> DL was a monster, killer, some demonic being aiming at the destruction of China
Or he is a democratically elected peaceful spiritual leader (like a reincarnated pope) from an independent theocratic serfdom kingdom?
Or he is a democratically elected peaceful spiritual leader (like a reincarnated pope) from an independent theocratic serfdom kingdom?
There had been many bad things going on in Tibet, but it does not mean you can just invade the country, destroy all forms of religion, put people in prisons, starve and kill your victims, grab the resources, make the life of Tibetans miserable, and pretend you are the great liberator - only because of superior military power.
Many witnesses of what happened in the 50s are till alive, some managed to escape to India. When you read their testimony[0] all arguments of China become bleak.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Tibetan-Monk-Palden-Gya...
In fact as of today the 14th DL actively suppress native Tibetan religions like Dorje Shugden.
If you think Lamas were peaceful monks, check out how many "independent states" they have invaded in the 20th century
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48wkBskmYnE
> some managed to escape to India
More like India invaded those independent "princely states"
But all this is not the point - it's obvious that there were many bad things going on before the Chinese invasion. The Chinese never address things like "you invaded a country, you were killing people, putting them in prison, starving to death". Instead, they turn to arguments like: "But lamas were very bad, they were abusing ordinary people".
Of course the past system was bad and abusive. The problem is, the current system is so much worse that ordinary people prefer to self-immolate than to live in it.
Why? I thought you were arguing with your colleague whether DL is good or bad?
> it's obvious that there were many bad things going on before the Chinese invasion
So yeah, Tibet was in bad shape when DL reigned. That's the whole point.
> so much worse that ordinary people prefer to self-immolate than to live in it
If you look up news closely, you'd see that only privileged Lamas self-immolate.
Tibetan/Mongoila monks were a grand scheme invented by the Chinese to sterialize tribes with their no-marriable policy, for a local family only 1 or 2 boys are allowed to breed and labor, rest of siblings were all destined to be Lamas in remote places. Tibetan and Mongolia's working & total population dropped dramatically after the school of Gelug took power and no longer pose a threat to east & central asia.
The title of Dalai & Panchen were invented and installed directly by the Qing rulers (Jampalyang) to manipulate the Gelug hierarchy. 14th DL is a guy gone rogue and sold Tibet to East India Company.
That's also not just the CCP's argument, it's the same argument for most modern day states that's desposed of monarch.
Self-immolate is an act of religious fervert, it would be out of the ordinary to reason with. Generally, I think most people simply don't kill themselves like that, unless they believe there is something to be gained after death. The same reason for suicidal bombing. For people who are generally not happy or find live unbearable, they wouldn't kill themselves using those kinds of excruciating and painful methods, unless of course, they were trying to achieve something, which are most likely religious or it just doesn't make sense.
Is it just me or the sentence also makes perfect sense if Tibet is replaced by Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya?
Iraq seems even worse. They admitted they invaded it on false grounds and the supposed WMDs haven't been found to this day. And it was just the beginning, because the invasion created an even greater evil, ISIS.
As for Libya, it's true that many people hated Kadafi and he was a cruel man (just like Hussein, Bin Laden and the rest of the crew), but the final result for ordinary people was a disaster. So whenever someone proposes "let's kill a dictator and al problems will disappear" for me such a person is a lunatic.
the dictators when you try to reasonate anything they're doing, you can see clearly they're working for someone, and you guess who might this one be.
because of course, destroying a whole country, violating human rights etc, isn't going to guarantee you a good long life for you and your family unless you have someone stronge enough to make you trust him tell you otherwise.
most dictators are against what the population believe and are enslaving people more or less. it's just the modern unseen slavery of the west.
By the way, USA made Al Qaueda and they were called the freedom fighters or something like that inb4.
What changed? the USSR ended and now they found another use for them, to stereotype the muslims and cause distress and push them off their religion to the new world-wide religion, humanity, ps. sugar-coated atheism.
So what the American president is doing? Instead of finally starting to work hard on American-ME relations, he decided to invade another country. A country that had been unsuccessfully invaded in the past and has the worst natural conditions for invasion, with Taliban with bazookas hiding in caves and ordinary people living in villages, and the two freely mixing. What could possibly go wrong?
I'm not saying that peace in the ME is easy, it even became a kind of meme that it's impossible, but there is no hope if Israel doesn't consider some concessions. And year after year, decade after decade it becomes worse. Any American interventions, any casualty makes it much worse. But it seems we're to stupid to work on the causes and can only deal with the results. It just makes me sad as ordinary people can't do anything about it.
Note that if you read the testimonies of those who escaped to India, it's hardly surprising that they are uniformly critical of the occupation. A more balanced history shows that prior to the occupation, peasants were generally the property of the landowner; a peasant needed the permission of his "owner" to get married, and that would not be granted if the intended was from another estate; and that many lives were objectively improved by the occupation.
I'm by no means a supporter of the occupation/invasion; it's been racist and kleptocratic since the beginning. But let's be clear: pre-occupation Tibet was no Shangri-La.
On the other hand, I know several people whose lives are made worse by the occupation. There was a period of some limited freedom a few decades ago, now it seems worse. As a Westerner you can't just visit Tibet and go where you want. And when you go there, you can notice that apart from official and public situations, Tibetans will avoid any contact with you. Many of them are simply afraid of accusations of spying or collaborating with the enemy etc. They try to keep a low profile and be obedient to stay away from prison. They cannot possess objects like a picture of the DL and so on. So even though from a material point of view their lives might look better, when you talk to them, there is no happiness inside.
This Chinese tone that "justifies" the invasion creates these kinds of side discussions, which serves the same purpose as Whataboutism, even if that isn't the intent of the speaker/writer.
A thought experiment: Assume that Tibet was actually some kind of horrific feudal empire that did whatever horrible things to its people you can imagine.
Even if that is some kind of justification for an invasion, e.g., the people had pleaded with the CCP to get freed - which they did not, it is CCP's actions ever since the invasion that betray's their intent.
If the goal had been to free the Tibetean people, they would have removed the leadership, which was done in days, and then freed the people. But CCP has done the opposite, consistently holding more tightly to the land, eliminating the Tibetian's culture and freedom, and claiming ownership.
It is as if the US had not only invaded Iraq to remove the dictator who annexed adjacent countries, but then claimed the land and oil as it's own, and also started systematically removing all mosques, moving US families into each town, and imposing American culture on Iraq.
China are illegitimate occupiers, and wrongfully claim stolen Tibetan territory as their own. Full Stop.
The fact that there was some prior recognition is quite irrelevant. Should the EU nations claim their pre 1911 boundaries against the will of the people living there, by force?
Should the Lenape Native Americans whose predecessors sold Manhattan to the Dutch be able to reclaim it by force? How about the Dutch?
Your argument is sophistry, and nothing but inane justification for an authoritarian and expansionist regime.
Moreover while that regime repeatedly proclaims that no one should interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, it feels completely free to interfere and claim other nations, including, Tibet, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (yes it was leased and returned, but they are already violating the terms of the return).
This is not a regime to defend.