Popular Tibetan singer Tsewang Norbu dies of self-immolation protest
tchrd.org
tchrd.org
In random book stores, I met actual monks who had served time (in China) as political prisoners. One of which had also written a book about it. It was kind of funny to walk in into a book store, see these two guys drinking tea and then get pulled into a conversation out of curiosity. But, as for the stories themselves, probably not that funny. Some of the people (monks, mostly) had physical scars and their stories were anything but fun.
I also went to their offices (a modest distance away from the Dalai Lama temple, but very walkable) and got to speak to senior officials there. I asked them basics questions like, "What do you think is the future for Tibet?" and they were very accommodating.
We had tea, laughed and talked life. At first they thought I was a journalist, which was hilarious since my approach was very blunt but curious at the same time.
And this was also reflected in their answers.
They're mostly concerned with ensuring that people have a safe passage out of there (having the ability to go to India and lead a life without oppression), while trying to negotiate peace deals for sacred locations and the deep Tibet. But I do think that this has been consistently falling on deaf ears. And, of course, they are hoping that the Dalai Lama will choose to reincarnate again to keep the "fight" going.
Getting out of Tibet is not exactly a walk in the park. Though, it is a walk. A long and gloomy walk through treacherous mountains which in 70%+ cases leave people with frostbite and other injuries.
I befriended a yoga teacher who was teaching an authentic Tibetan practice, and he sometimes had people over at his studio who had the day prior arrived to Dharamshala, from Tibet, through the mountain passages. It's unreal.
It's not like they have the luxury of an empire conglomerate like other modern countries, but India has been good to them.
This is using the Chinese definition of Tibet, which is less than half of the historical Tibet. Han Chinese are encouraged to move into Tibet (and Xinjiang) to dilute the indigenous population.
EDIT : The current Uyghur camps are a tragedy in passing to which the world is turning a blind eye. Tibet should be continuously recognized as an independent country within the world community.
The scale of the work being done to dilute the population is astounding.
We were there at Christmas time, having driven from Kathmandu. That trip was telling in itself: there was only one way to get a visa to do that trip, and all of the trips were run by a single Chinese government run tour agency.
Even with terrible roads, your can do the trip in 3 days of about 4 hours driving each. Instead they try and force most people into a 7 day tour. Luckily we got a driver we managed to haggle with and cut it down to 3 days.
Those who did the 7 days ended up staying in weird empty towns that had large hundred room hotels that were _completely_ empty, but also fully staffed.
The closer we got to Lhasa the more of this we saw. Huge infrastructure that appeared to serve no purpose other than to get people into the region.
The real solution to settlement would have to be Han intermarrying with Tibetans and raising their children as Han.
That, or you were up in Dharamkat and hiked down into town/temple area where there are needless to say many Tibetan monks from the diaspora -- amazing part of India.
Free Tibet
Threaded forums are well able to accommodate these kinds of small side discussions, too.
You can't mention this and not tell a story or two
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Earth-Biography-Political-Prison...
I'm in no way suggesting they should or asserting China's great because they have standards when it comes to taking political prisoners... Nor am I stating that China is so barbarous that I would expect nothing less of them... I just don't know and wonder about the answers to these questions?
Sounds like the former prisoners you met still hold the beliefs that probably made them prisoners in the first place. They're still monks (practicing I assume). They're now back in their country of origin?
What was accomplished?
Time? The best I can come up with is that it bought China time to begin and continue ethnically cleanse (displacing, not killing) Tibet (as well as other regions), while not breaking any international laws or attracting enough negative attention to jeopardize any foreign trade or financial relationships?
Look at the news about what's supposedly going on in Xinjiang... China is getting nothing but bad publicity, but no international entity is pulling out of those areas or others in China because of what they're supposedly doing to the Uyghur population. If anyone is leaving China, it's been reported that it's for unrelated reasons.
If China just disappeared these people instead of putting them in camps, would the world react any differently? It doesn't seem like anyone has been able to substantiate these claims about the resorts (concentration camps), so how much harder would it be for China create the same level of control around a massive park or recreation area (polyandrion or burial site)?
You can only afford so many Tiananmens before you crush the national morale, and with it, your autocratic pyramid scheme. China doesn't want to become North Korea.
That letter started a correspondence between the two that led to MLK speaking out against the war in Vietnam.
> Quảng Đức was protesting the persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government led by Ngô Đình Diệm, a staunch Roman Catholic. Photographs of his self-immolation circulated around the world, drawing attention to the policies of the Diệm government.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%9...
> I believe with all my heart that the monks who burned themselves did not aim at the death of the oppressors but only at a change in their policy. Their enemies are not man. They are intolerance, fanaticism, dictatorship, cupidity, hatred and discrimination which lie within the heart of man.
It’s pretty sad that such an essentially peaceful and introspective group of people are abused thus, even if they believe in some pretty mad shit.
I’ve never worked out what china wants in Tibet tbh though, does anyone have a clue? Chan is bigger in .cn than Tibetan Buddhism (and chan (which became zen) also rejects any kind of eternal self / reincarnation / non-impermanence) and so thus there are no such thing as a lama.
So I guess the restrictions / bad business china got unto in tibet are related to some kind of territorial dispute? But what’s there? What do they gain?
I can’t see how it’s making them a profit..
In fact, the British tried to invade it at the very beginning of the 20th century but hard landscape and the Tibetan and Chinese armies repelled them. Following that the Western powers even signed a treaty recognizing Chinese sovereignty over Tibet...
Maybe it's those little blue flowers from Batman Begins they're after? >_<
It plans to use water supply as a weapon against India.
India, no.
Most of the water entrapment areas of India are within India's borders.
And, the rest come from the Himalayas, where it isn't easy to divert the flows, and most of those mountains are under Indian control. See: https://www.thetibetpost.com/en/features/44-environment-and-...
The real threat is China launching attacks from Tibet, against India.
Why? Because much of Chinese trade goes through the Indian Ocean, where India has negative control.
So, it is easy to see China getting wary of India and launching a territorial war from Tibet, in order to gain dominance over India. And, of course, Pakistan would join in.
See the sort of punishments that were common for people who tried to organize the serfs in any way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungshar
Agree that a regime being "better than" one that existed in the past doesn't justify repression, but also what is "foreign" and what is not is something that is socially constructed and shaped by the passage of time, not objective fact.
For instance, I would not have preferred for the South in the US to be able to secede because "repression by a local is better than foreign Northerners."
And about old Tibet, I recommend "Seven Years in Tibet", real story of a Nazi who fled a british war prisoner camp in india and then spend 7 years in Tibet, also as a teacher for the young Dalai Lama, until the chinese came. I read and recommend the book, but they also made a Hollywood movie with Brad Pitt out of it (which I have not watched yet, it is supposed to be good, but likely not as deep).
And I am not directly involved, so I do not propose any concrete solution, due to lack of detail knowledge.
But I do see some solutions. Local autonomy. Federalism. Different districts with different systems. End of absolute rule of the CCP - no more interfering in cultural and religious topics. Allow the exil Tibetans and the Dalai Lama to come back, give them back the monastaries. Let them work something out, with the Han chinese who live there today and in many cases, were born there.
The monasteries including their lands? That's absurd.
They owned over half of all of the arable land in Tibet and had legally bound serfs working that land for the benefit of the ecclesiastical class.
Your request is more akin to saying that Europe should return the land belonging to feudal lords (ie. most land).
People want to make some odd simile to the holocaust when obviously assimilation is not at all close in magnitude to that horror.
Even in "monolingual" countries this is true to some extent. Most of the people likely to be in here right now are are in countries clustered along one side of the spectrum, that we are a minority and an outlier.
Many other countries are multilingual and to some degree multicultural. Few are as homogenous as East Asian countries.
> Wouldn't it be hard to integrate into the business community if you didn't speak the official language of business in a given country?
Uh, so offer free Chinese language schools and economic opportunities. It doesn't require kidnapping them and putting them in concentration camps.
Also, you do realize the whole concentration camp thing is mostly propaganda to apply pressure to a geopolitical rival, right? The US has been doing it for the entirety of its existence.
The US has been doing what its entire existence? Propaganda, camps, both? And so what? Doesn't make it right for either country. The US and China are both evil in their own ways.
Lots of conflicting perspectives on this topic indeed.
The only source they have in that article that disagrees that amputation and gouging of the eyes was a routine punishment was a literal Nazi.
The overwhelming weight of evidence, even in that wiki article, is towards Tibet having a feudal society with routine amputation/gouging as punishment.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Lungshar - had their eyes gouged out by the state
China very rarely does anything in the name of short-term profit. Their government doesn't work on 4-year competitive cycles like ours does, they plan and orchestrate in decades, and to them it's safer to conquer and assimilate other territories while they are still underdeveloped than when they become too powerful, either economically (like Taiwan) or culturally (like Tibet) or both (like Hong Kong). Having a puppet religious master under their control, along with all of Tibet's future economic output, is reason enough to seize it, even the real gains won't be realized for another few decades. The artificial legitimacy of Chinese-controlled Buddhism would greatly expand their cultural sphere of influence both inside and outside their immediate borders.
Although, I admit that I do have a hard time knitting together Tibetan and Burmese etc forms of Buddhism with what my understanding is (zen). They seem to genuinely worship Gautama Buddha as if he was some kinda god or something.
That's not what we're into at all. He was just a normal dude, in zen... And I mean... Dogen too. Both kinda interesting and insightful ones, ones we probably can learn something from (also learn some negative things from, e.g, O.G buddha walked out on his family (what a cunt!)) but yeah, there's no space laser eyes or anything in my book.
Just some dudes that looked at a wall for some years, and realised they're essentially the same as the local lemon tree. Kinda makes sense to me.
Takes a while though.
Even though I'm a buddhist, I seem to really offend non-zen buddhists in this fashion, which I find kinda hilarious.
Speaking as an agnostic, outside observer looking in on the various forms of Buddhism:
Buddhism has mutated a lot in its history, and every country it touches has been changed by it and in turn changes it. I don't think any two countries practice the same form of Buddhism. Some sects of it are strongly mystical and others are more rational, and deification is an important part of some practices (and practitioners) and not others. In the US, I've been to supposedly Zen practices that had an emphasis on "acknowledging/honoring" the bodhisattvas prior to meditation; to me, as an agnostic, it felt very similar to worship.
"Buddhism with Chinese characteristics" (to steal a phrase) mixes their particular cultural norms with the Indian version, adds on Confucianism and Taoism to some degree, and then seeks to put it all under CCP control. Much like the Romans absorbed Christianity and added their own flavor, China does the same with its assimilees... again, for cultural and political hegemony. They are trying to weave the young puppet Dalai Lama into their own narrative, slowly and subtly.
You are a Buddhist in the same sense that Protestants and Catholics are both Christian, but that never stopped them from disagreeing :) Weird, the arbitrary lines in the sand we like to draw, no?
Oh yeah, this goes on. It's very common during zazenkai or sesshin to honour the ancestors and so some full on chants and even prostrations; I felt the same way as you did for at the beginning -- it really fucked with my atheist elitism, but really those problems were mine not theirs :}
Wear the silly hat, do a few bows, it helps more than it hurts.
And, sorry, there is no god outside of yourself :}
It boggles my mind that anyone would consider to be harmonious a society that kills, imprisons, tortures, censors, and brainwashes so many of its own people.
I'm not saying that cyberpunk is a Chinese propagandist - just that he/she has adopted their term (perhaps from hearing them use it so much).
How do you sell violence to the populace? For collectivist countries, it's "they are unlike us, we will show them our ways." For individualist countries, it's "we are unlike them, we will show them our ways." It doesn't really matter what noble buzzword you attach to your violent ideology, in the end you have a hierarchical society predicated upon the exploitation of the less powerful.
In describing what I perceive their objectives to be, it does not in any way mean I condone their actions. Only that I desire to understand a great power that is more than likely going to become a great enemy someday soon, unless we can somehow find common ground with their common people and rebel against the violent, coercive elitism in both cultures.
The average person anywhere isn't really all that different, in my personal experience. But their supposed values, most of which go unexamined their whole lives, are largely shaped by the cultural environment they grew up in. More often than not they just toe the line of whatever hero their parents or friends happened to worship, typically some asshole elite. That's as true in China as it is in the USA. That's not a defense of Chinese oppression, it's a recognition of human folly in the aggregate.
For what it's worth, we incarcerate more people than the Chinese, even though they have 4x the population. For every Xinjiang they have we have a Gitmo, for every Tibet we have Afghanistan and Iraq. There are no innocent superpowers; all are evil and got there by doing great evil in the not-so-distant past.
Most liberal democracies operate this way in fact. They offer their own citizens a modicrum of freedom - a mix of the substantive and performative - but bolster their own economic and political might through imperialism abroad. The only difference between the Europeans and Americans in this regard is the former rely mostly on "soft" power and economic represssion while the USA have a more overtly militant approach.
This does not mean that liberal democracies are not an improvement over the monarchies and fuedal states that preceeded them but lets not pretend that they are not still pretty terrible to anybody that's not either wealthy themselves or the most profitable group for the representatives currently in power to appeal to.
I agree that China is more oppressive towards its own citizenry. America's evil is often directed externally; there is a reason much of the Muslim world calls us the Great Satan.
In attempting to describe China, I am not defending it, but pointing out their different goals. They don't strive for personal freedom, but harmony and societal stability -- at an extreme cost to those who do not fit in. Individual liberty is not a strong concern in their culture, and from birth children are often taught to not stick out from the crowd too much. The raised nail gets the hammer.
Is that a bad thing? Yes, I think so, to the extent that they do it. But freedom isn't an absolute good either. Too little, and you get a coercive autocracy where citizens have no autonomy. Too much, and you get balkanization that turns into its own kind of social discord, whether it's an extreme political divide in a democracy, great wealth and power divides, ethnic conflicts, a civil war, or warlordism like Somalia/Iraq/etc. At a societal scale, too little freedom almost always means extreme suffering, but the inverse isn't always true: maximum freedom does not mean maximum happiness.
On a political compass, freedom and authoritarianism may be two sides of an axis, but they are not the only matters of concern. The level of personal freedom in a society directly influences any other axis you may choose to plot: happiness, wealth, equality, sustainability, stability, etc.
In any given society there are always people who seek power over others. The rule of law, be it the Magna Carta or a Constitution, is intended to temper the power of traditional royalty or modern autocracies, to varying degrees of success. I'd argue the most essential function of a democracy is to ensure no one person/group gets too powerful, that checks and balances aren't a side effect of a good democracy but a defining characteristic. That requires a check upon the freedoms of the powerful in order to protect those with less power from exploitation... that's been a truism carried from antiquity through the industrial era and onto the present day. Otherwise you get Hitler, Putin, Trump... all monsters created by democracies in decline, all strong-men who rose to power selling the idea of power for an in-group by exploiting some out-group.
In the modern West, I think the idea of "freedom" is often discussed as both "freedom to" (own guns, have an abortion, start a business, vote, marry who you choose, worship as you please, pay the wages you want, choose the suppliers you want) and "freedom from" (extreme poverty, labor exploitation, slavery, monopolies, a military draft, religious control, vote suppression, WASP male dominance, autocracy). With our freedoms, we've developed a roughly 50/50 split on any major political topic, and as a result our government has been quagmired for decades, our citizens hate each other, and the only things most Americans can agree on is that the government is broken and the country is going to shit. Our enemies savvily exploit these divisions to further divide and conquer us.
China after Mao simply tackled those kinds of controversies by decree, shut everyone up, and focused on transforming their infrastructure and economy with an emphasis on harmony over liberty. In the process they rose from a impoverished, war-torn peasant economy to the world's next superpower. Some of their citizens find this an acceptable tradeoff, especially considering they never really had a history of democracy. Going from divine emperors to nationalist-capitalist autocracy (under the guise of agrarian communism, but who are we kidding) drastically improved the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people, more than the entire population of the USA. There are more middle-class Chinese than there are Americans (of any class). That is no small undertaking, even if outsiders like us don't agree with their methods.
Would we choose to give up the freedoms we have now to become more like China? No. You wouldn't, and I wouldn't. But would our answers be different if we were a peasant in 1980s China, who didn't have much freedom to begin with, and were looking at imminent starvation and death? I don't know. Mao's revolution failed and destroyed the country, yet in its wake somehow their people picked up the pieces and clawed their way back to relevance, and now, strength. It wasn't pretty, and the loss of personal liberty was part of the price they paid. It's easy to judge that value system out of its historical context, from a comfortable seat in the West, but I imagine for their people on the ground back then, it was a very different situation.
Anyhow... back to the topic at large. Freedom is often a loaded word, carrying so much cultural baggage and weaponized politicism that it's difficult to use in everyday discussion anymore. I usually find it less emotionally charged to discuss freedom in adjacent terms: individualism and collectivism.
The USA is strongly individualistic, China strongly collectivist. In between, some of Europe is more individualistic (the UK), while others are more collectivist (Finland). In aggregate the wealthiest, happiest, most developed countries tend to be those that are highly free, but also rather homogenous and collectivist. The United States may be more free than others, but its freedoms typically favor the elites (white gun owners, WASP business owners, people arising from the European tradition of individualism, etc.), and as a result it suffers in other measures of human development (healthcare, education, equality, etc.).
Arguably there is a wrong place to be on the individualist vs collectivist spectrum: on either extreme. But there is not necessarily a "right" place. Much of the West leans individualist, much of the East leans the other way. We see both strong and weak countries in both, and happy and miserable citizens in both. Different societies have different ideals, and different power structures, and from their values arise different laws and propaganda. It's not as simple as saying freer countries are better. There is both a value and a cost to our freedoms.
Only by NOT equating us to China can we tease out potential changes for the future. I'd argue that America would see better societal outcomes by pivoting more towards collectivism, and China would see better societal outcomes by pivoting more towards individualism. In the middle both would have to tease out what sorts of freedoms to protect and which to sacrifice. Personally I'd hope both would ultimately land somewhere near the Scandinavians, but with the way things are going, probably both are headed towards ultra-authoritarianism instead.
Back home, in the US, I don't think our fractured democracy will survive the challenges of the next few decades... we are a country now without vision, unity, or purpose. Once the advertising bubble collapses and China and Russia catch up to our tech and services sectors, then soon after overtake our military, there won't be much left for us. Because we were so blindly chasing personal freedoms we forget anymore what it means to be a country.
Not that I don't agree with your idea that the CCP work on a longer time horizon than the US govt, but China does run on short-term cycles, namely its 5-year plans:
https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/t0284_14th_Fi...
Edit: basically what michaelscott said already
Taoism inside China doesn't appear to be involved in worldly matters such as politics. Then again, I don't really know what Tibet has concretely done to upset China. Is it just the desire for independence?
>making them a profit
It's mostly not, spending billions on high speed rail and other infra linkage to control restive region and the entire western theater command security network is expensive. But wealth + new military capabilities makes taming this frontier feasible. Military forces in Tibet can reach huge strategic areas of South Asia while Tibet itself is buffer from core PRC territories. The richer PRC is is, the easier exploiting Tibet becomes, and the more there is to be gained. Serious mining started just 10 years ago.
I don't mean to diminish the crimes the Chinese continue to commit against the Tibetans, nor the benefits of Buddhist practice, but seeing Buddhism with rose tinted glasses is just not reflecting reality.
The Buddha taught reincarnation and all major schools essentially follow his example. This includes Chan Buddhism. It may not be emphasized or really suggested as a topic for reflection - but if you are asking point blank "Do Chan Buddhists accept the idea of reincarnation after death, as the Buddha taught - or do they teach reincarnation as wrong view", the answer is "they accept reincarnation."
Source: look up Chan Buddhism on Wikipedia, or just Google search it. Not a single result affirming that Chan Buddhists teach the falsity of reincarnation.
Yes, there are some Koans and such which use stories involving reincarnation, however these are not literal teachings, they are just stories used to make a different point (usually, something about non duality).
Do some buddhists believe in reincarnation? yep. Some are also christians, or Scientologists, or atheists too. We don't know what comes after we die so it's really up to whomever to think whatever they wish.
We do not teach it, however. And the Buddha did not either. Zen teachers would all agree that reincarnation is a wrong view. Back to Dogen, even. It's literally the opposite of what we think about the nature of self.
Lastly, there was this prophecy among the Tibetans about the diaspora.
China has historically considered themselves as the axis mundi of the world. The name “中國” when translated to “Middle Kingdom” loses a lot of the flavor. Better translated as “Central Kingdom”, an insular society in which the far-flung frontiers pivot around the Chinese culture.
Both the Opium Wars and the Boxer Rebellion were rude awakenings and humiliating. But I think a lot of people in the West underestimate how much China could have been the superpower at the time, and instead chose not to.
I think China’s political goals in the modern time make more sense when viewed this way. Consolidate the historical territories it once held. Make its influence known so other polities can’t humiliate and rob China again.
Goodbye to the Indus, the Ganga, the Brahmaputra. China needs its own Cadillac Desert.
Chan and zen are the same thing, literally the same word.
> I’ve never worked out what china wants in Tibet tbh though, does anyone have a clue?
I think the failure of China to divest its non-Chinese territories after the downfall of the Qing Empire mostly occurred because no one wanted to take responsibility for losing territory.
For Tibet in particular, though, it seems worth noting that Tibet is the source of both of China's major rivers. The Yellow and Yangtze rivers are not less significant to China than the Nile is to Egypt. Look what's happening between Egypt and Ethiopia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%9...
This young man chose to die for his beliefs.
“The self-immolation of young Tibetans like Tsewang Norbu, who seems to have it all, lays bare China’s claim that the spate of self-immolations that have engulfed the Tibetan plateau since 2009 is triggered by psychological and livelihood issues.
China continues to hatch strategies to win the hearts and minds of the new generation of Tibetans in its Sinicization project, but the self-immolation protests by young Tibetans like Yonten and Tsewang Norbu expose how China’s ill-intent strategies in Tibet is deeply hurting young Tibetans.
To prevent self-immolations and save lives, TCHRD calls on China to halt its Sinicization programs and uphold the human rights of Tibetans to protect and promote their culture and language, and freely exercise basic freedoms including freedom of expression and freedom to practice one’s religion or belief.”
Free Tibet
The ethnic cleansing they pioneered there was perfected in East Turkistan.
By most standards the only person that would set themselves on fire is a religious fanatic or someone suffering from mental illness.
To everyone I've ever know it's always been a powerful demonstration of desperation. Every such incident I've seen has been taken abroad that way. Except by CCP shills who prefer to call it... 'extremism'... mmm.
There's also the concept of Arkhand Bharat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhand_Bharat) which is the notion of a unified Indian subcontinent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India
https://qz.com/india/1585631/the-ancient-connections-between...
In practice, a lot of Buddhists are very theistic. Many of them worship various gods and Buddhas.
In the West, Buddhism has been desacrilized to make it more palatable for Westerners, but in the East it's often way more religious and theistic, especially as the Buddhism that actually exists in those countries has often been blended with other indigenous religions which themselves are very theistic.
A map of the Ganges watershed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ganges-Brahmaputra-M...
Looks unlikely that Tibet could exert too much control over it.
Apart from the Brahmaputra, which flows through the part of India east of Bangladesh, I have a hard time finding a major India river that originates in Tibet. Certainly, the Ganges flows west to east.
What river(s) do I overlook?
Mighty fine hiking locations too!
https://www.wondersoftibet.com/mount-kailash-four-river-sour...
(I have kayaked the Karnarli, well worth a rafting trip if you are in Nepal).
I think the Yarlung Tsangpo as well comes from one of them.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/80558/yarlung-tsang...
Ahhh, wait, in see you said India. That would be the Indus and Karnarli - which goes to the Ganges. Sorry rushed post not got time to remind myself.
Though I read that in the news, so take it with a grain of salt
You might be confused because the Mekong (along with numerous other rivers) originates on the Tibetan Plateau, but that's a geographical feature which is vastly larger than Tibet itself.
Given that the intention of arming the Taliban was to bring down a government similar to the one currently invading Ukraine, maybe the overall effect of arming the Taliban was good, however tragic for Afghanistan.
Ultimately, I do not presume to be smart enough to know what is right in international relations.
Is this just some knee-jerk suddenly enlightened mass market fortune cookie drivel that one spouts after seeing some movie about Tibet and finding yourself in tune with the mysticism of the Himalayas?
I will remember him.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Self-immolations_in...
Or you are drugged with something strong enough. A much simpler explanation that doesn't require to believe in guys developing supernatural superpowers.
One can build up a lot of tolerance.
Some vascular problems can be fixed with surgery and some nerve damages can repair itself, even if is a frustrating slow process. Hope you the best in your recovery. Stay connected here if you need to talk.
And even if there was a drug that would let you tolerate this level of pain, you would expect that it would make you super drowsy or at least not be able to stand still like they do. I don’t know, maybe you’re right though
https://plumvillage.org/about/thich-nhat-hanh/letters/in-sea...
A desperate last stand to try and make a statement about censorship and repression, which ironically seems to have had all evidence censored and repressed. Truly awful.
Also, I hope you're not saying that the way of the China/CCP is better than how Tibetans were before Chinese invasion. I don't think they were ever ravaged, unless you're referring to the Chinese propaganda to show them as the savior. And, if they were such a savior why are people killing themselves?
Moreover, I'm assuming you're on a similar crusade against the Pope and other theocratic governments, of other religions, in the world.
To be clear I'm not for CCP or any autocracy. I'm against theocracy.
Any form of government once formed is hard to change. How many governments do you see regularly changing from democracy to communism to theocracy to etc... Theocracy is a perfect valid form of governance.
Religion's just like governments have multiple sides to them. Which side the rulers decided to focus on changes which actions are performed.
Imagine if instead of religion it was skin color, or gender, or hell even height - only people over 2 meters could be in government. Can we whitewash those too? Are they as legitimate as Theocracy? Why not?
How about that you can't change it very easily once you have it? Or that it's based on authority, mostly of a small set of people? Or that religious issues have caused the slaughter of millions of people?
Are you really abandoning liberal democracy because you happen to have found a religion you like?
I've not found a religion I like :)
I'd said what's wrong with theocracy if that is what the people want, for example vote for. So, in effect it's a democratically chosen theocracy. Is that not democracy after all?
In other words, if Tibet were to become independent and the people chose Dalai Lama to be the head of the state, would it be a theocracy or a democracy or a theocratic democracy?
But, I get your point.
Still, I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves debating future Tibetan government while it is being butchered under the CCP. We safely can punt this debate for later.
Is there some sort of founding document that enshrines the right to vote and replace leaders with a regular cadence, regardless of the desires of that leader? If so, then regardless of who they vote for, it's a democracy.
If instead a person is appointed to lead, who will use their religion to decide state matters, and there is no way to remove them except for them to choose to replace themselves, then it's a theocracy.
"Theocratic democracies" are unstable and don't last. There is no way for them to last. Either it allows those who are not of the same faith as the leaders to influence policy and have their voices heard and becomes a democracy, or it doesn't, in which case it is a theocracy, and a form of autocracy or oligarchy (just, one that claims divine authority instead of purely material authority).
Russia is another one of those countries that had some kind of election in the past but going forward you can't really see them being fair elections.
Of course people are free to elect eg the Christian democrats as often as they like, so long as they can choose otherwise. Japan and Mexico IIRC had people electing the same party for decades.
The excuses people make for colonialism remain the same as centuries pass by.
Also, looks like the Tibetan's are suffering exactly the kind of treatment as you wrote under the CCP.
Tibet was much more closer to SA (rigidly authoritarian, brutal punishments) than Pakistan (democratic election of leaders, less chopping off of people's limbs)
Ancient people were horrible everywhere. It's not really an argument for anything.
These aren't "ancient Tibetans"... this is quite literally the Tibetian government directly prior to the Chinese takeover, ie. within current people's lifetime. There are direct, credible witnesses to what Tibet under the current Dalai Lama's government was like. The current Dalai Lama was picked by people who tortured their citizens and gouged out their eyes for trying to organize away from serfdom. The current Dalai Lama oversaw a feudal system where these sorts of punishments continued to be carried out.
Tashi Tsering's autobiography details the extensive whippings and sexual assault he experienced working in the current Dalai Lama's dance troupe, prior to the Chinese takeover.
This is not "ancient" history.
Saudi Arabia funds conservative schools of Islam all over the world , however they have yet to involve themselves in the kind of state sponsored terrorism Pakistan does.
For people outside these countries i would say Saudi is definitely better
So, they are asking for the next best option as a compromise - even the proposal is called middle-way for it is a compromise.
There are some Tibetans that don't think true autonomy is possible with the CCP and thus still want independence though.
Using force to ensure conformity can work for the short-term, but history shows even the strongest dictators will fall eventually, if they lose the support of the people.
We're constantly being bombarded by war footage, dead kids from school shootings, suicide bombings, and collapsing skyscrapers.
This may have been significant back in the day but now it's hardly a blip on the radar of tragedies of people trying to send a message through violence.
I personally find it to be a sad senseless outdated cultural practice , no matter what the message is.
I find absolutely nothing powerful about killing oneself without taking a whole bunch of your enemies out at the same time.
Self-sacrifice as an act of martyrdom lets you maintain the moral high ground, continue your role as the victim, and still speak your truth -- however quietly, in the modern attention-deficit, compassion-fatigued era.
Also, keep in mind the power differential between China and Tibet. There is no feasible way for Tibet to even put up a fight, much less win an actual armed conflict. Suicide bombing would just bring even more terrible oppressions upon their people.
The self-immolation isn't an act of grand military strategy. It's a desperate cry for justice in this world or their next, whispered into the wind and carried to an uncaring world. It's the sort of thing that requires a deep commitment to one's values, knowing its ultimate effect and still choosing to go through with it, not because it's strategically useful but only because you are exercising what little agency you have left with the ideals you've carried your whole life.