The Positive Impacts of China in Tibet: a response

The following is the response by Mr. M.A. Jones, an Australian teacher within China, taken from the P.B.S. “China from the inside” discussion forum:

“I’m becoming quite adept at turning the other cheek, though whether of the upper or lower anatomy must remain a matter for fascinating conjecture, for as all good readers of Plato will know, all ideal phenomena of the upper kind have their imperfect (indeed, sometimes odiferous) counterparts in the world below.

So now it’s time to deal with sundry affairs: Tony Martin, you begin your critique of my position by personally insulting me, before launching into a vitriolic ramble, and one that is based on a misreading of my position. “Your whole theory relating to Tibet is very similar to all of the other respondents supporting the continued illegal Chinese occupation of a sovereign nation,” you say. “Your position appears to be similar to other invaders of land in our history, or to the various slave trading states over the years. Namely, don’t look at how badly off Tibetans are now in comparison to the rest of China and the world, but rather look at how well off they are compared to how they might be if their invading masters weren’t so benevolent and here to help them.”

I have presented no theories whatsoever relating to Tibet, nor have I ever justified the Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet.

I did, however, point out that life for the majority of Tibetans has been improving under Chinese governance since the 1980s, and I did so because the weight of empirically verifiable evidence shows this to be the case.

Let us look at the evidence. If Tibetans were so fiercely suppressed, and if Chinese leaders in Beijing were really out to Sinocize Tibet by increasing the ethnic ratio of Han to Tibetan, then why are all Tibetan families permitted to have up to three children, and are only fined small amounts of money if they exceed this number? Tibetan families in Tibet average 3.8 children, larger than Tibetan families in India. In fact, the population of Tibet in 1959 was only about 1.19 million. Today however, the population of Greater Tibet is 7.3 million, of which, according to the 2000 census, 6 million are ethnic Tibetans. If we consider the Tibet Autonomous Region only, then according to the census conducted in 2000, as referred to in Wikipedia, “there were 2,616,300 people in Tibet, with Tibetans totalling 2,411,100 or 92.2% of the current regional population. The census also revealed that the Tibetan’s average lifespan has increased to 68 due to the improving standard of living and access to medical services.” In 1950 the average lifespan was only 35, and “infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 to 0.661% in 2000.”

As Barry Sautman, who is Associate Professor of Social Science at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology points out in his study on Tibet and the (Mis-)Representation of Cultural Genocide, “the state sponsored transfer [of Han Chinese] to Tibet is on a small scale. From 1994 to 2001 the PRC organized only a few thousand people to go to Tibet as cadres. Most serve only 3 years and then return to China. Those who move on their own to the Tibet Autonomous Region usually return to China in a few years. They come for a while, find the cities of Tibet too expensive, and then return to China. Some of the 72,000 Chinese who maintain their hukou [household registration] in Tibet don’t really live there. Pensions are higher if your household is registered in Tibet.”

These facts are supported by articles in the Columbia Journal of Asian Law and by an Australian Chinese demographer in Asian Ethnicity in 2000, and show that the claims of ethnic swamping in Tibet are misleading. “What I think these articles show,” says Barry Sautman, “is that there is no evidence of significant population losses over the whole period from the 1950s to the present. There are some losses during he Great Leap Forward but these were less in Tibetan areas than in other parts of China. Where these were serious were in Sichuan and Qinghai, but even there not as serious in the Han areas of China. There are no bases at all for the figures used regularly by the exile groups. They use the figure of 1.2 million Tibetans dying from the 1950s to the 1970s, but no source for this is given. As a lawyer I give no credence to statistics for which there is no data, no visible basis.”

In fact, as Michael Parenti has pointed out in his article on Friendly Feudalism: the Tibet Myth, “both the Dalai Lama and his advisor and youngest brother, Tendzin Choegyal, claimed that ‘more than 1.2 million Tibetans are dead as a result of the Chinese occupation.’ But the official 1953 census – six years before the Chinese crackdown -recorded the entire population residing in Tibet at 1,274,000.33 Other census counts put the ethnic Tibetan population within the country at about two million. If the Chinese killed 1.2 million in the early 1960s then whole cities and huge portions of the countryside, indeed almost all of Tibet, would have been depopulated, transformed into a killing field dotted with death camps and mass graves – of which we have not seen evidence. The thinly distributed Chinese military force in Tibet was not big enough to round up, hunt down, and exterminate that many people even if it had spent all its time doing nothing else.”

Tibetans in exile and their supporters seem to pull such figures out of a hat in the same way that the Chinese exile Harry Wu does in relation to the number of mainland prisoners (see my piece On the Nature of Chinese Governance and Society for details).

Barry Sautman also convincingly challenges claims that the Tibetan language is being devalued and replaced by Chinese. “92-94% of ethnic Tibetans speak Tibetan,” he notes. “Instruction in primary school is pretty universally in Tibetan. Chinese is bilingual from secondary school onward. All middle schools in the TAR also teach Tibetan. In Lhasa there are about equal time given to Chinese, Tibetan, and English.”

There is also an upsurge of the performing arts, poetry and painting by Tibetans, which many visitors to Tibet today cannot fail to notice, all of which are encouraged and funded by Beijing, though of course the growing tourist market also plays an important role in encouraging Tibetans to continue practicing their traditional arts and crafts, albeit, in a commodified form.

Importantly, Sautman, like me, has observed surprisingly “few aspects of Chinese culture in Tibet, but there are many aspects of Western culture, such as jeans, disco music, etc.”

Barry Sautman’s views are by no means marginalised within Western academia either Tony. Colin Mackerras, Professor Emeritus of International Business and Asian Studies at Griffith University, Australia, for example, remarked that Suatman’s book “is a courageous and long overdue study of a highly emotional and extremely important topic’ in that it meticulously details and documents “the processes of cultural change in religion, the arts, language, migration and various other aspects” which are rightly attributed “mainly to Westernised modernity.”

Another interesting and insightful study is the one carried out by Melvyn C. Goldstein, who is Professor and Chairman, Department of Anthropology, and Director of the Center for Research on Tibet at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, and Cynthia M. Beall, who is Professor of Anthropology at Case Western Reserve University. Their study, titled The Impact of China’s Reform Policy on the Nomads of Western Tibet, was carried out over a 16 month period in the Tibet Autonomous Region, and was supported by grants from the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People’s Republic of China, the Committee on Research and Exploration of the National Geographic Society, and the National Science Foundation.

It’s worth quoting at length from their conclusion:

“The new Chinese economic and cultural policies implemented in Tibet following Hu Yaobang’s investigation tour in May of 1980 have produced a major transformation in Phala. Following decollectivisation, the nomads’ economy immediately reverted to the traditional household system of production and management, which, enhanced by the concession on taxes, has led to an overall improvement in the standard of living even though local-level officials have not completely implemented an open (or negotiated) market system. The new policies have also led to increasing involvement in the market economy and dramatic social and economic differentiation. Equally important, the post-1980 policies have fostered a cultural and social revitalization that has allowed the nomads to resurrect basic components of their traditional culture….life in Phala today is closer to that of the traditional era than at any time since China assumed direct administrative control over Tibet in 1959. The post-1980 reforms created conditions whereby the nomadic pastoralists of Phala were able to regain control of their lives and recreate a matrix of values, norms, and beliefs that is psychologically and culturally meaningful. The new polices have, in essence, vindicated the nomads’ belief in the worth of their nomadic way of life and their Tibetan ethnicity.”

Tyler Denison reached similar conclusions in his study, titled Reaffirmation of ‘Ritual Cosmos’: Tibetan Perceptions of Landscape and Socio-Economic Development in Southwest China, published quite recently in the Spring 2006 edition of the University of New Hampshire Undergraduate Research Journal.

“Rather than finding Tibetan tradition being destroyed by Chinese rule and the influx of people, goods and ideas from the modern world,” concludes Denison, “I witnessed firsthand the importance of Kawa Karpo and the ritual cosmos in the lives of the Tibetans of Deqin county: it has not been diminished. Tibetans’ enduring perception of the landscape as a ritual cosmos cannot be termed a static reality of tradition, but more a dynamic cultural process, as they are continually renegotiating and redefining their beliefs in light of new social and economic realities.”

So much then Tony, for your claims of cultural genocide. And by the way, most Tibetans, if you ever get a chance to visit Tibet and to converse with the Tibetan locals, will tell you that they are not “forced” to learn Chinese, but rather, do so keenly, and on the expectation that being fluent in both Chinese and English will help to empower themselves by broadening their future employment opportunities.

Tony, I hereby charge you with having a patronising attitude towards the Tibetan people – they are not passive victims, and you really shouldn’t deny them of any agency. In fact, as Tsering Shakya has pointed out in a paper he wrote for the New Left Review back in 2002, “Tibetans are indeed well represented on bodies like the National People’s Congress and the People’s Consultative Conference. In fact I would go further and say that they are over-represented, given the size of the Tibetan population.” And don’t forget the role that many Tibetans themselves played in the destruction of monastries and the various perscutions that took place in Tibet during the Cultural Revolution. Let’s not deny the people of Tibet of any agency.

Your assertion that Western journalists make their observations of Tibet in the presence of “Chinese Communist Party lackeys” also demonstrates your ignorance. Journalist and tourists alike are quite free to wander about most parts of Tibet (provided they have PSB permits) without the accompaniment of officials.

You asked me to provide you with evidence of journalists having met Tibetans in Tibet who have expressed the view that the positives of Chinese rule outweigh the negatives.

Let us take attitudes towards the Beijing to Lhasa railway for starters. In the lead-up to the opening of that railway, the Dalai Lama expressed fears that the railway was going to aid in the Sinocisation of Tibet, and this was quickly seized on by Tibetans in exile support groups throughout the Western world as a development that would aid in Beijing’s alleged policy of genocide. Such claims of course, excited the imaginations of many ordinary Tibetans, many of who not surprisingly then expressed suspicions about what the new train line would bring them. But as many tourists and journalists to Tibet soon discovered, many urban ethnic Tibetans felt as though the positives would outweigh the negatives, and this is because an increasing number of Tibetans now have a very real material stake in the new economy. Their living standards are improving, and although Han retailers and small businesses stand to benefit more from increases in tourism and trade, the fact is that this will likely change as more and more Tibetans accumulate sufficient enough capital to start up enterprises of their own. And many Tibetans know this. Jonathon Watts, of The Guardian newspaper, reported that “Among the four or five unscheduled meetings I had with Tibetans, most were looking forward to the economic benefits the line is expected to bring: 2.5m tonnes of cargo and 1m tourists and business people.”

Indeed, Tibetans are divided on the issue of whether or not the benefits of being a part of China outweigh the negatives. “Tibetans are divided,” noted Jonathon Watts. There are those “independence activists” who expressed disapproval of the railway because they are against being a part of China, and who therefore regard the new line as evidence that Beijing is out to further entrench their rule, while others acknowledged the good that the trains might bring. “I was surprised to find a living Buddha make one of the strongest arguments in favour of the railway,” wrote Watts. “’We’ve been too backward, too isolated for too long,’ said the lama, who asked that his name not be used. ‘The rest of the world is in the 21st century. We are still in the middle ages.’ A more predictable advocate was the governor of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, Jampa Pahtsok. “It is unimaginable to have a high growth rate without a railroad.’” (see The Guardian, Sep.20, 2005)

And life is improving for many Tibetan farmers also, as Goldstein and Beall’s research (mentioned earlier) shows. When Dexter Roberts came across villagers in Northern Tibet’s Nagqu Prefecture, he discovered that most of the villagers (barley farmers and herdsmen) were quite content. “Life isn’t bad at all”, he quoted one villager as saying. (see “Tibet: Caught in China’s Two Hands”, Business Week Online, Sep.19, 2003).

Tony, I have never argued that most Tibetans don’t want some form of self-government. I simply said that I think it is presumptuous to say that the majority of Tibetans want independence. I stand by that. Maybe they do? But to assert with confidence that most want independence without supporting such a claim with any empirically verifiable evidence of a quantitative nature is questionable, especially when there is a growing amount of qualitative evidence to show that Tibetans are divided on such issues. Even the Dalai Lama himself says that he no longer wants total independence from China, but instead, some form of self-government.

Take a closer, more objective look at Tibet today. The mass protests have stopped. As Robert Barnett, author of Lhasa: Streets with Memories (published by Columbia University Press) stated in an interview back in April 2006, “Tibet has become a dispute in which the main weapons are forms of economic change that have benefits and drawbacks: the market, the leisure industry, mass tourism, population shift, uneven wealth, and consumerism.”

It won’t be all that much longer Tony, before Lhasa’s main thoroughfares find themselves hosting McDonald’s, KFC, and Pizza Hut fast food outlets, along with Starbuck’s and other such global enterprises. And don’t be too surprised if some of the license holders turn out to be ethnic Tibetans.

Tony, you argue that “Tibet and Tibetans might [have] been very different had China not invaded, but for sure they would be sovereign masters of their own destiny.”

Bollocks! How many ordinary Tibetans were ever the “masters of their own destinies”? I’m not justifying China’s invasion and occupation of Tibet, which was carried out for geopolitical reasons, and largely in response to continual incursions by Britain and Russia, and which therefore needs to be viewed in the context of the Cold War. The Kuomintang of course consistently made it clear that they intended on invading and occupying Tibet, and had they defeated the PLA, they probably would have gone on to do just that. Had that been the case, I bet the the U.S. State Department wouldn’t have objected.

But let us not romanticise the life of Tibetans prior to the invasion either. As Michael Parenti (and many others like Leigh Feigon, in his book Demystifying Tibet) has documented, Tibet “was a retrograde theocracy of serfdom and poverty, where a favoured few lived high and mighty off the blood, sweat, and tears of the many. It was a long way from Shangri-La.”

And “whatever wrongs and new oppressions introduced by the Chinese in Tibet, after 1959 they did abolish slavery and the serfdom system of unpaid labour, and put an end to floggings, mutilations, and amputations as a form of criminal punishment. They eliminated the many crushing taxes, started work projects, and greatly reduced unemployment and beggary. They established secular education, thereby breaking the educational monopoly of the monasteries. And they constructed running water and electrical systems in Lhasa.”

Finally, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the Tibetans in exile and their supporters have consistently exaggerated the human rights abuses that have taken place in Tibet, as Barry Sautman and others have convincingly demonstrated. Such exaggerations from the Tibetan community in exile come as no surprise though. As Michael Parenti says:

“For the rich lamas and lords, the Communist intervention was a calamity. Most of them fled abroad, as did the Dalai Lama himself, who was assisted in his flight by the CIA… throughout the 1960s, the Tibetan exile community was secretly pocketing $1.7 million a year from the CIA, according to documents released by the State Department in 1998. Once this fact was publicised, the Dalai Lama’s organisation itself issued a statement admitting that it had received millions of dollars from the CIA during the 1960s to send armed squads of exiles into Tibet to undermine the Maoist revolution. The Dalai Lama’s annual payment from the CIA was $186,000. Indian intelligence also financed both him and other Tibetan exiles. He has refused to say whether he or his brothers worked for the CIA. The agency has also declined to comment….Today, mostly through the National Endowment for Democracy and other conduits that are more respectable-sounding than the CIA, the US Congress continues to allocate an annual $2 million to Tibetans in India, with additional millions for ‘democracy activities’ within the Tibetan exile community.”

The Tibetan issue is by no means clear-cut. It is complex, and in constant states of flux. Even Tibetan specialists find it difficult to fit together images and realities, and so one might imagine how much more difficult it is for the great majority who make no pretence to knowledge about Tibet and who, if interested, seek guidance in the formulation of their own images. Those who seek such guidance from the plethora of publications produced by the numerous existing Tibetan support groups should therefore read them with some considerable caution, given their obvious bias.

I am not a Tibetan specialist, by any means, but I have more confidence in the findings of independent academic researchers (who present more objective, more soberly balanced views that are based on empirically verifiable research data of both a quantitative and qualitative nature) than I do in both the claims of official Chinese sources and of the various Tibetans in exile support groups.

Oh, and by the way Tony, your puerile attempt to discredit me by dismissing me as an employee of the Chinese government really is pathetic, and only serves to further demonstrate the height of your ignorance. I have been in China now for five years, not four, and I am not, and never have been, employed by the Chinese government. I teach a university preparation program at a Chinese private university in Hangzhou for a Sydney-based college, and I am paid an Australian salary, in Australian dollars, by my employer of over 15 years, the N.S.W. Department of Education and Training. There is absolutely no pressure on me to “two the Partly line” – in fact, nobody here has ever interfered with my teaching.

I suggest, Tony Martin, that you take a sedative and calm down. A few laxatives will no doubt help!”

View original post here


14 thoughts on “The Positive Impacts of China in Tibet: a response

  1. Dava

    Subject: voodoo demography

    Perhaps we should take the guy at his word that he is no expert in Tibetan studies, that he spent 5 years in China, that he relies on studies by people who are basically Sinologists, and then simply dismiss what he says as not especially interesting or worthy of being heard.

    I’m also not a demographer (I was once forced to study it a little), but here I would like to offer some notes on what I think I could find out on the subject.

    There is by now a small body of literature, in English, on Tibetan population in its historical dimensions. I will list just 4 items here, since further literature may be located by making use of the bibliographies they contain.

    1. Jan Anderson, “Tibetans: A Dwindling Population — A Comparative Study. Tibetan Review (New Delhi), vol. 16 no. 10 (1981), pp. 6-13. Still very valuable and worth looking up.

    2. Graham Clarke, “Tibet Today: Propaganda, Record and Policy.” Himalayan Research Bulletin, vol. 8, no. 1 (1988). Listed here mainly for its argument against the very frequently repeated (but surely not therefore accurate) ‘six million’ population figure for Tibetans. This is an official Manchu estimate, from the beginning of the 20th century, for the number of Tibetans in the world.

    3. Dan Martin, “On the Cultural Ecology of Sky Burial on the Himalayan Plateau.” East and West, vol. 46, nos. 3-4 (December 1996), pp. 353-370. There is a brief discussion of historical demography.

    4. Rong Ma & Naigu Pan (Peking University), “The Tibetan Population and Their Geographical Distribution.” In: Per Kvaerne, ed., Tibetan Studies, The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture (Oslo 1994), vol. 1, pp. 507-516.

    All these studies (I should apologize for not supplying some more recent publications) show that figures for the numbers of Tibetans must always go hand in hand with a careful delineation of the precise geographical area in which those populations are to be found. Much of the muddle about population figures comes from not paying attention to geography. It is essential to carefully distinguish 1. the area at any particular time governed from Lhasa from 2. the population of the area of the present TAR from 3. the number of Tibetans within the boundaries of the present PRC and from 4. the number of Tibetans in the world. (Shifting ethnic identities, and the fact that Chinese sources frequently give ‘Tibetan’ identity to separately counted sub-minorities, introduce still further complications.) That these geographical distinctions have not always been heeded in the past is one of the reasons for the confusion that unfortunately reigns supreme wherever the subject is raised. Quite a few testimonies on Tibetan population are given in the above-listed works. Rong Ma’s article gives the 1953 census figures including the TAR and adjacent PRC provinces (little or no actual census-taking activity was carried out at that time [for obvious reasons of social unrest] within the present area of the TAR and the Chengdu region, but the following figure is supposed to include them) at 2,773,000, and the author believes this number basically valid for the early 1950’s. The 2nd census in 1964 (the 3rd took place in 1979) showed a population of 2,501,174, signifying a drop of 272,000, or over a quarter of a million souls in 11 years (even without factoring in the number that under ordinary circumstances would have augmented the population during that time, which we would have to do to come up with an estimate for the number of Tibetans who suffered untimely deaths… Ask a real demographer to explain this to you). Whatever might be made of these figures, it is just a fact that the declines in Tibetan population that can be known from (somehow semi-reliable) census data occurred during the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army takeover and the subsequent Cultural Revolution. It seems fairly clear that all pre-50’s accounts by Chinese sources of Tibetan population decline are based on what ‘should have been’, and not on census-based figures (and of course, there are those highly exaggerated figures, like the 10 million Tibetans mentioned in Chinese dynastic annals for the year 634 CE, a figure that is and has been nevertheless frequently and outrageously [even, I would say, embarrassingly] trotted out by the Beijing propaganda machine). What rather seems to have been the case is that, following Melvyn Goldstein’s arguments, Tibet experienced over recent centuries prior to the ’50s a fairly steady increase in population of about 0.21 per annum (or, in any case, a slow rate of increase that would not have been especially remarkable for a pre-modern pastoral-agricultural society). Without any doubt, significant or even dramatic reductions in child mortality would have taken place since the 50’s without Chinese intervention, as they have worldwide.

    And a final word: Some people have, under the heat of polemic, claimed that the PRC is intent on a genocide of the Tibetan people. While it is true that the U.N. includes ‘cultural genocide’ under its definition of genocide, we ought to be more careful with words and call what the PRC policy is doing to Tibet a cultural genocide. Population transfer and forcible relocations, eliminating the language from the educational system, coercion in religious matters… These are the kinds of things that do indeed constitute cultural genocide.

    The drop in population between ’53 and ’64 is a dramatic one, and remember that this was immediately followed by the Cultural Revolution’s well known genocidal (and by this use of the word I do *not* mean culturally genocidal, but genocidal-genocidal) furies that lasted another decade.

    I’m not sure the word ‘irony’ is the correct one for what we must feel when we see that the impressive mortality figure of the period of ’53 and ’64, based on Chinese census data, shows better than any kind of argument, that the Tibetans did not in fact welcome the soldiers of the PLA, and that the “Peaceful Liberation of Tibet” was not peaceful at all. But I think we knew that. If the Sinologists will just “seek truth from facts” and stop being so predictably Sinocentric in their statements about the Tibet issue, I think they will come around.


  2. Anonymous

    This in a way is related to the last post about independence and compliance. No doubt Chinese occupation have its benefits to the Tibetan people. Another reason for a supporting the autonomy proposal. Had Tibet been an independent country, we would have strived to modernize the country in the 21st century.

  3. Riverwind

    Maybe we should consider this:

    1. I do not believe the Tibetans ever said to China, come in here and ruin our lives and displace millions of us.
    2. Um, simple fact, China invaded Tibet. How many among us would put up with unwanted occupation by a foreign power of our native country? I’m thinking none. Why then, should the people of Tibet be expected to do the same?

  4. Jigme32

    I think much of the problem lies within the perceptions and attitudes of Tibetans and other minorities with China. At the Tibetan University Student Conference some of the speakers who visited Tibet talked about the negative stereotypes the Chinese associated with the Tibetans as being lazy, ungrateful, etc… This sort of sentiment causes a problem since the state can put in any measures they want to try and provide equal opportunities or even better opportunities for minorities but like the popular saying goes “it’s not what you know but who you know”. Thus when people with power, who largely belong to the “majority”group, choose individuals with whom to give privileges, jobs, etc.. If they accept the negative views and stereotypes types towards these minorities, then of course the minorities will end up with less: opportunity, social standing, wealth, etc…

    Of course other problems lie wherein PRC are not truly guaranteed to be enforced since the enforcement is poor and arbitrary since certain supposed “rights” are completely overlooked by those in power because of their own individual judgment of what is best. This sort of situation is ripe for discrimination to be inflicted on the minorities and/or any individual citizen since the enforcement of laws is subjective and selective by those in power. Similar to the situation in the south during the 50-60’s where laws were in place to supposedly protect and help the blacks within America but these laws were meaningless when they were not enforced by the law enforcement due to the law enforcement and societies racist views towards blacks. Of course I don’t mean to say that Tibetans and Tibet are being treated as badly as the blacks of the south in the 50’s.

  5. Rich

    People like this guy make me sick. He obviously has no idea what he’s talking about and proceeds to use bogus Chinese sources. All kinds of blatently wrong facts like the 1959 population of Tibet, the percentage of Tibet which is Chinese (which is misleading anyway even if you do get it right because of the huge difference between rural and urban regions), etc…

  6. iron

    Riverwind Says:
    January 28, 2008 at 11:31 pm
    Maybe we should consider this:

    1. I do not believe the Tibetans ever said to China, come in here and ruin our lives and displace millions of us.
    2. Um, simple fact, China invaded Tibet. How many among us would put up with unwanted occupation by a foreign power of our native country? I’m thinking none. Why then, should the people of Tibet be expected to do the same?


    Well said! But are you saying that the whites in north america and oceania should go back to where they come from? But even if you do implement this principle consistently with yourself, that doesn’t mean China should let Tibet go independent. Tibet joined China during the Yuan dynasty, many many centuries before UK, Germany and USA came into being.

    The core of the issue is not territorial sovereignty. It is the nature of Lamarism- yes, Lamarism, please don’t call it Tibetan Buddhism, which really insults the idea of Buddha. Lamarism is a cult of sex and blood and manipulation.

    Dalai Lama is a charismatic personality. He smiles- including when he took the photo with the cult leader that eventually engineered the Tokyo gas attack.

    Unbelievable? Go check out

    Use some brain before charging this website is a communist propaganda, or the owner of the website is paid for by China.

  7. Daba

    Trimondi isn’t communist propaganda. It’s Christian propaganda. It digs up everything unsavory of filthy in the world that is even distantly related to Tibet and puts it forward as the whole ugly truth. Now it’s your turn to use some brain, Iron, and figure out why some Christians could come to hate Tibet so much, almost as much as the CCP. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that neither Christianity nor the CCP has succeeded in winning over the hearts and minds of the Tibetan people. They see Tibetan traditions as competition.

  8. tibettruth

    No amount of sophistry or academic posturing can alter some basic facts:

    Tibet was indeed a sovereign nation, displaying all the characteristics of an independent state.

    In international law Tibet is under illegal occupation.

    The people of Tibet demand their nation’s territorial and political independence.

    Bod Gyalo!

  9. Robert Negreanu

    If every ethnic group gets their own country, there would be 10000 countries in the world. For China to let go of Tibet is a impossible thing to do. Just completely irrational. People blame it on communism, but if i don’t think any countries would give up control of tibet in this situation. Would USA let Hawaii go independent if the natives protested? Obviously not.

  10. Jodie Hawthorne

    And what about Australian aboriginals, the stolen generation, the terrible conditions in Aboriginal communities to this very day. I agree with Robert; there is no way that China will give up control of Tibet. So, what now for the Tibetan in Tibet? Tibet Truth is trying to stop people from visiting Tibet, criticising NGOs for doing aid work in Tibet. Tibet Truth claims that anybody that visits or helps is assisting a brutal regime, they would like to deny Tibetans any form of assistance or benefit. They argue with anybody that sees difference to their opinion, they now refuse to publish my posts. You can see the evidence of this craziness right here:

    What is the world coming to?

  11. Ritwik Banerjee

    I wanted to say a few things, but they seem to pointless now that the first comment by Dava has spoken so well.

  12. Hello there, You’ve done a fantastic job. I will certainly digg it and personally suggest to my friends. I am sure they will be benefited from this site.

  13. This story is complete crap .. Millions of Tibetans were murdered or enslaved, they had thousands of monasteries and uncounted amount of damage done to their religion, but it’s okay because they built some secular schools and ended criminal amputations.. Forget that China is a tyrannical communist dictatorship that lies and lies and lies and misrepresents Tibet to the world.. Hah

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s