Saving Tibet

Since when did it become acceptable to allow an entire nation (culture, language) to be eaten by another? That's exactly what's happening in Tibet. The Dalai Lama very recently said that, in a matter of a few decades, Tibet will cease to exist. I believe him.

The nation that's the home of Buddhism very much needs to be preserved. Buddhism is the only major religion without a conquering history. Many Buddhists don't even consider it a religion, since it's really a way of being, feeling, doing; rather than the psychotic nonsense of "praising" or "worshipping" (idolatry) or giving mere lip service. Point is that Buddhism is a very huge portion of the (truly) human identity, and the loss of the home (or by far the primary home) of it would be a tragedy beyond what words can express.

Before anyone accuses me of venting the old "Free Tibet" argument, I'm not convinced that Tibet has to be its own completely independent nation in order to ensure its preservation. It seems the Han (Mandarin-speaking Chinese) government could simply give Tibet special status; much like Quebec has in Canada. The Han need to back off, cease (or drastically slow) development, restrict migration. Otherwise of course I have no problem with Tibet being a mixture of Tibetans and ethnic Han (and whomever else). So it looks like we need to move away from the old idea of a "free Tibet" to simply SAVING Tibet.

If Tibet is to be saved, it should be because the peasants of that country want it so. For generations apon generations, Tibet was a brutal theocracy that lived of the backs of its peasentry and the monks and monestaries ruled.

Instead of focusing on the religious aspect of the nation and saying its worth preserving and saving, why not focus on the human aspect and say, save those peasents who untill recently, never had a chance.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
If Tibet is to be saved, it should be because the peasants of that country want it so. For generations apon generations, Tibet was a brutal theocracy that lived of the backs of its peasentry and the monks and monestaries ruled.

Instead of focusing on the religious aspect of the nation and saying its worth preserving and saving, why not focus on the human aspect and say, save those peasents who untill recently, never had a chance.

Indeed, child abuse was routine in some of these monasteries!!!

Originally posted by uberarcanist

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
If Tibet is to be saved, it should be because the peasants of that country want it so. For generations apon generations, Tibet was a brutal theocracy that lived of the backs of its peasentry and the monks and monestaries ruled.

Instead of focusing on the religious aspect of the nation and saying its worth preserving and saving, why not focus on the human aspect and say, save those peasents who untill recently, never had a chance.

Indeed, child abuse was routine in some of these monasteries!!!

As well as sexual and physical abuse.

If a peasent attempted to escape the abuse, they were hunted down and often lost limbs and extremities.

"... why not focus on the human aspect and say, save those peasents who untill recently, never had a chance."

Agreed. I'm not religious. I'm all for whatever (effective) checks and balances that would prevent brutal theocracies (or any kind of pathocracy) from ever happening anywhere. However, I don't think there's much of a chance of Tibet returning to its past in that violent respect. The (current) Dalai Lama is a very reasonable, secular education-oriented man. Point is, basically, that since Buddhism AS A WHOLE has never been involved with conquest or major political power like certain particularly psychotic religions today, its home should be preserved... IMO if all Jerusalem with all its historical contents were nuked to dust today, there would be more (poetic and actual) justice than if Tibet/Tibetans were to be lost to the Han.