Chinese occupation of Tibet

From Committee of 100 for Tibet:

Quote:

For over 1300 years the Tibetan people have maintained a unified and distinct cultural realm that has persisted into modern times. In 1950 the People's Republic of China invaded Tibet and embarked on a policy of occupation and oppression that seriously threatens the continued survival of the unique Tibetan culture. Tragically, a world which condemns colonialism has ignored China's occupation of Tibet.

Since 1951, hundreds of thousands of Tibetans have been killed outright or died as the result of aggression, torture or starvation. Over 6,000 monasteries and temples have been destroyed in an attempt to eradicate the Tibetan religion and culture. The continued population transfer of Chinese to Tibet threatens the existence of the unique national, cultural and religious identity of the Tibetan people. China's exploitation of Tibet's environmental resources seriously threatens the ecology of the fragile Tibetan plateau.

You'd think with China being such a big country and full of natural resources, they wouldn't have to steal a small country.

It is a disgrace that the people of the world have decided to accept the reality of China destroying Tibet, for that is surely what they have tried to do... killing some Tibetans outright, jailing others, plundering the ancient monasteries, making the Tibetan religion illegal. Tibet's only actions have been to protest peacefully and lobby the "civilized nations" (with little success) hoping for allies to stop their cultural genocide.

China's action seem based on two unreasonable points: Tibet, despite being independent for over a thousand years, was theirs for the taking and Tibetan Buddhism is bad and should be repressed.

It does seem to be a totally helpless cause -- Tibet was a recognized free and independent country prior to the Chinese invasion in 1951 which resulted finally in their occupation in 1959. Certainly the status quo has gone on for so long now that China can, with the tacit approval and complicity from the United States, Europe, and other countries, keep Tibet from participating in UN-related affairs.

Humanitarian Interventionists and Benevolent Global Hegemonists, most of whom lack even a rudimentary understanding of China's long and complex history, share a particularly nasty trait. Many of these Globocops imagine because they have downloaded a few pages of separatist propaganda from tibet.org, and shed a tear or two while watching "Seven Years in Tibet," that qualifies them as China experts. They believe this qualifies them to pass judgment about whether China "deserves" to remain intact or be forcibly Balkanized by the World's Only Remaining Superpower. Their attitude rivals that of the most contemptible 19th century imperialists.

I have seen Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" once in the theater and several times on cable, and I never cease to be deeply moved by what screenwriting teachers term "a good story, well told." The same holds true of Neil Jordan's political biography "Michael Collins," about the famous, or infamous Irish revolutionary of the same name.

I do not however assume merely because I have enjoyed a well scripted and well produced two hours of entertainment that I have necessarily learned anything substantive about English, Scottish or Irish history. I retain enough presence of mind to recall Hollywood's record of playing fast and loose with historical facts, motivated by either commercial considerations or the filmmakers' political biases.

I certainly do not leave the theater convinced of either the rightness or wrongness of Scottish secession. Instead I remain scrupulously neutral. The issue of Scottish secession is one for the English and the Scots to settle between themselves. Why should I, who am neither an Englishman nor a Scots, behave like a damned busybody and stick my nose into something which is none of my business?

Now if only the Globocops would have the decency to do likewise after watching "Kundun" or "The Wind Horse."