MormonHolocaust, just a small question. Are you actually located in China (and on the same note, are you Chinese) ?

I don't personally think I can add much to the topic itself but I am interested if your perspective is also a personal one.

Your misrepresentation of the Dalai Lama and your lack of balance most certainly do indicate a sympathy for the regime.
I can only hope that people here on this thread can see through your selective analysis.

This junk is so easy to rebut, but I'll only bother if anyone else is interested.

No, I am not located in China nor am I Chinese. Just a person whose spent most of their life in towns so small they don't warrant a charter, a population sign (if a town sign), or a spot on the map.

Of course people are interested. There is a reason this thread was made to begin with, to facilitate this sort of discussion and presentation of differing views. If you have a legitimate one, present it please.

Kultur, I'd like to see your rebuttal just so I can refute your claims and further educate the people viewing this thread. So, please, do bring forth a critique of my statement.

To begin with, I myself am actually located in China; no fooling. I have lived here for 2 years and have been heavily involved in most aspects of Chinese life.
I read widely and deeply and am constantly having conversations with Chinese of all ages and gender and class.
I write this not to brag, but merely to place my comments in the right context.

Most of what Mormon Holocaust has written is indeed true. It was true, that's the point here; in that it is historically accurate, but thankfully is no longer relevant.

A continuing relevant point, but one that is understandable and not in need of condemnation is that the lama took funds from the C.I.A. Now, as much as I find that institution reprehensible for the most part, not everything they have done was immoral.
The C.I.A. knew, when few of the Western intelligentsia did, that Mao's regime was one of the worst the planet had ever seen. Logically, they sought to enable wedge politics and keep an eye on the CCP.
The Lama would have seen the C.I.A. as a friend in gaining autonomy, if not independence.

To Mormon's other points: Tibet was despotic. The Dalai Lama has said time and time again on any number of media that he condemns 'old' Tibet, and that if was re-instated, he would immediately bring Tibet into line with other democracies. His vision is a very tolerant, classless approach.
Notice the sly way Mormon loads the debate with a clear falsehood? The Lama was not at all responsible for old Tibet, he was a child when he left, and has since, as I have said, repeated his call to change his homeland.
To put the Lama in bed with Mussolini...I mean this Mormon fellow must be a troll, or blindly full of rage...I don't know, but it's lies, lies and statistics.

Finally, Mormon's posts are not only about stating what is no longer relevant and distorting the Lama's actual views, but it is free of criticism of the real bastards in this Great Game; namely the CCP.

To attack Tibet and the Dalai Lama without spending equal or more time reporting on the atrocities conducted by the Party is the worst kind of dishonesty in writing.

P.S. I am an atheist, not a Buddhist. I am of the Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett school, and wish frankly that all religions would quietly dissappear. However, I will call defend even my worst enemy if lies are being written about him.

What do you mean “most”? Please point out the error(s?) that I made t hat require that prevent my statements from being “entirely” true in my prior two posts.



Don’t use the past tense; they are facts, and are just as true today as they were in the past. Furthermore, to say it is no longer relevant is disturbing in the least; there are still people in Tibet to this day who were mutilated, enslaved, and raped (amongst other things) by the Dalai Lama’s state apparatus.



I’m sorry, but for someone who claims to ‘read widely and deeply’ it is amazing you missed my point; the money the Lama was receiving wasn’t for the CIA’s funding of violent secessionists in Tibet. It was a paycheck. The Lama got a personal salary of $186,000. That figure is _not_ , in any way, the funds the CIA gave to the violent Tibetan secessionists.

Furthermore, regarding your statement that “ The C.I.A. knew, when few of the Western intelligentsia did, that Mao's regime was one of the worst the planet had ever seen. ” - without even getting into an argument on Mao’s actions, your statement that Mao’s actions were not known is a flat out lie. Mao was very unpopular in the west; as is obvious, the popular media despised Mao (until the rapprochement, but even then the view wasn’t favorable) and held the Fascist Kuomintang regime in Taiwan as the “true China”.

Furthermore, the _vast_ majority of people on the far left despised Mao as well; hence why once the Sino-Soviet split worked itself out in all countries internal Communist parties the Soviet side was the majority; the only major exceptions being Brazil and New Zealand. Hell, the only nation to side with China during the Sino-Soviet split was Albania (of all places). Add to this your critique from Trotskyites, Luxembourgists, DeLeonists, Anarchists, Cultural Marxists, etc… and you have a pretty fucking unpopular figure. For someone who is both “heavily involved in most aspects of Chinese life” and “read(s) widely and deeply” I would have thought you would know the basics of the Sino-Soviet split.



He was fifteen when he left; also, speaking of children in Tibet, did you know that under the Lama’s rule they actually manufactured shackles specifically designed to fit children? Also, the Monasteries had the right to take children from their parents and force the children to become dancers, soldiers, etc.

Furthermore, it’s important to note under what conditions the Dalai Lama decided to condemn the atrocious crimes were being carried out under his rule; the conditions of exile. If one had to decide whether the Lama changed his mind out of sincerity or out material necessity, I would think the later is the obvious choice. Granted, I guess there is a possibility that his view on who it’s ok to bomb may just, magically, correspond with whom NATO is bombing at the moment (or whom they are gearing up to bomb), but it certainly is convenient that he supported the interventions in Yugoslavia and Iraq (even when the Pope was against the war in Iraq!)…..

Not to mention the incredible convenience that he never had to deal with actually trying to change Tibet while he was in power; which gives him the ability to critique China and the past of Tibet without actually having to deal with changing the past. Talk about having your cake and eating it to.

Now, yes, he was 15 when he went into exile, but what fifteen year old fails to see the cruelty in gouging a persons eyes out for theft? What 15 year old fails to see a problem with monastery’s “right” to take the children of serfs who worked their land? This isn’t a complex problem (and the issue of real and formal rights is hardly relevant); these are basic issues. These are issues a student in elementary school can understand.

Regarding his supposed repentance, here’s an excellent example of the Lama’s contradictory statements – In 1996, the Dalai Lama issued a statement that must have had an unsettling effect on the exile community. It read in part: “Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability.” Marxism fosters “the equitable utilization of the means of production” and cares about “the fate of the working classes” and “the victims of . . . exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and . . . I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist and to “those who live in abundance”: “It is a good thing to be rich... Those are the fruits for deserving actions, the proof that they have been generous in the past.” And to the poor he offers this admonition: “There is no good reason to become bitter and rebel against those who have property and fortune... It is better to develop a positive attitude.” This isn’t “flip flopping” – these statements are so contradictory I can not fathom how he could not be knowingly lying in one of them. My point being, the Dalai Lama will say just about anything to please a crowd and to get donations.



Right, because there isn’t a plethora of books and websites dealing with the problems in China. People are completely ignorant of Tiananmen Square. Films like “The Red Violin” are pure pro-Chinese propaganda and delude millions into thinking the Cultural Revolution “rawked”. Oh, and don’t forget – the CPC never once admitted any errors, and they never ever stated Mao was wrong on some very serious issues. (Naturally, this entire paragraph is sarcasm…)

….also, may I ask why you consistently use the acronym “CCP” when referring to the Communist Party of China (CPC)?

Just an addition that I can make to answer your last question, it is also known as the Chinese Communist Party.

I have a life and a job, so I'll keep this short.

The point is; if Tibet was to be given autonomy today, it would resemble Sweden more than anywhere, and would in no way repeat previous mistakes.
The damaged people you mention, some of whom I have met on my visit to Tibet were not harmed by the Lama. Stop this foolish revisionism.

Your cheap sarcasm doesn't help your cause. As regards the CIA funding issue, I was attempting to place his payments within a wider context. I didn't miss your point, and I am well aware of the Sino-Soviet split, but that is only part of the picture. Mao had a very healthy support amongst the intelligentsia for many years, and the critiques coming from the other Communist parties were rarely about Mao's human rights policies.

More logical fallacy. How the hell do you know what the Lama was thinking as he was forced out of his own nation? You have personal insight into his mind that at this given moment, not that given moment, he may or may not have been sincere.?...you're getting into pure personal spite here.

You may take your spite and hatred elsewhere I think. The quotations you give are not at all contradictory. The Lama believes in freedom to strive and succeed materially, but he doesn't believe in the capitalist system that would seek to force power upon others. To return to Sweden; that nation has poor and rich without exploitation and blind chasing of profit; therefore mixing both capitalism and socialism. That's where the Lama is coming from.

Your sarcasm in the last paragraph is misplaced also. The role of the CCP (your cheap shot backfired there) should be mentioned in such a debate regardless of how well known or not it may be.

I respect your interest in this topic, but please don't resort to sarcasm and personal attacks. Let's keep this chat about the subject, ok?

I think this is a natural stage in China's development. They are going through a lot of economic chances and they will become a decent country that produces good products like anywhere else... It is just that the system they have in place has recently come about.

The transition from Communist repression to a free market is painful (and politically they haven't gotten to where they need to be yet).

They're having their growing pains.

May I ask why you think Tibet would resemble Sweden? Why not postulate that’d it be Sikkimized or Bhutanized? Why not postulate that it would have been a repressive, caste society like the one recently overthrown in Nepal? Why wouldn’t it’s ruler simply become a satrap of a larger power? All these possibilities seem much more likely, especially since the rioting secessionist Tibetan’s displayed a profound xenophobia when they vandalized property, committed arson, assaulted in some cases even killed people solely because they (or the owners of the property) were the wrong ethnicity.



By that logic Mussolini didn’t use chemical weapons on entire villages in Ethiopia. His soldiers did. Does this mean he should be exonerated just like the Dalai Lama?



…and what context would that be? What need does he have for a personally salary of nearly $200,000 during the 1960s in India? The CIA was already paying for unnecessary violence in Tibet.



Could you please provide some proof or something for this “very healthy support amongst the intelligentsia for many years”?

Regarding the idea that critiques on Mao were rarely about the issue of human rights, that is most certainly not the case; hence why the Kruschevites flipped their shit when Zhou Enlai laid a wreath of flowers on Stalin’s grave. Needless to say, the Trotskyites had derided Mao from the start due to his agreement with Stalin on many key issues, and this rejection was only amplified after the Great Leap Forward. Naturally, all groups which opposed the Soviet Union and Bolshevism from the start also derided Mao from the get-go…. which includes your Luxembourgists, DeLeonists, Anarchists, etc.



If you could quote the particular portion of my post that you’re referring to here it’d make me job a lot easier.



They aren’t contradictory? So you’re saying Marx, the man who coined the phrase “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, the man who advocated expropriating the means of production from the rich and giving them to the proletariat, and the man who developed the wage theory of labour – a theory which states people are paid the bare amount necessary for the laborer’s to reproduce themselves – would have no problem with the statement:

“ “those who live in abundance”: “It is a good thing to be rich... Those are the fruits for deserving actions, the proof that they have been generous in the past.” And to the poor he offers this admonition: “There is no good reason to become bitter and rebel against those who have property and fortune... It is better to develop a positive attitude.” ”

Maybe I am crazy, but it would seem to me that Marx would have a _big_ problem with anybody who claimed the life of luxury enjoyed by the ultra rich was due not to their exploitation of the working class, but due to their being more holy than the poor in a prior life.



As you stated, “How the hell do you know what the Lama was thinking...”; we have to go off what the Lama said. Again, Marx advocated a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Marx advocated Communal ownership of the means of production. If the Lama was referring to Sweden (for some reason), then why would he call himself a Marxist? Marx, remember, has that famous quote (and this isn’t verbatim, mind you) – “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”



To what cheap shot are you referring?

Anyways, this entire thread was more or less a bash China thread, and you added your two cents without mentioning anything positive about China (until I arrived); I view my self as having imparted new information to the thread and helping creating a more balanced view of China, a view of a China which has drastically improved the situation in Tibet by eliminating a Feudal Theocracy of outstanding brutality and avarice and by continuing to invest in massive infrastructure development projects in the impoverished region. The PRC gave Tibet public schools and healthcare for the poor; the Lama’s regime viewed them as property, and developed an entire religion that legitimized their exploitation of the poor.



“I have a life and a job, so I'll keep this short.”, “this Mormon fellow must be a troll”, “Chinese apologists find their way on to the most obscure threads. Hello to all the goose-steppers out there!”



Personally, I don’t think China is going to cease being a Communist ruled nation anytime soon,



source

There is little in your post worth responding to without going around in circles, but this:
Anyways, this entire thread was more or less a bash China thread, and you added your two cents without mentioning anything positive about China (until I arrived); I view my self as having imparted new information to the thread and helping creating a more balanced view of China, a view of a China which has drastically improved the situation in Tibet by eliminating a Feudal Theocracy of outstanding brutality and avarice and by continuing to invest in massive infrastructure development projects in the impoverished region. The PRC gave Tibet public schools and healthcare for the poor; the Lama’s regime viewed them as property, and developed an entire religion that legitimized their exploitation of the poor.

You clearly have no idea what is going on here, everyday, in the streets and houses of citizens in China and in the Tibetan provinces to make this comment.

As for your accusations toward me being sarcastic and aggressive, I do apologise for the goose-stepper comment. That was a bit cheeky, but the rest of it was free of sarcasm and written as honest observation, not attack.

And finally, read your own posts again. You assume knowledge of the Lama's mind and speculate upon his process of ethical development or not.
Go meet the guy. Stop bashing him based on second hand reports. He's quite accessible.