China: Keeping the word safe from Buddhist Monks

Seems those wild and crazy Buddhists are at it again. Just because China has one of the worst records of human rights violations, invaded and took over the country in 1951, and sent their spiritual and political leader (along with his government), the Dali Lama into exile in India, they just had to stage a protest.

China, with its usual dignified restraint and calm diplomacy reacted by sending in troops that have killed at least 10 people.

Why the protests? The Olympics. You've heard of them, I'm sure. Every 4 years, the nations of the world get together for the chance to sweat in unity and fellowship. I guess the Tibetan Buddhists don't really think the Beijing government is quite up to the standards of human decency required to host an event based on the ideas of equality, humanity, and cheating.

Seems to be a fair fight, doesn't it? On the one hand we have the country with the largest standing army in the world, and possibly in history. On the other hand we have the citizens of Lhasa, the holiest place on earth in Tibetan Buddhism, a religion that is based in non-violence to the point that it is wrong to harm animals for meat (although it is alright to milk your yak).

The Chinese government is making sure to blame the Dali Lama for the outbreak.

Oh, yes, that evil Dali Lama. You just know under that smooth salespitch he's got going on, lurks the mind of an evil genius.

China seems nervous these protests might tarnish their reputation as a shining star of goodwill.

Oh good, the guy in charge has had dealings with the Tibetans before, he'll know how to end this all peacefully. We can all go back to wondering if the Russian Women's Weightlifting team has learned to tuck their testes inside or not.

Coyotemike was never that much of a Beastie Boys fan.

Newest death toll figures are now between 30 and 100 Tibetans killed by Chinese troops.

Source

Dalai Lama. Dalai Lama.

Apart from that, good article, coyotemike.

My bad, sorry.

I've never understood why the Chinese government wanted Tibet in the first place, nor why they don't just quietly depart and make themselves look good in the process.

Because a large number of Chinese people are Buddhists, and if they control that center of religion, they have more control over the huge numbers of people who could, if united by someone else, overthrow even their huge army. It has gotten so bad that there is a dispute over who some of the next Lamas will be. The Chinese gov't has chosen some children who were not found by traditional methods.

I'm aware of the attempts at Lama-choosing; it's been going on for a while. Maybe I have the wrong view of Buddhists; I'm surprised the Beijing government feels it needs to suppress an allegedly pacifist religion.

What word are they keeping safe?
mmmmmm .... safe word ....

Why didn't you submit this to the Newswire?

DAMN TYPOS!!! *slaps self in head*

And I don't know any of the Newswire stuff. I just post every once in awhile.

The Qing (a Chinese dynasty) conquered Tibet and incorporated it into China. At first, Tibet was partially autonomous (18th century, IIRC), but by the early 20th century, substantial portions were officially part of China and the rest was under Chinese rule. They remained in control over the region until warlords forced Sun Yat-sen to step down and China effectively lost its central government to warlord rule. Throughout the Chinese civil war, both the CCP and the Guomindang (later Taiwan/Nationalist China) claimed it as a province of China. The victor, the CCP, was able to invade and "reclaim" Tibet after 1949.

I guess the best explanation is that nationalist parties (the CCP and GMD) don't often stop at a partial conquest of lands that they feel are part of their nation, even when the local population has a different identity. Nationalism in China, economic integration of Tibet into China, Chinese development in Tibet (railroads, etc.), demographic changes, and Tibet's natural resources all explain why China hasn't given up Tibet. Plus, I suspect that giving up Tibet would encourage separatist movements in the Sinkiang province, which has been a problem for China since the independence of the former Soviet Union's Central Asian republics.

Note: I'm not justifying China's conquest of Tibet or their continued presence there. I'm just answering the question of why they want Tibet to be part of China.

Guess I could have been wrong on the reasons. Oh well, with the mess of typos I put in here, I'm not surprised.

Eh, no biggy. Excellent article by the way. This was the first I had heard of the protests or the government massacre.

I constantly have to shake my head at the actions of the Chinese government. I just can't see how anyone can be that willing to use violence (especially as a first resort). It's just mind-boggling sometimes.

They also want it for its huge natural resources and the fact that it is the perfect buffer state against India should these two huge populations wish to spill over some time in the 21st centuary; with Tibet in the middle, China is right on their doorstep.

But since today China have been doing even more than usual to block YouTube, I suppose they're hoping people with video cameras in Tibet won't be able to get anything out.

This is the main reason and not because the Chinese government wants to pick the next Lama. That is just bonus!

China's only goal in appointing Lamas is to undermine and deny the authority of the legitimate Lamas and their government-in-exile.

Agreed.

There is a long history of temporal authorities undermining religious authority. It was popular in Europe throughout the middle ages for a snarky king to demand his favorites be appointed bishop, archbishop and occasionally pope (there were three popes for a while). It's not really a new game.

I don't want to get too off-topic here because the focus of this discussion should probably be on China's refusal to address grievances brought up by its Tibetan population and China's willingness to use force in response to any challenges to its authority.

Still, I don't think that demographic concerns are a major factor. I spoilered my response as to why I believe this so that it would be potentially less distracting to what I think should be the real focus of the topic.

Somebody's got to stop the monks.

Thank you, China.

Everyone with the least bit of interest in this subject should read this, it was quite enlightening.

I know this has been answered in some detail, but a larger philosophical reason is that for the Chinese, if it's been part of China, it IS China. That's why Hong Kong was an issue, Taiwan is an issue and Tibet is an issue.

So I learned in a Chinese Lit course. Could be wrong, could be interpreted differently. But that's the succinct reason.

I'm not getting this. Which huge natural resources? And what makes it a bood buffer state? It's not looking like a buffer state to me; the Chinese military are there in force, after all; and from what I hear, Chinese settlement in Tibet is close to putting the Tibetans in a minority.

Now that makes sense to me. Thanks

In fairness to China, Hong Kong was still part of China but on lease to the UK for 99 years. It wasn't actually an independent or autonomous foreign nation that China sought to reintegrate on the basis of questionable historical claims (as Tibet is).

Still, I think your point stands.

Mostly mineral, but a respectable amount of others.
From China.org.