• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Who should Atheists support in Tibet?

RandFan said:
Wow! :)

Perception is a very funny thing. I've never found Dunning to lecture. I've never found him dogmatic or unreasonable. I didn't find this podcast as simply one sided. He simply makes observations.

Most importantly, until this podcast I was a Dalai Lama fan simply because all I had heard was from folks like Gere and movies like Seven Years in Tibet which was very one sided.

So I'm at a loss to understand your complaint. Is Dunning wrong about the facts? In what way? Is it not true that the idea of freeing Tibet isn't even part of the Dalai Lama's goal?
Click to expand...
Okay, I really don't mean this as an insult, but I guess I hadn't thought that people were taking Gere seriously as a source of information. It's sort of like, I dunno, I'm reaching for an analogy, taking the Dixie Chicks comments about the president at face value. You may or may not agree with them, but you (being a US citizen, and curious about the world) aren't going to take their words as your political platform.

So, it really doesn't matter what the Dalai Lama wants or doesn't want. It doesn't matter much what Tibet did in it's past. What is happening is multifold - China has 'overrun' Tibet - there are more Chines than Tibetans in the country. Tibetans find it very hard to get jobs - jobs go to the Chinese first. They get punished and fined for listening to foreign broadcasts. There is a large number of Tibetans living in Nepal now - many came over intending to stay only for a short while, but they are now stuck. Many more flee Tibet every year. The conditions in Nepal are not 'nice'. Yes, some Tibetans get by with little shops, but the more usual condition is like that in Pokhara - settlements out in the open, where the people basically make homes with rugs and such. This is at very high altitude, and quite cold. Nepal has curfews, to try to control the population - I remember being warned not to stray outside after sundown (and you had to go outside to go to the bathroom) for a very justifiable fear of being shot by the Nepal police. Most Tibetans have a very itinerant lifestyle - they will sneak across the border to get trade supplies, then come back to Nepal to sell trinkets to the tourists. If they save enough money they buy a couple of yaks and walk across the country moving things for people. We hired some Tibetans - they were an old couple, probably 70+, though who can say when you live such a hard life - and they traveled with their yaks. On our trip a yak fell off the trail and died (rather steep trails, you know). Fortunately for them, we paid for the animal - it usually doesn't end up so well, where a loss of a yak could spell doom. And this is the lifestyle they chose rather than live under Chinese oppression. I found the podcast's description of how much better the Tibetans have it now appalling. I don't have first hand knowledge of how Tibet was prior to 1950, and so for all I know it could be true - but that does not in any way make the situation now acceptable. I'll overstate it to make my point - "why are the black complaining? They used to be slaves, aren't the Jim Crow laws wonderful for them?" Uh, no, it may be "better", but it is far from "good".

Visiting that part of the world is profoundly upsetting. Stunning beauty, people always ready with a smile, and poverty like you've never seen (unless you have been to India, which is at another level entirely). The cities have some money, but much of the country is still in the stone ages - no road, everything moves on the back of a human or yak. 6 year old children carrying huge loads of wood. Tibetan families dressed in filthy clothes carrying their homes on their back, stopping to try to sell you cheap bracelets. The Tibetans and Nepali generally don't mix - the political status of the refuges is very uneasy (recall the you can get shot comments). A human diaspora with no place to go, human misery, crushingly hard work, stone age conditions, on the backbone of the world's most beautiful mountain range. I fell in love and broke my heart there. It's a modern tragedy. I remember after I came back I was in a video store and these two brats were whining about what movie they could get. I wanted to walk over to them and throw them against the wall, to try to make them understand how ******* fornunate they were that they actually had shoes, that they weren't walking with a load as large as themselves on their back everyday up and down trails so steep yaks fall off them, no shoes, thin clothes, summer and winter, rain and shine, with a ***** smile on their face and a "namaste" for each person they meet.

And now I'm sitting here crying about it. Those poor little, doomed kids. So yes, I found the podcast lacking in it's treatment.
 
Miss_Kitt said:
I don't think the situation in Tibet lends itself in any way to an "atheist's position" on what's best.

An atheist's position on the Dalai Lama should be, He may be considered a wise man by much of the Western world, he may even be a wise man...but he's not a deity, much less the reincarnation of a deity.

The political question of whether life in Tibet would be better with or without China's rule is a complex one, and not an issue I feel qualified to tackle here. In general, I believe China needs to let its involuntary territories have more autonomy--see, for example, Taiwan and Hong Kong--and that Tibet falls into that category.

But it's my political assessment, not my atheism, that drives that assessment.

Just my thoughts, MK
Click to expand...
A couple of minor nitpicks. Taiwan is, to all intents and purposes, an independent country (even though it is not officially recognised as such by the UN), and has been since the Communist revolution, when the republicans fled there and took over. Hong Kong may be officially a part of China, but it still has it's own government, monetary system, police force, economy, etc. Again, apart from the fact that it flies a Chinese flag it's essentially completely autonomous. Same with Macau.

I'm afraid I haven't been to Tibet, so I can't really comment knowledgeably, all the news reports we get here are completely biased, so it's impossible to tell what the real situation is without going there. I may well go at some point, but at the moment I'm too busy.

My personal feeling is that Tibet ought to be given more autonomy, the conditions for the native people improved, and the region be given a greater focus in tourism.
 
I personally support the Tibetans. I believe in freedon of or from religion but I support a nations right to remain free. China invaded Tibet; the Tibetans didn't want them there so I'm against the Chinese agression.
 
quarky said:
Good question. Applies to Israel , in a way, as well.

Looks like China might make an amusement park of Tibet. They've certainly gone out on a limb with the new railroad.

At some point, ancient cultures are like endangered species. Its a pity to lose them, and their unique attributes, yet unfair to give them special status.
Click to expand...

Red herring China, invaded Tibet with military force.


The staus of their culture is a marker of the military occupation of the country of Tibet.

I suppose if the Chinese invaded your country you would not say they are welcome?

None of which is part of my belief or lack of belief in god.
 
roger said:
Okay, I really don't mean this as an insult, but I guess I hadn't thought that people were taking Gere seriously as a source of information. It's sort of like, I dunno, I'm reaching for an analogy, taking the Dixie Chicks comments about the president at face value. You may or may not agree with them, but you (being a US citizen, and curious about the world) aren't going to take their words as your political platform.

So, it really doesn't matter what the Dalai Lama wants or doesn't want. It doesn't matter much what Tibet did in it's past. What is happening is multifold - China has 'overrun' Tibet - there are more Chines than Tibetans in the country. Tibetans find it very hard to get jobs - jobs go to the Chinese first. They get punished and fined for listening to foreign broadcasts. There is a large number of Tibetans living in Nepal now - many came over intending to stay only for a short while, but they are now stuck. Many more flee Tibet every year. The conditions in Nepal are not 'nice'. Yes, some Tibetans get by with little shops, but the more usual condition is like that in Pokhara - settlements out in the open, where the people basically make homes with rugs and such. This is at very high altitude, and quite cold. Nepal has curfews, to try to control the population - I remember being warned not to stray outside after sundown (and you had to go outside to go to the bathroom) for a very justifiable fear of being shot by the Nepal police. Most Tibetans have a very itinerant lifestyle - they will sneak across the border to get trade supplies, then come back to Nepal to sell trinkets to the tourists. If they save enough money they buy a couple of yaks and walk across the country moving things for people. We hired some Tibetans - they were an old couple, probably 70+, though who can say when you live such a hard life - and they traveled with their yaks. On our trip a yak fell off the trail and died (rather steep trails, you know). Fortunately for them, we paid for the animal - it usually doesn't end up so well, where a loss of a yak could spell doom. And this is the lifestyle they chose rather than live under Chinese oppression. I found the podcast's description of how much better the Tibetans have it now appalling. I don't have first hand knowledge of how Tibet was prior to 1950, and so for all I know it could be true - but that does not in any way make the situation now acceptable. I'll overstate it to make my point - "why are the black complaining? They used to be slaves, aren't the Jim Crow laws wonderful for them?" Uh, no, it may be "better", but it is far from "good".

Visiting that part of the world is profoundly upsetting. Stunning beauty, people always ready with a smile, and poverty like you've never seen (unless you have been to India, which is at another level entirely). The cities have some money, but much of the country is still in the stone ages - no road, everything moves on the back of a human or yak. 6 year old children carrying huge loads of wood. Tibetan families dressed in filthy clothes carrying their homes on their back, stopping to try to sell you cheap bracelets. The Tibetans and Nepali generally don't mix - the political status of the refuges is very uneasy (recall the you can get shot comments). A human diaspora with no place to go, human misery, crushingly hard work, stone age conditions, on the backbone of the world's most beautiful mountain range. I fell in love and broke my heart there. It's a modern tragedy. I remember after I came back I was in a video store and these two brats were whining about what movie they could get. I wanted to walk over to them and throw them against the wall, to try to make them understand how ******* fornunate they were that they actually had shoes, that they weren't walking with a load as large as themselves on their back everyday up and down trails so steep yaks fall off them, no shoes, thin clothes, summer and winter, rain and shine, with a ***** smile on their face and a "namaste" for each person they meet.

And now I'm sitting here crying about it. Those poor little, doomed kids. So yes, I found the podcast lacking in it's treatment.
Click to expand...


Poverty is sad, political oppresion is sad. Terror, torrture and war are horrible.

Peace to you and yours.

People often forget the stupidity of politics and political thought. People are people abd they have to live with the consequences of politics. I am sure the 600,000 victims of Pinochet were just as thrilled to be part of an 'American ally' as the dead in Iraq.

War is needed at times, but sometimes fools lead the charge.
 
roger said:
And now I'm sitting here crying about it. Those poor little, doomed kids. So yes, I found the podcast lacking in it's treatment.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response.

I sincerely hope that your response gave you an opportunity to vent and provided you with some relief. I say that with all sincerity. But to be honest I don't know which of any facts by Dunning you agree with or disagree with. I don't know if the caste system in place before the Chinese was in fact as oppressive as Dunning says. You don't respond to that but instead simply state that you don't know if things were better or worse. I'm not sure what that has to do with Dunning's pod-cast. The only thing I can gather from your post is that the Chinese have instituted an oppressive regime that has stripped freedoms. Ok, but I don't think Dunning would take issue with that. Dunning is simply trying to strip away the BS surrounding this cause. And as much as you think everyone should be perfectly skeptical it just isn't realistic. Even James Randi admits to dropping the ball from time to time. I doubt you are always 100% up on every subject. In fact, it seems to me that you learned a lot by your trip. Why is that? Shouldn't you have just known all of the facts or did you, like many of us, accept provisionally what we heard in the face of no contravening facts.

I don't know about you but I don't have the time to track down every news item I read every day? I do accept, provisionally, information I hear until I have reason to decide otherwise. I didn't have conflicting information about Tibet to hold any other postion so I think it reasonable that I would at least understand that and know that which I heard. That's all. No need to tell me you don't intend to insult just be reasonable in your criticism.

That said, I'd be happy to dismiss Dunning but you've given me no reason to as you've not addressed a single point made as far as I can tell.

But thanks.
 
Last edited:
To Roger:

As someone who's lived in China for many years, works directly with a minority group whose religion is Tibetan Buddhism, and who has many Tibetan friends (both inside and outside of China)...let me offer the following.

Tibet has improved by very measurable and quantifiable standards since the Chinese took over. Women have social equality that they did not have under Tibetan leadership. Almost all children now get an education that, under Tibetan leadership, was denied to all but a privileged few. Infant mortality rates have been drastically decreased.

This does not, in and of itself, justify Chinese occupation of Tibet, or the abuses that they inflict on the Tibetans.

But neither is it justifiable to simply ignore or overlook the abuses that the Tibetan people suffered under Tibetan religious leadership...which is essentially what you attempt to do. You are good at listing the abuses committed by the Chinese...but dismiss past abuses by Tibetan leadership as irrelevant. Chinese getting preference for jobs is a "bad" thing; but Tibetans denied education because they're not one of the privileged few is somehow unimportant or irrelevant.

You criticize a skeptical podcast on the issue because -- get this -- they have the audacity to present the full picture, both past and present, and consider their conclusions within that context.

No...we should not do that.

We should ignore all that silly "in the past" stuff. Its not relevant to the argument at hand.

I would point out that most of the things that you, and many others, want to demand that the Chinese government should do for the Tibetans, are things that we in countries like Canada and the United States would never be willing to do for the indigenous peoples in our own countries. The difference? Time. We've been overrunning our conquered lands for longer than the Chinese have been overrunning theirs.

I'm not defending the Chinese government; there are many abuses inflicted upon the Tibetan people that are inexcusable. Just as many of the abuses inflicted upon them by their own religious leaders in the past were inexcusable.

But it is not a simple black-and-white issue, either. And those who seek to argue by simply saying that information that doesn't support their own personal perspective is irrelevant or unimportant...are...suspect...to say the least.
 
Last edited:
And as to the question of who we should support...

...we should support, simply, the right to self-determination.

Ya' know, its funny to me. Had Tibet not been conquered, and had instead remained an isolated country ruled by a religious elite, the vast majority of people here would be jumping all over that leadership (if they knew anything about it at all). Leaders who are chosen at one or two years of age, based on 'proofs' of being reincarnated...and who should not be challenged or questioned. A society where the vast majority of people are intentionally kept illiterate and uneducated, where the only path to education is to become a monk...and embrace the very religion that keeps the majority of people oppressed.

The Tibetan people did not have the right to self-determination under the old system; they do not have the right to self-determination under the current system.

I have seen no proof or indication whatsoever that removing Chinese control would magically give them that right, either; what I see as far more likely is that religious leaders would fight very hard to regain the power they once had. The Dalai Lama? Perhaps not...but he's not representative of the entire religious leadership. And he's old...he'll be dead soon.

When he dies, if Tibet is in the hands of the Chinese, they'll "choose" a new Dalai Lama who can be easily shaped and controlled to say and do what they want. And if Tibet is in the hands of the Tibetan religious leaders, then they will "choose" a new Dalai Lama who can be easily shaped and controlled to say and do what they want.
 
I don't think a forced takeover of a people and a culture has anything to do with promoting critical thinking which atheism represents. Religious beliefs are not the issue here. As WM says, the right to self determination is.
 
Does everyone who supports "the right to self-determination" believe that the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede from the Union too? What if Alaska decided to secede today? Should all European-Americans and African-Americans and Asian-Americans return to their respective continents and restore America to Native Americans?
 
skeptigirl said:
I don't think a forced takeover of a people and a culture has anything to do with promoting critical thinking which atheism represents.
Click to expand...
Oh, puh-lease, skeptigirl!!!!! Forgive me, but for someone with a name like "skeptigirl", its rather shocking to see one of the 'great atheist myths' being stated so boldly ;) Not to start a derail, but atheism doesn't "represent" critical thinking in any manner, shape, or form! Yeah, some atheists are critical thinkers, and reach that point through a process of critical analysis...but there are tons of atheists who are every bit as woo-ish and non-critical as any theist on the planet.

Atheism "represents" nothing except for a lack of belief in god. As mentioned above, atheism is not implicitly representative of any philosophy, political system, or moral or ethical belief system. It has nothing to do with what one believes, or how one reached those beliefs. It has to do only with what one doesn't believe in (unless you want to state the lack of belief in a god as being 'a belief that god doesn't exist').
 
Last edited:
Thanks Wolfman, we only have to look to Tibet's neighbors to the see the insanity of priest-kings. I agree that technology and civil rights are good. (Just so you know I agree with Stillwell that we should have made peace with China and accepted Mao.)

I just disagree with war. I disagree with political aggression, I sure like running water and flush toilets.

On the other hand mexico and central america has been ruined by american handguns.

Many sides to all things.
 
Puppycow said:
Does everyone who supports "the right to self-determination" believe that the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede from the Union too? What if Alaska decided to secede today? Should all European-Americans and African-Americans and Asian-Americans return to their respective continents and restore America to Native Americans?
Click to expand...

Was Tibet really part of China?

Invade another country, that sounds like fun!
 
Dancing David said:
Was Tibet really part of China?

Invade another country, that sounds like fun!
Click to expand...

It is now.
You didn't answer my questions.

Was any part of the USA the USA before 1776? Or part of the British Empire before 1607? The Southwestern US was conquered from Mexico in 1848. Should we give that back? Should the Confederacy have been allowed to secede?
 
Puppycow said:
It is now.
You didn't answer my questions.

Was any part of the USA the USA before 1776? Or part of the British Empire before 1607? The Southwestern US was conquered from Mexico in 1848. Should we give that back? Should the Confederacy have been allowed to secede?
Click to expand...

I can only comment that I disapprove of the wars that currently have occured, which i believe the chinese occupation of tibet is in my lifetime (at the beggining). But as for the historical misdirection which your are applying, and the contingent history I can not change:

I don't approve of war except in the defense of life and personal liberty.

I think I would have disapproved of the Mexican-American wars, Spanish American war, the Prophet's Town masscre (which happened about 80 mi. from where I live).


I am sure I would have disapproved of both sides during the revolutionary war of the US. The US civil war, I would say that both sides were very wrong in some ways (IE John brown killing people) and right in others (Nat Turner), however the CSA started the battle, which does not excuse alot of what happened afterwards.

I would have disapproved of the Nippon and Nazi invasions, however i am also a pragmatist. i do not believe that armed rebellion is the best way to deal with china being in tibet, i think israel exists and that both sides are going to have to work at peace.

The balkanization of countries seems to be a consequence of 'self-determination', so if a state willing votes itself out of the union, that is not allowed in the COTUS. I think that sanctions (IE starvation and lack of medical supplies) would quickly resolve the situation. But i can not be perfect and think that china is wrong for invading tibet, just as i believe that the us is wrong for invading iraq.

So your question is silly, i have not said anything except that i don't think countries should invade each other and that i support freedom from oppression.

You are trying to engage in some sort of psuedo-moral quazi-religious rationaliztion of some bogus moral standard that i did not say anything about.

yes china is wrong to inade tibet, just as the us was wrong to invade iraq. If nippon had actualy been more reasonable in china and korea you would be now defending their occupation and invasion.

i think that both are wrong.
 
gdnp said:
So what's an atheist to do
1) support the atheist communist dictatorship
2) support the woo-based government in exile
3) support critical thinking and secular democracy
Click to expand...

4) support Tibetan self-determination
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom