Re: (Free Tibet) Why Tibet??

In soc.culture.hongkong Sigmund I. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

: I beg to differ. Tibet is the site of an ancient culture with no 
: militaristic allure and based on theological values that stress 
: spiritual self-improvement. It is easy to feel simpathy for this type of 
: culture, and is equally easy to feel the sadness of seeing modern 
: society, be it communism or social capitalism :-), steamrolling it all. 

As much as I would like to agree with you, this is a very inaccurate 
picture of Tibet's history. The theocracy has a history of violence 
against its population and foreign invasion. Tibet is no different in that 
regard from any other part of Asia. Its isolation didn't allow for great 
expansion, nor did its population swell to require conquest. 

: This simpathy is immaterial to the inevitability of the development, and 
: there is no doubt in my mind that chinese will "win" and propel Tibet in 
: the developed world all the same.

You act as if that's bad. What's bad is that it's being done at the cost 
of the culture, and under oppressive conditions. A modern Tibet is not 
inadvisable, in fact, it could prove an excellent social experiment. 
Perhaps I am influenced -- I've heard the Dalai Lama speak at MIT about 
the connections between faith and neurology recently. He's a highly 
"modern" guy, and whatever you think of his politics, he's a marvelous 
blend of the old and the new. 

: It remembers me the native american cultures being steamrolled by the 
: american expansion: you cannot help feeling simpathy for the native 
: american way of life, even though it is clear that there is no room for 
: that in the new world.

*eyeroll* The Plains Indians in particular were some of the most
conflict-driven, violent groups in the world. Whites conquered them in
part because they were fighting amongst themselves. Let's not sugarcoat
and baby-ize these cultures, or put them on some sort of pedestal. Their
oppression is sufficient to feel sorry -- they don't need to be
represented as naive on top of that. That's just as racist as calling them 
backward -- it's an imbalanced view. 

--
Pilar