Comments on: The Dalai Lama’s Tibet: now that was hell on earth

By: MarkP

MarkP — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Unbelievable, it’s alright for you Greg to sit and pontificate, but it’s not for us to decide. What do the Tibetans want? I’m sure that the chinese have been model invaders. It doesn’t seem that the people of tibet are all that happy with the current system either. It’s not like the chinese have used any instruments of torture over the past 50 years have they?

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Mark Freyne, good link although the author does little to give an account of what he understands life in pre-1950 Tibet to have been like. Some quick googling lead me to http://tajemnice.org/content/view/121/42/ which gives an interesting description.

By: Damien Anderson

Damien Anderson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

While he seems like a very nice fellow, I’m unclear about what the Dalai Lama actually stands for. He wants “autonomy” but many of his supporters campaign for independence. He’s no democrat given he was selected for his role via some apparently absurd religious ceremony as a child. Maybe we shouldn’t count this because he’s a Buddhist and they’re nice. The notion that replacement of the current oppressive Chinese rule - with all the excesses that entails - with an equally anachronistic feudal theocracy will improve the lot of Tibetans is as absurd as the process by which the DL was annointed. If the proposed form of Government is to be something else - what?

Thanks Greg, for putting your head into the lion’s mouth to say it.

By: Lucy

Lucy — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Nice work, Greg, and a useful corrective to the usual feting of the Dalai Lama that you find among us bien-pensants. I find it beyond peculiar that people who are normally liberal to the core experience no apparent cognitive dissonance when lionising the cause of a would-be theocrat. But you get accused of being a CCP plant, or an apologist for Tiananmen, the latter of which is more than a little obscene.

By: Mark Frayne

Mark Frayne — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Damien Anderson, I anticipated such a response. You fall into the trap of judging others by your your own jaded and cynical values. You wish to now expand the discussion. I never sought to put “a gimlet gaze on western religious leaders”. And I smile at your reference to “more fashionable faiths”… I am not going to lower myself to take your bait, Damien, nor to attempt to educate you. Suffice it to say that you do yourself no credit denigrating the Dalai lama. I support the Tibetan people’s right to choose.

By: John James # 4

John James # 4 — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The Dalai Lama ” harassing” someone. As that old AFL add used to go, ” I’d like to see that!!!” But this article and some of the postings with it, are classic Left wing theatre.
There’s Dave ” without knowing what I’m really talking about” Liberts ( never a truer word spoken, Dave) trying to draw some obscure parallel with Israel and China, then Lucy “bien-pensants” who is telling alll those Tibetans that the bien-pensants, sipping their lattes, know whats best for them and finally anonymous Kate, who clearly endorses that other great Chinese social policy initiative of ONE CHILD, resulting in the literal slaughter of millions of unborn and newborn baby girls. But then Kate what’s-her- name is really fighting for womens rights. How I love the Left! Living testimony to that other great adage, that while God may have placed obvious limits on our intelligence, He has placed absolutely none on our stupidity.

By: Michael Feller

Michael Feller — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Warning to Crikey subs: This reads like this was lifted from China's People's Daily, which not only explains the slant, but the shrill tone and the poor expression.

Life was pretty bad for Serfs under the Tsars, but that doesn't excuse atrocities committed by the Soviets.

I hope you never get into politics Greg Barns.

By: Mark Frayne

Mark Frayne — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Damien Anderson again seeks to change the subject. The issue was not about how the Dalai lama is identified. Damien, what business is that of yours (or mine)? Whatever my opinion may be, I do not seek to commentate on such matters. Again, back to my point - I respect the Tibetan people’s right to choose (or not choose) independence. And, in response to your last criticism of Tibetan culture, I respect the right of the Gelugpa Tibetan Buddhist monks to select whoever they want as the head of their school of Tibetan Buddhism, by whatever means they wish! And you have not offended me, much as I find your digressions and your judgements tiresome. I would be surprised if you have offended the Dalai lama, but I would wager that your views are offensive to many other Tibetans.

By: John James

John James — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

This is the typical Left trash that Crikey loves to peddle and I love taking apart, hence my subscription. Ask survivors of Tiannamen who is repressing who. What was their crime? Well, they were ‘capitalist, revisionists”, probably religious, enemies of the state, intellectuals, yada, yada, yada…
Just read to-days editorial, unsigned, as well it might be, lauding a measure that will see overseas aid foisting the killing of their unborn children onto poor mothers. A healthy mother and child has always been a bridge too far for the apologists for the abortion industry. Multinationals like International Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes rubbing their hands at the ‘Aus Aid’ that will flow into their coffers.

By: Craig

Craig — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Are you saying that the appalling situation for the majority of the Tibetan people pre-1959 somehow justifies the appalling situation for the majority of the Tibetan people after 1959? I’ll have to disagree with you there.

Yeah, Tibet before the Chinese was not a particularly nice place to be, but the Chinese “liberation” hasn’t exactly ushered in a new golden age for the people of Tibet, has it now?

By: RJG

RJG — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

What we need is a parallel universe where we can see what would have happened to Tibet if the Chinese hadn’t invaded it. It is interesting to contemplate Greg’s benevolent Chinese dictatorship ruling Tibet from Beijing. A dictatorship that killed its own children with tanks not so many years ago and one that has dispossed thousands of people of their land as a consequence of it’s dam building. Many people in rural China itself, live a life that as TH puts it is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

The DL is unfortunately irrelevant in the face of the Chinese occupation, but it is a poor student of history that assumes, in a time where change is the norm rather than the exception, that the DL could have perpetuated the barbarity of his predecessors. Or that he would have wanted to.

By: Barx

Barx — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

@john James #4 — — > “that while God may have placed obvious limits on our intelligence, He has placed absolutely none on our stupidity. “

High-larious. You clearly have no idea how ironic that is.

By: kate

kate — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Surprised to see you haven’t commented on this one yet either, JJ: http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090311-Australia-gets-an-F-for-sexual-and-reproductive-health.html#comments. Seems right up your alley. Would you like me to go back & cut-&-paste a couple of your old all-purpose “contraception-and-abortion-are-evil-you’re-all-going-to-hell” comments to save you the bother?

By: Damien Anderson

Damien Anderson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Holy man? Give it a rest! The DL is as holy as the Pope and as prone to represent traditional and regressive social and political values. Imagine a similar argument used in relation to some Christian leader - you’d be laughed of this forum. Why are we so intent on putting the gimlet gaze on western religious leaders yet are prepared to view those from more fashionable faiths only with a very soft focus?

By: Grant

Grant — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

John James, what makes you think you are less anonymous than Kate? What’s your address and phone number? Pompous git.

btw, Greg, I saw something the DL said once to the effect that Tibet could not return to its previous isolation - I don’t think that they want to return to the 13th century - they just want their country back. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.

By: Greg Barns

Greg Barns — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

As to what attitudes the Dalai Lama holds today, well tolerance ain’t one of them. His harassment of followers of Buddhists who worship the ‘wisdom deity’ Dorje Shugden is a case in point. Chronicled superbly by Brendan O’Neill in Spiked on May 20 last year - http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5170/.

The Dalai Lama is no fan of democracy and the liberal values that underpin it, despite what his supporters would have you believe.

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Just to open another can of worms without really knowing what I’m talking about, the parallel which occurs to me is the Palestinians, who (like the Tibetans) are denied fundamental freedoms they never had prior to their current occupation. A Palestinian state makes sense to many, but there was no chance of this during either the Egyptian or Syrian occupations of their territory.

Ultimately, the Chinese deserve criticism for their occupation of Tibet and the Tibetans deserve basic rights. I don’t know what the Dalai Lama has said about pre-1959 Tibet, but he would do well to criticise it in no uncertain terms as part of his campaign for freedoms for Tibetans today. Any less would be hypocrisy.

By: gAry joHsoN

gAry joHsoN — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

da dalai lama ciA trained??/?…in da words of dat other famous historian,homer simpson…”it’s funny coz it’s true”

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

People talk about monolithic corporations that should be broken up to encourage healthy competition. China fits this category easily. It’s way too big. And so is India for that matter. How any country so huge can claim cultural unity and cohesion while respecting the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is never explained.

By: Michael Angel

Michael Angel — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

“The history books record this.”
Do they indeed — which books would they be? Please enlighten this history buff so he can see for myself.

It sounds to me ,more like Chinese government propaganda A China(&Tibet) where life is nasty, brutish and short unless you are a member of a particular clique &/or race.

By: Greg Barns

Greg Barns — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

My critics misunderstand the point of this piece. It is not to justify China’s conduct in Tibet, but it is to observe that the Dalai Lama is the representative of a system in Tibet that brought misery to many. Or is the Dalai Lama beyond reproach?

By: Mark Frayne

Mark Frayne — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I was saddened and disappointed to read Greg Barns’ poorly researched and ill-informed article. He is, wittingly or unwittingly, spreading Chinese government propaganda. It is filth. I point Barns and Crikey readers to the following article: http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=425. Here is a challenge to Barns, Grunfeld, Parenti and the Chinese government: allow the Tibetan people the free choice of independence. They have never been offered that choice. Does anyone seriously believe that the Tibetans would choose to be part of China, if offered the choice? Oh, and let’s not forget, the Dalai lama is a holy man.

By: Roger Kirby

Roger Kirby — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

At least the Chinese in Tibet have one supporter.

By: Lana

Lana — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Hello Lana

one of the many similar Warning to Crikey subs: This reads like this was lifted from China's People's Daily, which not only explains the slant, but the shrill tone and the poor expression.

Life was pretty bad for Serfs under the Tsars, but that doesn't excuse atrocities committed by the Soviets.

I hope you never get into politics Greg Barns.

By: Mark P

Mark P — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Greg, The Dalai Lama is certainly not beyond reproach. Just because he was representative of the system in tibet in 1959 does not mean that he fully endorsed that system then or now. It is very hard to change a system that has been entrenched for centuries. I don’t believe that we can judge his intentions now by that 1959 standard. At the end of the day we must ask ourselves, what do the tibetan people want? I believe that it is the Dalai Lama, not China.