Tibet and China."

Meh. While Brian was researching Tibet: the RPG I was exposed to a lot of his research. The part about serfdom prior to the Chinese invasion in the 1950s is well taken, but the assertion that they're better off now is crap.

I guess I'm commenting here because his arguments are so full of fallacies that it would take me weeks to critique his treatise in a considered, thoughtful way. I don't have time.

[haineux.livejournal.com]

THIS. His argument boils down to, "I was in China right near Tibet (but not actually IN Tibet), and I talked with lots of chinese people, and therefore I know more than you, you damn dirty hippy. Also, the Dalai Lama is a bastard. And Penn and Teller agree with me."

He ignores all of the verifiable news reports of the various bad things China did to Tibet over the years. China destroyed 90% of Tibet's religious artifacts, killed/locked up non-violent monks, etc.

Also, in case you haven't been paying attention, there's legitimate pictures, videos, and respectable eyewitness accounts of China doing Bad Things in Tibet RIGHT NOW.

Killing people. Imprisoning people by the truckload. Faking news reports.

If I was on the fence about supporting Tibet over China, that kinda makes it clear.

Then again, I'm a damn dirty hippy. That means all of the news reports and photos and movies are full of crap.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

One of the points he's making, if you read more closely, isn't that the atrocities that China has inflicted upon Tibet don't exist (and, seriously, after Tiananmen Square, it's pretty obvious that the authoritarianism displayed there wasn't an isolated incident), but that the current image of Tibet being run by happy shiny Buddhist monks is more of a Western invention than a reality.

[haineux.livejournal.com]

(I guess I missed that subtle point in the midst of the loud calls of how, since I want China to stop killing people and culture, I am a dirty hippy who drives a punch buggy and I suck. Fancy that.)

Is he suggesting that we shouldn't sweat China stomping the snot out of Tibet because the Dalai Lama's government, which was in power before China started stomping, might be worse?

Pardon me while I pause to consider that.

What do we "do" with Tibet? I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps the people of Tibet should be involved in this decision.

I just want to stop China from killing people and destroying culture.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

While we're wishing China did things that it clearly doesn't care to stop, i want them to stop poisoning the environment, because i think that actually has a much larger chance of affecting us than a bunch of plebes living somewhere without enough oxygen.

It's the curse of popular causes: they get an inordinate and even excessive amount of attention over other similarly or perhaps even worthier causes. Somehow, the plight of the Burmese and Zimbabwean people doesn't seem nearly as cool as Tibet, much like the way AIDS and breast cancer get all the glitz over other diseases.

[vampyrecat.livejournal.com]

I want all that and a bag of chips. False dilemma: you can care about environmental pollution or human rights abuses but not both.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean to phrase it as a false dilemma; however, i do only have so much energy to spend on lost causes, and in my priority scale, Tibet does not rank highly.

[vampyrecat.livejournal.com]

Oh. Me too. I do a cost/benefit analysis before I devote significant resources to any cause, and I don't think there is much I can do to help the Tibetans.

[erikred.livejournal.com]

I guess I'm commenting here because his arguments are so full of fallacies that it would take me weeks to critique his treatise in a considered, thoughtful way. I don't have time.

I wish I had had your foresight when I decided to reply to him. It might have saved me the rest of the conversation.

[paracelsvs.livejournal.com]

No, his argument is "the actual situation is much more complex than it is portrayed in western popular culture" with a side order of "the Dalai Lama runs very effective propaganda".

The point is that we're getting propaganda from two opposing sides, neither of which is morally in the clear in any way. Yet we hold one side up as right and just while denouncing the other.

This is wrong.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Well, it is difficult not to side with the people who are getting violently repressed. But it is certainly a more complex issue than many think.

[arian1.livejournal.com]

FREE RON!

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

"If any man is not free, then I, too, am a small pie made of chicken."
        — Bouffant, Thoughts

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

This theory that Buddhist monks are former/wannabe feudal oppressors is interesting.

Suppose they are a bunch of unreformed local-equivalent-of-Klansmen, and they're out on the equivalent of the National Mall stomping around bitching about their lost glory and demanding their slaves back. If China's response is to shoot them... yeah, Free Tibet. If the monks start doing the same, well, free the fucker again. Stick it onto India or something.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Stick it onto India or something.

More like something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict), i'm sure.

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

Last I heard, Kashmir was "dudes with guns vs. dudes with guns": perfectly healthy bloodshed between nation-states; the very foundation of civilization. Very different from offing civilians for whining too much.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

The only difference is a majority of nations recognizing the superior validity of a particular figmentary line around the pertinent whining civilians. In fact, the fighting in Kashmir is between three countries squabbling over the particular validity of their own figmentary line.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Indian Kashmir certainly had a lot of violence against civilians at least as recently as the 1990s; I'm afraid I don't know what the current state of affairs is, though.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

I was amused that the map of Qin dynasty China in the First Emperor exhibition, which I was visiting at approximately the time the pro- and anti-free-Tibet demos were having a shouting match outside the museum, didn't include Tibet.

(I know that Qin ≠ Qing, before anyone thinks I'm confused.)

[kodi]

I can't comment on Tibet, because I haven't done the research. But I definitely agree that irrational activism is a problem, because it can make it extremely difficult to have rational discussions about topics that are consistently polluted by it. I really experience that as a vegetarian; I believe that there is a good ethical foundation for a move toward a more vegetarian diet, but I'm so averse to being mistaken for a PETA member that I make a conscious effort to avoid talking about it. But the worst part is that when PETA actually does have a valid point, the very fact that the point is being raised by PETA makes the point less credible.

Uh... </soapbox>

[kawgirl.livejournal.com]

I'm surprised the protesters weren't shot as terrorists.

Still, I think that there are good and solid reasons why one should be alarmed by what the Chinese are doing and have been doing in Tibet (recent footage of Chinese authorities quashing monks talking with the press is an example). The problem I have is protesting something that has to do with the Olympics. The Olympic Games should be about the athletes and their efforts should be honored and not denigrated by shrill protesters who don't know what they are talking about at least 1/2 the time.

I wonder if the ropes the protesters used to climb up on the bridge were made in China...

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Yes, absolutely about the athletes. In fact, that was more snark i was going to add to this post, but forgot, about Pelosi and Clinton talking about boycotting the opening ceremonies. Hooray for empty gestures. Bread and circuses make the world go round.

[kawgirl.livejournal.com]

I knew some athletes who did not get to compete in 1980 when Carter pulled our athletes out of the Moscow games and did not have an opportunity to compete again. Let's just say that was "not ok" in my opinion. Those athletes had worked hard most of their lives for that culminating event which was taken away by one of those empty political gestures. Since then, I'm pro athlete when it comes to the Olympic Games.

[vampyrecat.livejournal.com]

I think there is a defensible difference between protesting the torch relay and the opening ceremonies and boycotting the actual sporting events and award ceremonies.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

A difference, sure, but it's still an empty gesture that involves people that politicians should absolutely not be involving. If Clinton and Pelosi want to make a statement, they can stay at home instead of attending the opening ceremonies (because i'm so sure they were going to be there in the first place).

[tau-iota-mu-c.livejournal.com]

Olympics schmolimpics. Personally, I don't know why a bunch of sportstars need worshipping anyway.

I'd rather worship a cow.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

It's also worth mentioning that some of the crusaders against irrational activism themselves end up falling into irrational anti-activism. This is a constant problem in the organized skeptic movement, which can be as prone to reflexive tribalism as the activist groups. Some of the same people who do yeoman service going after nonsense like the vaccine/autism link and the baleful effects of powerline electromagnetic fields then become antagonistic to environmentalist claims to the point that they're reflexively rejecting even solid, peer-reviewed science about things like ozone and global warming. There are even shilling corporate front organizations with websites posing as skeptical resources, like junkscience.com.

[xlerb.livejournal.com]

For some reason, it's trendy to support Tibet against China

I have two words for you: “butter tea”.

Free Tibet, and then?

[jnievele.myopenid.com (from livejournal.com)]

Don't get me wrong - if the Tibetans don't want to be part of China they shouldn't be forced to. The same goes for the Kosovars. And the Basques. And the Bavarians (hey, a man can dream, can't he?).

But the one thing those protesters are missing is: If China gives independence to Tibet, then what? The Dalai Lama takes over? And when he dies, a baby gets snatched from a family nearby and becomes the new Lama?

Sorry, the Dalai Lama may be a wise and noble man, but that doesn't mean giving control over the country to him and his merry band of monks would be in any way a sensible idea. Monks run monasteries, governments (preferably democratically elected) run countries.

Giving control over Tibet from China to the Lama would mean giving it from one dictator to the other...

Re: Free Tibet, and then?

[vampyrecat.livejournal.com]

The current Dalai Lama said he isn't going to reincarnate again. He recognizes that Tibet can't and probably shouldn't go back to the way it was. He just wants China to stop torturing his people. The Panchen Lama is/was the political leader; the Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists.