I am still unclear about the Tibetan contribution towards world civilisation. So: they pray, whinge about oppression by the Chinese (though previously they must have been complaining about their previous colonial masters - the British), make a tourist industry out of their religion and rituals and last but not least, take the toddler son off any Tibetan if they think he is Dalai Lama material.
Nice, that. The cleverer and more promising your son is, the more likely he is to be taken into "care" when the priests come round, disguised, for their, er, milk round. (The present Dalai Lama was "recruited" when he was two.) Bear in mind that if that were to happen, you won't be having any grandchildren if he is your only son. Dalai Lamas are like Catholic priests - condemned to a life of celibacy, and possibly paedophilia or at the very least homosexuality, when normal sexuality is forbidden expression .... Are the Tibetans now to be regarded as some sort of protected species, like Aborigines in Australia, the Red Indians, Eskimoes and the Pitcairn people?
Why don't we leave them alone and let them fade away, if their culture no longer equips them to deal with modern life? It might really be kindest thing to do.
http://www.chinese-embassy.org.uk/eng/sghd/t416831.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7279789.stm
http://www.freetibet.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_Lama
THE VOICE OF REASON Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Holy Land would be the status symbol of any global empire
6:00 Dirty tricks by internet vendors Bourne Supremacy 3:00 VPN for hotel bookings 12:00 Publisher or platform 13:00 Andy Nowicki 14:00 ...
-
Why do Christians not follow the morality of the Bible? Because the Church itself does not follow Biblical principles and is only interes...
-
Key: CK = Claire Khaw CD = Claudia Dalgleish EB = Eddy Butler MC = Mark Collet TC = Tess Culnane CD on Facebook This past month... -
Beta males will never get female attention if it is OK for women to have premarital sex. If you want beta males to have a reasonable ...
11 comments:
I'm amazed how you so consistently miss the point. These people live in an inhospitable (weather wise) country - and as such enjoyed far more peace than most. They are no threat to anybody. Nobody could accuse them of causing trouble for other countries or wanting to take over the world as one might Muslims, or Catholics or the Americans - you name them - depending on your personal prejudices.
As such Tibetans deserved at least to be left alone - no matter what you might personally think of their culture (and I think you do have a remarkably jaundiced view of Tibetans in any case). But did the Chinese leave them alone? No! Despite already having a quarter of the world's population - and Hong Kong - the Chinese hordes seem insatiable. I'll admit I know very little about the Chinese - but I have the uncomfortable feeling possibly I - and definitely my children - am going to find out a lot more about them in the not too distant future.
You are right that I do have a jaundiced view of life. My point is that EVERYONE would like to be left alone but, hey, real life intrudes. If you have something worth having, people will want a slice of it.
Anyone who thinks they can, will want to try to rule the world, be they Chinese, European, Nazis, Muslims, Romans, whatever. That is just a fact of life.
Anyone who wants to survive must adapt themselves to this fact and protect themselves against invasion. If they cannot, they must reach the best sort of accommodation with their conquerors that it is possible to have.
The Tibetans are being manipulated by the Americans into an uprising, which will be put down by the Chinese, one way or another. The Americans will shake their heads and click their tongues, and say look how horrid the Chinese are and prate on about human rights, with no loss of life and property nor injury to American persons.
What about those in Iraq now deprived of their lives and the "right" to go about their business without being blown up by a car bomb or a suicide bomber? Not a whisper, Chris.
It is nauseating, hypocritical and stinks to high heaven - just the sort of behaviour by a failing degenerate power looking around for scraps of moral superiority after theirs has been fatally forfeited it in an unnecessary war - for Iraq is the American equivalent of the Peloponnesian War. Iraq will be seen to be the catalyst that ended American predominance in the same way that the Peloponnesian War ended Athens' predominance.
The handover will take place in Beijing this summer.
Yet more unsubstatiated rubbish. So now it is all a great big American conspiracy.
Oh come on. That Bella Lugosi woman has said what she did:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/21/tibet.pelosi?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront.
Why must the poodle be so abject in its unquestioning loyalty to a declining and demented soon-to-be former world power? She said what she said with the intention of making the Tibetans think that the world is behind them. When they riot, they will find themselves ALONE being whacked by the Chinese army, with no other support than knowing that America "supports" the Tibetans with its useless huffery and puffery.
I suppose you approve of this sort of thing because it will give you an opportunity to wear your heart on your sleeve again.
Even if I do not care about the Tibetans, I think it is very unfortunate for them that America should use them as cannon fodder in its bid to discredit China doing what you would expect it to do in its own backyard.
China does not need the US to discredit them. They are more than capable of doing that ontheir own as they have proved time and time again.
I am talking about international prestige, which you seem to confuse with the exercise hand-wringing, head-shaking and the making of self-righteous speeches that people like you love so well.
Nobody else is interested apart from people like you, who are so stuffed with the sludge of hypocrisy that it you will have trouble keeping it in for much longer.
Again it is china all by herself who undermines her own international standing. It is only blind fools liek you who are unable to see the basic point that killing inocent people because they happen to disagree with you is not the way to progress in the international community.
But since your heroes seem to be the mass murderers of this world and you take your political philosophy from the dustbin of history I am not surprised you fail to grasp these points.
Er, a bit like imposing "regime change" on Iraq and calling torture "extraordinary rendition"?
The Americans are going to get their come-uppance for their blundering arrogance in countries they don't understand, eg Iraq, Vietnam.
Their naivete and fanaticism was portrayed rather effectively by Graham Greene in THE QUIET AMERICAN. Perhaps you have even read it?
China is just messing around in its own backyard, by the way. I would not dream of wagging my finger at my neighbours, in the hysterical way that you do.
Actually if you want to get your terms right then the Extraordinary rendition is the movement of epeople from one country to another, not the torture. I believe the phrase they use to describe that is 'Aggressive Interrogation'.
I have certainly read The Quiet Amercian along with many other Greene books. As an aside he is to my mind a very poor author with a particularly bleak outlook on humanity. It is telling that just about the only phrase anyone ever remembers from any of the films derived from his books was the Wells 'Cuckoo Clock' comment from The Third Man and it turns out Green didn't even write that.
The definition of a 'back yard' is interesting. Since we live in a globalised society today I suspect that any definition you might care to produce would be redundant. Since Tibet was a separate country invaded by China I fail to see how you can define it in those terms. Perhaps we should reinvade Normandy and Bordeuax since they were also historically under the English Crown and so by your definition would be in our 'back yard'.
It seems you support this mealy-mouthed approach to torture, by any other name, and then squeal self-righteously about Tibet.
I note that someone who does not have the nous to deny he supported the Iraq invasion now pronounces Graham Greene "a very poor author". Interestingly, he expects anyone reading this to listen to his opinions with increased respect.
Back yard is back yard. I am not talking about territories that were formerly Britain's or China's but currently occupied territory that is officially in the possession and occupation by the power concerned.
Northern Ireland I would include in this definition though, not, of course, Normandy. That would be like pretending that the land your formerly squatted on and are now dispossessed of remains in your ownership. I would advise you not to compound your stupidity with mendacity!
I think this is pretty assumptive and disingenuous.
Post a Comment