Raging against Maoism in Tibet
mi...@mim.org
the cause of "Free Tibet,"
I'm starting this thread on slavery in
Tibet.
Here is a piece from the talk.politics.tibet
FAQ. It's important because it has a
source on the question before communism
came to China. People today are allowing
anti-communism to obscure their historical
vision.
"B3) Did slavery exist in old Tibet?
The following account was written by Sir Charles Bell, who was the
British administrator for Chumbi Valley in 1904-05. At that time, Chumbi
Valley was under British occupation pending payment by Tibet of an
indemnity which resulted from the Younghusband Expedition of 1904.
Slaves were sometimes stolen, when small children, from their parents.
Or the father and mother, being too poor to support their child, would
sell it to a man, who paid them _sho-ring_, 'price of mother's milk,'
brought up the child and kept it, or sold it, as a slave. These
children come mostly from south-eastern Tibet and the territories of the
wild tribes who dwell between Tibet and Assam. [Bell24]
Although the CCP cites slavery as a justification for liquidating the
Dalai Lama's government, the practice was by no means confined to Tibet.
It is estimated that in 1930 there were about 4 million child slaves in
China proper (Cantonese: _mui1jai_). [Meltzer93]"
This last bit about slaves in China in 1930
is just to say that China also has this
blot on its record. It doesn't mean
that a revolutionary movement against old
traditions was not necessary.
--
## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
# # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
# # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
# # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mi...@mim.org
do not deny that slavery existed.
They only say that they don't
want to bring it back now and the
Dalai Lama was too young to do anything
about it.
This latter point is making excuses
for a political system, because if the
system has someone in charge who is
too young to do something about slavery,
then there is something wrong with the
system. The regents who were in charge
while children were growing up would
be to blame and they would be to
blame because the political system
was so poor it needed to be overthrown.
mi...@mim.org
Rage f***ed up on Tibet.
Look at what was necessary in the U$A
after the Civil War. This is from
www.encyclopedia.com under "Reconstruction."
Reconstruction
in U.S. history, period (1865-77) of readjustment
following the CIVIL WAR. When the war ended the
defeated South was a ruined land, and its old social and
economic order had collapsed. Pres. Andrew JOHNSON
tried to shift political control in the South from the old
planter aristocracy to small farmers and artisans by
disenfranchising all former Confederate officers and
making certain property liable to confiscation. Under the
provisional governors he appointed, most Southern
states abolished slavery and ratified the Thirteenth
Amendment (1865), guaranteeing freedom for African
Americans. However, they also enacted laws severely
limiting the civil rights of African Americans (the Black
Codes) and elected disenfranchised Confederate leaders
to state and federal offices. Radical Republicans in
Congress, led by Thaddeus STEVENS, refused to seat
Southern representatives and passed various
Reconstruction acts, which were designed to protect
African Americans, over the president's vetoes.
African-American civil rights were incorporated in the
Fourteenth Amendment (1868). Radical congressmen
enacted the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that set up five
military districts in the South and made army authority
supreme. When Johnson continued to oppose the
radical leaders and defied the TENURE OF OFFICE
ACT, Congress impeached him; he was not convicted,
but his program was scuttled. After the Fifteenth
Amendment (1870) had guaranteed African Americans
the right to vote, terrorist groups such as the KU KLUX
KLAN kept them from voting. Eventually, radical
Republican governments were overthrown and white
rule was restored. Reconstruction officially ended in
1877, when all federal troops were withdrawn from the
South. Its legacy was the one-party solid South and a
lasting racial bitterness.
So the U$A exercised a dictatorship against
officers and planters of the Confederacy by
taking away their citizenship rights. It's
a clear proof of how politics is war by other
means.
Even today we have active and bitter crackpots
defending the Confederacy. They never say they are for
slavery anymore, but they say they should
have been allowed to separate. Well, sorry,
it is too late. Anybody who was not able
to bring down slavery in this century or
last century forfeited their rights to
anything--including nationhood. Seceding
for nationhood while slavery persists is
a perfect example of misdirected movement
priorities.
Anna
> The Dalai Lama's supporters
> do not deny that slavery existed.
> They only say that they don't
> want to bring it back now and the
> Dalai Lama was too young to do anything
> about it.
>
> This latter point is making excuses
> for a political system, because if the
> system has someone in charge who is
> too young to do something about slavery,
> then there is something wrong with the
> system. The regents who were in charge
> while children were growing up would
> be to blame and they would be to
> blame because the political system
> was so poor it needed to be overthrown.
>
So that gives the Chinese the right to invade a country ethnically and
culturally separate to their own?
That's what the British did to Ireland in the last few centuries with almost
exactly the same results as we are seeing in Tibet now, i.e., famine, death
of human beings and of culture, followed up with a massive wave of
emigration. Funny really, as they defended it as 'improving' the lot of the
average Irish person, just as the Chinese now make truly unbelievable claims
to have 'liberated' Tibet. Yeah, right. Thanks but no thanks, I for one
could do without that kind of help.
But then again, I guess it's always the conquerors who write the histories,
eh?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-communist, that ideology has a lot of good
principles BUT it doesn't excuse invasions and killings in the name of
'liberation'.
History is full of incidents when one big, powerful country overwhelms and
absorbs a smaller neighbour. Usually there's some 'humanitarian' reason
given by the aggressor, but it still comes down to who's bigger and stronger
and can force the issue and get away with it.
China did it to Tibet.
England did it to Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
The US tried it in Cuba, Southeast Asia and wherever else they could get
away with it.
The USSR did it to Mongolia.
Etc., etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Different ideologies, same results: famine, suffering and death.
mi...@mim.org
"Anna" <aod...@eircom.nospam.net> wrote:
mi...@mim.org replies:
If the Irish were trading in slaves and
the English were not, then yes, I would
have favored the English invasion. It just
so happens we can stand for Irish nationalism.
Slavery is not just any "humanitarian reason."
Invading to bring McDonald's is not a good reason.
(That's leaving aside that the Rand McNally map
of 1943 (when communists were not in
control of China) already showed Tibet as part of China,
which means that your claim of invasion is
debateable from the beginning.)
In fact, even the chance to abolish feudalism
and serfdom like they existed in Tibet is not
something to pass up.
There are some things like slavery that can
be abolished by war. Then the violence of slavery
is gone.
Where did you stand on the U$ Civil War?
Respect the South's secession for nationhood?
Marx was with Lincoln and he was right.
haozertree
Anna wrote:
> So that gives the Chinese the right to invade a country ethnically and
> culturally separate to their own?
There is no right, but only power. Throughout history up to latter this
century,
powerful nations invade smaller nations because it could, and because there
are benefits for the more powerful country. In the case of China, the benefits
could come from using Tibet as a strategic buffer against India, Pakstin, etc.
> That's what the British did to Ireland in the last few centuries with almost
> exactly the same results as we are seeing in Tibet now, i.e., famine, death
> of human beings and of culture, followed up with a massive wave of
> emigration.
This sounds a lot like the effects of US/British sancations against Iraq..
> Funny really, as they defended it as 'improving' the lot of the
> average Irish person, just as the Chinese now make truly unbelievable claims
> to have 'liberated' Tibet. Yeah, right. Thanks but no thanks, I for one
> could do without that kind of help.
> But then again, I guess it's always the conquerors who write the histories,
> eh?
After WWII, out right invasions have became unpopular, mainly because
now the whole world would watch and actually do something to help the
weaker country if enough "interests" are involved. Nowdays it is always the
more
powerful nation "freeing" the weaker nation of an "evil dictator" so the
powerful
nation could make itself look a little bit more popular in the global community.
With economics being the key to winning strategic battles (with economic
sancations to kill your enemies, who needs to get involved in wars?), and with
global trading as the key to having a powerful economy, it is no surprise that
China would use "propaganda" (half truths really) to make itself look good in
not only the Tibet situtation but in any situation. Which nation wouldn't?
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-communist, that ideology has a lot of good
> principles BUT it doesn't excuse invasions and killings in the name of
> 'liberation'.
Now this is the part which puzzles me the most. Looking at the last decade, it
was
actually two of the most democratic nations in the world which were mainly
responsible for
the heaviest amount of civilian causalities directly (bombings) or indirectly
(sancations).
And I have not even started to talk about Vietnam and Korea yet. Do these count
as
"invasions" or "liberations"?
It is funny to me that US and British are always using the "safekeeping the
world" as the
reason (or excuse) to further their own interests in material (oil, trade, etc)
or political influence.
Ironically, these are also the two biggest arm dealers and weapon merchants in
the world!
Don't people see what type of hypocracy this is?
> History is full of incidents when one big, powerful country overwhelms and
> absorbs a smaller neighbour. Usually there's some 'humanitarian' reason
> given by the aggressor, but it still comes down to who's bigger and stronger
> and can force the issue and get away with it.
> China did it to Tibet.
> England did it to Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
> The US tried it in Cuba, Southeast Asia and wherever else they could get
> away with it.
> The USSR did it to Mongolia.
> Etc., etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
> Different ideologies, same results: famine, suffering and death.
I agree completely with you on this one! Even since the cold war, idealogy
differences have contributed WAY too much death everywhere and accomplished
almost nothing other than creating hatred, suffering and death.
rain
> Slavery is not just any "humanitarian reason."
> Invading to bring McDonald's is not a good reason.
> (That's leaving aside that the Rand McNally map
> of 1943 (when communists were not in
> control of China) already showed Tibet as part of China,
> which means that your claim of invasion is
> debateable from the beginning.)
Because a fricken *map* included Tibet as part of China? Maps don't
define legal borders. They often include smaller countries with larger
bodies; for example, the postage stamp countries in Europe. The whole
claim of invasion isn't debateable in the slightest, and certainly not
because a single map failed to separate Tibet from China.
> There are some things like slavery that can
> be abolished by war. Then the violence of slavery
> is gone.
And replaced with the violence of the invaders.
katie
--
* ICQ#1791425
* LINKATORIUM:http://members.xoom.com/naeelah/links.htm
* "Don't just look like a looney, *act* like one!"
* -The Perkygoff Manifesto
rain
government? If the band members had been alive pre-chinese invasion,
it's probable that they would have spoken out against the slavery, etc
that existed in Tibet. But those are politics of the past, and now
those violations of human rights have been replaced with new violations
of human rights. None of the maoists here (that have contributed to the
topic) have even admitted what the chinese have done.
But it's pointless and counterproductive to point fingers and pass
blame. The fact of the matter is, human rights are being violated.
Period. Nothing is important except crimes are being commited, and
something needs to be done to stop them.
Namgyal123
>From: mi...@mim.org
>Date: Fri, 12 November 1999 10:08 AM EST
>Message-id: <80hahp$q2g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Southeastern Tibet referred to was under Chinese control, not control of
Tibetan govt. Should China have been invaded at that time? PRC and USSR have
had largest numbers of slaves in 20th century.
Women from China are sold as sex slaves to Thailand (mainly minority women from
Southwest provinces) and Chinese women are sold as wives (Kristoff and Wudunn -
CHINA WAKES)IN THE 1990S. Why are you not calling for invasion of PRC and
Thailand to liberate these slaves?
The only Tibetan I've ever met who had knowledge of slavery was from a faily in
Kongpo who bought a woman from nagamese slavers from Assam and set the woman
free. She chose to become Tibetan and part of that family. She escaped with
the family to Assam in the early 1960s. BTW, if slavery was the issue for
invading Tibet, why hasn't PRC brought an end to slavery in PRC and why didn't
PRC invade Burma and India? This was an excuse for acquisition of Tibet. For
all anyone knows, if PRC had kept it's hands off Tibet and dealt with much
larger problem of slavery in PRC, Tibet migh thave been free pf any vestige of
slavery long begore PRC. Instead, PRC made people of Tibet slaves of Chinese.
What percent of those put in labor(slavery) reform by PRC without trial by
peers or due process should be considered slaves? If Mao was antislavery, why
did he support enslavement of Khmers by Pol Pot? I am not expecting a sensible
reply from Maosit International Movement. I am suggesting that open minded
readers compare Tibet in 1st 1/2 of 20th century against Asia's other societies
of the time. If I had to choose a place to be a peasant or a woman, I'd
certainly choose Tibet over most of the other options - certainly over China,
India or USSR.
mi...@mim.org
rain <nae...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> mi...@mim.org wrote:
> >
> > So what I am saying here is that
> > Rage f***ed up on Tibet.
>
> Because they're fighting against atrocities commited by the chinese
> government? If the band members had been alive pre-chinese invasion,
> it's probable that they would have spoken out against the slavery, etc
> that existed in Tibet. But those are politics of the past, and now
> those violations of human rights have been replaced with new
violations
> of human rights. None of the maoists here (that have contributed to
the
> topic) have even admitted what the chinese have done.
> But it's pointless and counterproductive to point fingers and pass
> blame. The fact of the matter is, human rights are being violated.
> Period. Nothing is important except crimes are being commited, and
> something needs to be done to stop them.
>
> katie
mi...@mim.org replies: OK, but that
something that needs to be done is not
putting a former slavemaster in charge
of a movement. No nationalist movement
or movement for "human rights" deserves
any respect for doing that. Perhaps
emotionally that is where a segment
of people in Tibet are at, but if they
expect international support, they're
going to have to do better.
No media or movement effort that fails
to mention the slave past or the fact
of the Dalai's Lama's personal past
deserves any credibility--about 99%
of the reporting and activism
on the subject. It would be like
putting slaveowners in the South back
in power with their totally whitewashed
version of themselves as official history.
mi...@mim.org
mi...@mim.org replies: It doesn't matter;
you are admitting the Red Army should have
entered in either case.
Should China have been invaded at that time? PRC and
USSR have
> had largest numbers of slaves in 20th century.
mi...@mim.org replies:
The difference is that
the Red Army did not sanction slavery.
The problem has been the extent of its reach,
never the policy. The Red Army put teeth
into proclamations against slavery. That's
where the Tibetan lama system lacked: 1)
First in the desire proclaimed or otherwise
to be done with slavery. 2) Teeth.
Here is a book published in 1939 before Mao
took power in 1949, before the big
hoopla about the "invasion" of Tibet
and the subsequent tragic resistance of the slaveowners.
Interviewing a slave in China (note
I said China, not Tibet) who joined the Red Army in the
Yunnan-Szechuan border, Helen Foster Snow noted:
"'Who are the Black-bones?'" I inquired.
"In Lololand,' he explained, 'there are two classes--
Black-bones and White-bones. The Black-bones are the ruling class and
slave-owners, and the White-bones are slaves. Every Black-bone has about
fifty slaves, and can beat them or hang them as he likes. . . so many
White-bones took the chance to escape when the Red Army
came. No Black-bones joined the Red Army. Most of those
who joined the Red Army are descendants of Lolo slave
mothers and Chinese slave fathers, so they are slaves
at birth. . .
"'Aren't you afraid you will be hung by the Black-bones
if you go back to Lololand talking revolution?' I asked.
"'No, we're not afraid, because the Black-bones themselves
are very afraid of the Red Army."
Helen Foster Snow,(new intro by raving anti-communist
Harrison Salisbury) Inside Red China (NY: Da Capo Press,
(reprint of original Doubleday & Co, 1939 book), 1979),
p. 157.
Besides, the argument from Namgyal123 above
is very dishonest
by sidestepping the question by raising
tangents for one source on slavery. Are you denying
that the lamas had slaves traditionally yes or no?
What are you saying about the Dalai Lama?
You will be the first to deny it that I've heard.
> Women from China are sold as sex slaves to Thailand (mainly minority
women from
> Southwest provinces) and Chinese women are sold as wives (Kristoff and
Wudunn -
> CHINA WAKES)IN THE 1990S. Why are you not calling for invasion of PRC
and
> Thailand to liberate these slaves?
mi...@mim.org continues:
If a socialist country arises on the borders of Thailand,
India or any country and it has the prospect of
invading or even just threatening to invade and winning
a battle for slave freedom I will support it. Tibet
had a history of being more closely associated with
China and the prospects for fighting and winning
a civil war for the freedom of Tibetan slaves was
very high.
Don't stop there, people are kidnapped both within the USA
and outside the USA to bring to the USA to be sex slaves.
It's not legal, but it happens. You are dodging whether
the authorities do anything about it.
As an internationalist, I don't care about your
nationalist collective ego contest with China.
Maybe China had more slaves than Tibet. So what?
How does that affect whether the Red Army should
liberate them? The Red Army did liberate them.
The Dalai Lama at best thought about it and his
system downright tolerated it.
mi...@mim.org replies:
On Pol Pot, I suggest you check the FAQ on our
web page. I get tired of answering Hollywood inspired
questions.
As for the rest, the definition of slavery is lacking
here.
Slave:
"a person held in servitude and the
chattel of another."
Chattel:
"an item of tangible movable or immovable
property except real estate"
Someone in servitude is not a slave. Most
people live in servitude in this world,
to capitalists, landlords and very
occasionally slavemasters--maybe even
occasionally to actual socialist governments.
Only servitude to slavemasters who own you
is considered slavery. It does not surprise
me that a defender of Tibetan tradition against
Mao still does not have a clear idea of
slavery and talks about trials without peers
in the jury or due process (as if those
existed in slave-owning Tibet either). No
one owns those people, even if they are in a
labor camp. Such labor camps exist in the
USA with much more justification for being
called slavery--people (including documented
cases of law enforcement officials) have
profited from prison labor in the USA.
That's capitalism for you.
mi...@mim.org
rain <nae...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> mi...@mim.org replies:
> > There are some things like slavery that can
> > be abolished by war. Then the violence of slavery
> > is gone.
>
> And replaced with the violence of the invaders.
>
> katie
mi...@mim.org replies: You sound pretty
sure of something without referencing anything.
Here is what a 15-year-old ex-lama-in-training
had to say in between 1935 and 1939 when
Ms. Snow interviewed him, but definitely way before Mao
came to power, at least 10 years before:
"I entered the lamasery to study when I was seven,
but now I don't believe in any religion. Religion
is feudalism, and it is the opium of the Tibetan
people. . . British imperialism is very bad in
Tibet. . . And the lamas work with the British
instead of standing for Tibetan independence."
Helen Foster Snow,(new intro by raving anti-communist
Harrison Salisbury) Inside Red China (NY: Da Capo Press,
(reprint of original Doubleday & Co, 1939 book), 1979),
p. 159.
Namgyal123
>From: mi...@mim.org
>Date: Fri, 12 November 1999 08:40 PM EST
>Message-id: <80ifij$ml9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article
> If Mao was
>antislavery, why
>> did he support enslavement of Khmers by Pol Pot? I am not expecting a
>sensible
>> reply from Maosit International Movement.
>
>mi...@mim.org replies:
>On Pol Pot, I suggest you check the FAQ on our
>web page. I get tired of answering Hollywood inspired
>questions.
You tire easily. Perhaps it's the question. I've asked you before and you have
never answered. So, out with it. What's the Maoist International defense of
Mao/Pol Pot? I live with the human wreackage of your practices in
Cambodia/Khampuchea. I suspect that you in you Moaist intellectual haven of
AnnArbor Michigan do not. >> What percent of those put in labor(slavery)
reform by PRC without
>trial by
>> peers or due process should be considered slaves?
>BTW, if slavery was the issue
>for
>> invading Tibet, why hasn't PRC brought an end to slavery in PRC and
>why didn't
>> PRC invade Burma and India?
>
>As for the rest, the definition of slavery is lacking
>here.
>
>Slave:
>"a person held in servitude and the
>chattel of another."
What is lacking? These people are slaves of the group who calls themselves CCP.
Ultimatley, they were the slaves of Mao in Mao's time and of whomever rules
China right now. >
>Only servitude to slavemasters who own you
>is considered slavery. It does not surprise
>me that a defender of Tibetan tradition against
>Mao still does not have a clear idea of
>slavery and talks about trials without
>peers
>in the jury or due process (as if those
>existed in slave-owning Tibet either). No
>one owns those people, even if they are in a
>labor camp. Such labor camps exist in the
>USA with much more justification
>for being
>called slavery--people (including documented
>cases of law enforcement officials) have
>profited from prison labor in the USA.
>That's capitalism for you.
I assume that if it's documented in USA it has also been stopped or prosecuted.
This is not done in China because many of these slave labor businesses are
owned by PLA. Also regarding USA, we can have this little computer chat all we
want. If it were inPRC, I would be in prison.
BTW, you've never answered my question about source of funds for Maist
International Movement. Who pays for the free paper you leave in the
laundromat? What is your peasant background? How does a peasant survive in Ann
Arbor Michigan? Also, you've not answered about present day sale of women
minority slaves from Southwest PRC into Thailand?
Where are Tibetans who were slaves of Dalai Lama? I am sure Amnesty
International would be happy to bring them on a speaking tour. Slaves of PRC
come to US as refugees when they get the chance -Harry Wu for instance.
Lets start right at the top. Why don't you produce a slave (not a book) who was
owned by the Dalai Lama? If you have any trouble with Amnesty International
being willing to sponsor - please let us know.
Tom Duggan from Namgyals address
mi...@mim.org
namgy...@aol.com (Namgyal123) wrote:
> >mi...@mim.org replies:
> >On Pol Pot, I suggest you check the FAQ on our
> >web page. I get tired of answering Hollywood inspired
> >questions.
>
> You tire easily. Perhaps it's the question. I've asked you before and
you have
> never answered. So, out with it. What's the Maoist International
defense of
> Mao/Pol Pot? I live with the human wreackage of your practices in
> Cambodia/Khampuchea. I suspect that you in you Moaist intellectual
haven of
> AnnArbor Michigan do not.
mi...@mim.org replies: OK, it doesn't matter
where you are--Tibet, U$A,
Kampuchea. You are wrong. Maybe you
better start reading your own side first,
since it's obviously too hard for you to
find our FAQ on our web page, with the
Pol Pot piece having been posted before
on USENET, and not even just by us.
The following from the Washington
Post is on the Dalai Lama's official
web site that he calls the government in exile.
http://www.tibet.com/NewsRoom/crossroads.html
"While love for the Dalai Lama overflows in Tibet, few Tibetans would
welcome a return of the corrupt aristocratic clans that fled with him
in 1959 and that comprise the bulk of his advisers. Many Tibetan
farmers, for example, have no interest in surrendering the land they
gained during China's land reform to the clans. Tibet's former slaves
say they, too, don't want their former
masters to return to power.
"'I've already lived that life once before,' said Wangchuk, a
67-year-old former slave who was wearing his best clothes for his yearly
pilgrimage to Shigatse, one of the holiest sites of Tibetan Buddhism. He
said he worshiped the Dalai Lama, but added, 'I may not be free under
Chinese communism, but I am better off than when I was a slave.'"
OK, so let's cut with the bullshit denials on this
newsgroup.
Like I already said, the real defenders (not
the anti-communist hacks) say the Dalai Lama
was too young and that they want modernization.
All that I raised on this NG is that it is not
a good idea to put the supposedly reformed old
ruling class back in power. After the Civil War,
the whites in the South eventually claimed to give
up slavery as well. Bringing back the Confederacy
is still not a good idea. History is full of cases
of backward motion. Let the old thing die out and
let the Tibetan nationalist movement if there is
one, find a new generation of leaders, most sensibly,
the former slaves or descendants of slaves themselves
leading it.
(Perysnally, I want to make it clear I have
no problem with Tibetan Buddhists on this subject.
I haven't met any that outright lie when pushed
on this subject. The Dalai Lama waffles himself, but
he will admit to much as well. It is usually
anti-communist propagandists who lie extensively.)
Namgyal123
>Message-id: <80j1vt$2ef$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <19991113003416...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
> namgy...@aol.com (Namgyal123) wrote:
>
>> >mi...@mim.org replies:
>> >On Pol Pot, I suggest you check the FAQ on our
>> >web page. I get tired of answering Hollywood inspired
>> >questions.
>>
>> You tire easily. Perhaps it's the question. I've asked you before and
>you have
>> never answered. So, out with it. What's the Maoist International
>defense of
>> Mao/Pol Pot? I live with the human wreackage of your practices in
>> Cambodia/Khampuchea. I suspect that you in you Moaist intellectual
>haven of
>> AnnArbor Michigan do not.
>
>mi...@mim.org replies: OK, it doesn't matter
>where you are--Tibet, U$A,
>Kampuchea. You are wrong. Maybe you
>better start reading your own side first,
>since it's obviously too hard for you to
>find our FAQ on our web page, with the
>Pol Pot piece having been posted before
>on USENET, and not even just by us.
I can imagine why PolPot/Mao is a frequently asked (never answered) question.
As Maoism is by and for intelectuals I imagine it goes something like this :
"Pol Pot and some of his comrades got their party line wrong. As a result they
murdered allthe Cham people of Cambodia, all the ethnic Chinese people of
Cambodia and a healthy fraction of the ethnic Khmers. They made the further
mistake of allowing the Viets to invade and many Khmer escaped to the west
telling their stories. They also left lots of evidence in the form of mass
graves and TuolSleng complete with documentation. Please follow directives of
Maoist International Movement to prevent this sort of embarassment in the
future."
>
>The following from the Washington
>Post is on the Dalai Lama's official
>web site that he calls the government in exile.
>
> http://www.tibet.com/NewsRoom/crossroads.html
>
>"While love for the Dalai Lama overflows in Tibet, few Tibetans would
>welcome a return of the corrupt aristocratic clans that fled with him
>in 1959 and that comprise the bulk of his advisers. Many Tibetan
>farmers, for example, have no interest in surrendering the land they
>gained during China's land reform to the clans. Tibet's former slaves
>say they, too, don't want their former
>masters to return to power.
>
>"'I've already lived that life once before,' said Wangchuk, a
>67-year-old former slave who was wearing his best clothes for his yearly
>pilgrimage to Shigatse, one of the holiest sites of Tibetan Buddhism. He
>said he worshiped the Dalai Lama, but added, 'I may not be free under
>Chinese communism,
Why not?
but I am better off than when I was a slave.'"
Did he use a Tibetan word better translated as serf?
>
>OK, so let's cut with the bullshit denials on this
>newsgroup.
>
>Like I already said, the real defenders (not
>the anti-communist hacks) say the Dalai Lama
>was too young and that they want modernization.
>All that I raised on this NG is that it is not
>a good idea to put the supposedly reformed old
>ruling class back in power.
Why raise that here? Raise it with PRC. They put Ngabo and Panchen lama in
power! I have never seen any Tibet activist on this new group suggest anything
other than referenda or elections for Tibetans to determine their own leaders.
After the Civil War,
>the whites in the South eventually claimed to give
>up slavery as well. Bringing back the Confederacy
>is still not a good idea. History is full of cases
>of backward motion. Let the old thing die out and
>let the Tibetan nationalist movement if there is
>one, find a new generation of leaders, most sensibly,
>the former slaves or descendants of slaves themselves
>leading it.
The Tibetans outside of PRC are doing just that. It is those under PRC who
don't have the chance to choose their own leadership or system. If it makes
sense for Tibetans, why not for Maoists. Mao was from a middle class landlord
family. He saw no problem with making himself emperor of PRC. PRC made
aristocrat Ngabo Ngawang Jigme their highest Tibet official. Ngabo's son,
Jigme Ngabo, having benefit of growing up in inner circle of Maoist ruling
class in Beijing, escaped from PRCand now runs Tibetan section of Radio Free
Asia.
>
>(Perysnally, I want to make it clear I have
>no problem with Tibetan Buddhists on this subject.
>I haven't met any that outright lie when pushed
>on this subject. The Dalai Lama waffles himself, but
>he will admit to much as well. It is usually
>anti-communist propagandists who lie extensively.)
Why don't you find out what ordinary Tibetans have to say. The embarassing fact
for MIM is that Maoists have not allowed Tibetans to have their say through
elections (or Chinese for that matter). Maybe the Tibetans need a few more
generations of thought reform through labor before the society of "former
slaves" can be trusted to vote the party line. Common sense must require more
than intellectual excercise - else we would see the Maoists advocating an end
to the bullshit discussions of the past and immediate chance for the masses of
Tibetans and Chinese to hold free elections. Very simple - let the people
decide.
What is MIM's position on the urgency of need for elections in Tibet and PRC?
Does MIM have any problem with letting the people decide? Why not make this
your highest priority? You would not find objection from any Tibet activist.
This is their goal. The only Tibetans who would object might be aristocrats
like Ngabo who enjoy the privileged status of being high up in the inner circle
of CCP.
Tom Duggan posting from Namgyal's account
mi...@mim.org
namgy...@aol.com (Namgyal123) wrote:
mi...@mim.org replies: As we can see from
the above, my critic is prone to speculation
instead of simple work. It's not surprising
s/he doesn't know very much. This is the kind
of activist Rage is siding with--a
lazy know-nothing.
> >
> >The following from the Washington
> >Post is on the Dalai Lama's official
> >web site that he calls the government in exile.
> >
> > http://www.tibet.com/NewsRoom/crossroads.html
> >
> >"While love for the Dalai Lama overflows in Tibet, few Tibetans would
> >welcome a return of the corrupt aristocratic clans that fled with him
> >in 1959 and that comprise the bulk of his advisers. Many Tibetan
> >farmers, for example, have no interest in surrendering the land they
> >gained during China's land reform to the clans. Tibet's former slaves
> >say they, too, don't want their former
> >masters to return to power.
> >
> >"'I've already lived that life once before,' said Wangchuk, a
> >67-year-old former slave who was wearing his best clothes for his
yearly
> >pilgrimage to Shigatse, one of the holiest sites of Tibetan Buddhism.
He
> >said he worshiped the Dalai Lama, but added, 'I may not be free under
> >Chinese communism,
>
> Why not?
>
> but I am better off than when I was a slave.'"
>
> Did he use a Tibetan word better translated as serf?
mi...@mim.org replies:
Ask his Holiness the DL. The article
is on his web page.
>
> >
> >OK, so let's cut with the bullshit denials on this
> >newsgroup.
> >
> >Like I already said, the real defenders (not
> >the anti-communist hacks) say the Dalai Lama
> >was too young and that they want modernization.
> >All that I raised on this NG is that it is not
> >a good idea to put the supposedly reformed old
> >ruling class back in power.
>
> Why raise that here? Raise it with PRC. They put Ngabo and Panchen
lama in
> power! I have never seen any Tibet activist on this new group suggest
anything
> other than referenda or elections for Tibetans to determine their own
leaders.
mi...@mim.org replies: What a crock of shit.
DL was already in power before Mao's China did
anything. See how readily this persyn distorts
things? Rage, this is the kind of scum you are
siding with.
> After the Civil War,
> >the whites in the South eventually claimed to give
> >up slavery as well. Bringing back the Confederacy
> >is still not a good idea. History is full of cases
> >of backward motion. Let the old thing die out and
> >let the Tibetan nationalist movement if there is
> >one, find a new generation of leaders, most sensibly,
> >the former slaves or descendants of slaves themselves
> >leading it.
>
> The Tibetans outside of PRC are doing just that. It is those under PRC
who
> don't have the chance to choose their own leadership or system. If it
makes
> sense for Tibetans, why not for Maoists. Mao was from a middle class
landlord
> family. He saw no problem with making himself emperor of PRC. PRC
made
> aristocrat Ngabo Ngawang Jigme their highest Tibet official. Ngabo's
son,
> Jigme Ngabo, having benefit of growing up in inner circle of Maoist
ruling
> class in Beijing, escaped from PRCand now runs Tibetan section of
Radio Free
> Asia.
mi...@mim.org replies: Uh, you'll notice
I said that former slaves should lead.
I didn't say there should be majority rule.
The slaves were the minority. The theocrats
were a good chunk and the serfs were the largest
group.
Right now, the old system requires Tibetan
Buddhists to follow the instructions of the Dalai
Lama. That system has to go. They would just
vote for whoever the DL says, while the slaves
could be shafted again.
This is a perfect example
of why majority rule does not work where the
question of slavery is at stake. Thank you for
pointing out the flaws of "democracy" and your
attempt to confuse the issue of majority rule
with eliminating slavery. It seems that you
want to talk about everything BUT slavery.
All you do is prove that your type of
activist would come to power with vague and
evasive ideas and not hit the nail on the head.
That runs from not knowing the definition of
slavery to thinking majority rule fixes anything
in slavery.
In the US NORTH, prior to the Civil War only 7%
of New York whites wanted the Blacks to have the
right to vote. So a majority held elections and
turned down progressive ideas. Even if Blacks
could have voted, they still would have lost
overwhelmingly. The issue had to be settled by
WAR where the North needed the sacrifice of 38,000
Blacks to win. In Tibet there is no difference,
Mao's Red Army tipped the balance against slavery.
More nonsense from my critic on elections below.
Elections are fine for questions that are not
life-and-death. On the question of slavery
or survival needs there can be no compromise with anyone, be it
a majority or not. If the Dalai Lama and his
majority asks someone to be a slave or starve
to death in the name of property, f*** his
"democracy" and f*** his capitalism.
Namgyal123
>Message-id: <80kb7k$snd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
We must be getting somewhere near the heart of things as MIM is flipping out at
this point. MIM claims that all MIM raised on this NG is that it isn't a good
idea to put the supposedly reformed old ruling class back in power. I point out
that that is what PRC has done with Ngabo and Panchen Lama. I point out that I
have never seen Tibet activists on this NG suggest anything other than
referenda or elections for Tibetans to determine their own leaders. MIM calls
this idea "a crock of shit".
Read all of MIM's stuff below. What is not there is an unequivocal demand for
free elections for Tibetans or Chinese. Apparently 50 years of "liberation"
doesn't give MIM much confidence the people would vote the right way.
You are telling the wrong people. Tell the PRC who put Mao, Ngabo and Panchen
Lama in power. Neither Tibet activists nor dalai Lama are making the decisions
about whose in power over Tibet people.
>I didn't say there should be majority rule.
That's for sure!!!!!!!!
>The slaves were the minority. The theocrats
>were a good chunk and the serfs were the largest
>group.
>
>Right now, the old system requires Tibetan
>Buddhists to follow the instructions of the Dalai
>Lama.
That system has to go. They would just
>vote for whoever the DL says, while the slaves
>could be shafted again.
Where do you get this stuff? How do you know how Tibetans would vote ? The
psychic network?
>
>This is a perfect example
>of why majority rule does not work where the
>question of slavery is at stake. Thank you for
>pointing out the flaws of "democracy"
Flawed or not, MIM is posting from Ann Arbor Michigan. Here is one place MIM
and I seem to be in agreement - better to live in US than in PRC. Maybe I've
missed something but I haven't heard of hordes of American Maoists flocking to
Beijing to enjoy the benefits of Maoism firsthand.
Glenn Freeman
Its the U.$.-based "Maoist 'EnterNationsAll' est movement"
Run for your lives!!! Or, flock to America...
mi...@mim.org wrote:
> Yes, I would have been honored
> to live in Mao's China.
> People flock here because this
> is where the wealth is
mi...@mim.org
namgy...@aol.com (Namgyal123) wrote:
[snip, Tom Duggan posted:]
> Flawed or not, MIM is posting from Ann Arbor Michigan. Here is one
place MIM
> and I seem to be in agreement - better to live in US than in PRC.
Maybe I've
> missed something but I haven't heard of hordes of American Maoists
flocking to
> Beijing to enjoy the benefits of Maoism firsthand.
mi...@mim.org replies: The truth is
the truth no matter where one
posts it from. 2+2=4 and slavery
is an outrage.
Your real point here is good
ole' Amerikkkan patriotism. Just
flatter those people real good.
Yes, I would have been honored
to live in Mao's China. The way
things have worked out, people
from here who go there have been
viewed as spies and rightly so.
Besides, knowing the lay of the land,
plenty of people here should be
working to change this place instead
of escaping their responsibility
for bringing down U.$. imperialism.
People flock here because this
is where the wealth is--obtained
through slavery, genocide and robbing
of colonies blind. Today the U$A also
benefits from giving military aid
to dictators who hold wages down to
50 cents an hour on average in the
Third World. Most of the world's
people do not have as much free
speech as Amerikkkans, because
of U.$. military aid.
But you digress, and I know why
you digress. Your movement is
covering up the truth about slavery.
--
## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
# # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
# # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
# # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
lambchopz
> I don't care what culture, slavery has to go.
Funny hearing a maoist rail against anti-slavery issues.. When the maoist
regime is BASED in slavery....
Work or die.
Lambchopz
-feel that burn silly bitch??
-
<mi...@mim.org> wrote in message news:80ntmi$79j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <80iehk$e3i$1...@scotty.tinet.ie>,
> "Anna" <aod...@eircom.nospam.net> wrote:
> [snip on Ireland]
> > > Slavery is not just any "humanitarian reason."
> > > Invading to bring McDonald's is not a good reason.
> > > (That's leaving aside that the Rand McNally map
> > > of 1943 (when communists were not in
> > > control of China) already showed Tibet as part of China,
> > > which means that your claim of invasion is
> > > debateable from the beginning.)
> >
> > Oh please, talk about splitting hairs! What if the mapmaker was having
> an
> > off day and decided, 'Bugger all this for a game of soldiers, I've
> just
> > dropped my favourite pencil and I couldn't be arsed drawing the rest
> of this
> > map. I think I'll just leave this line out. Hey lads, I'm off for a
> cuppa,
> > anyone else fancy one?'
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: This is encouraging
> lazy relativism as if all evidence and non-
> evidence is equal. Your proper reply would
> be to point to all the world's maps that
> DO include Tibet before communism. This sort of reply
> encourages everyone to 'bugger the evidence.
>
>
>
> >
> > > In fact, even the chance to abolish feudalism
> > > and serfdom like they existed in Tibet is not
> > > something to pass up.
> >
> > Who are you (or the Chinese for that matter) to decide what to pass
> up?
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Humyn. That's who I am!
> I don't care what culture, slavery has to go.
> That's internationalism. Internationalism is not
> just anything goes.
>
> Rage claims to be for "human rights" by pointing
> to Amnesty International in its latest album jacket.
> How about the non-negotiable "human right" not to
> be a slave?
>
> I think here we are getting into the difference between
> "human rights" activism as is typically seen in the
> West and Marxism as movement for non-negotiable "human
> rights." The Western "human rights" movement is usually
> just concerned with things that threaten the middle-
> and upper- classes.
>
> >
> > > There are some things like slavery that can
> > > be abolished by war. Then the violence of slavery
> > > is gone.
> >
> > Really? How very innocent of you.
> > So, after abolishing the nasty Dalai Lama and his horrible
> saffron-clad
> > followers, why didn't those lovely lads from China go home?
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Maybe they would have or maybe
> Tibet had some unoccupied land and China had some
> mouths to feed or maybe they learned something from
> US Reconstruction.
>
>
> > I can see it now...1949 outside the Potala...hordes of grateful
> Tibetans
> > having a giant street party, singing songs and clapping the PLA on
> their
> > backs with cries of 'Thanks a bunch, China. Listen Wong, me old mate,
> no
> > need to hang about here in Lhasa, we can take it from here, thanks all
> the
> > same.'
> > But oh no, those terminally helpful boys from Beijing insist (merely
> out of
> > die-hard Oriental politeness I'm sure!) on sticking around, you know
> the
> > sort of thing; build a few barracks, root out a few ancient monkish
> > counter-revolutionaries. Just trying to be helpful, I expect.
> > And it's decades later and they're STILL trying to help those poor
> Tibetans!
> > Oh what a friend we have in China.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: As we see in the post
> in the NG referring to the Panchen Lama child, religion
> continues its strong influence. The people
> literally believe in the Dalai Lama and
> Panchen Lama.
>
> Conditions have to modernize before people give up
> tightly held ideas including slavery.
>
>
> >
> > > Where did you stand on the U$ Civil War?
> >
> > Ancient history, mate. That was in the middle of the last century.
> Everyone
> > who held a view on that conflict at that time is now long dead.
> > However, my grandparents remember the Irish Civil War in early 1920's
> and
> > they taught me one thing: War is stupid, it's a bloody failure of
> rational
> > human beings to realise that ideas are not worth killing for, worth
> dying
> > for, yes, but not worth taking another life over.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: There you have it. People were
> supposed to go on dying in captivity from the whims of
> their masters, but war that threatens comfortable people
> is considered unjust. Are there any people on this
> NG who SUPPORT Lincoln AND the "Free Tibet" movement
> the way it exists now? I'd like to hear how they rationalize their
> opposition to what I am saying.
rain
> mi...@mim.org replies: This is encouraging
> lazy relativism as if all evidence and non-
> evidence is equal. Your proper reply would
> be to point to all the world's maps that
> DO include Tibet before communism. This sort of reply
> encourages everyone to 'bugger the evidence.
<l> This sounds like a quiz show... "sorry, the correct answer is..."
First of all- when you say that the maps "include" Tibet, are you saying
that they also include Tabet as a part of China, or are you saying that
they include tibet on the map as a nation independent of China?
going with the latter: well, while that would have been good evidence to
discredit what you said, I doubt she had the time or resources to run
out and reference every world map in print before responding to you. And
while it's kind of an important point to make, a small newsgroup debate
probably isn't top priority. <shrug>
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: As we see in the post
> in the NG referring to the Panchen Lama child, religion
> continues its strong influence. The people
> literally believe in the Dalai Lama and
> Panchen Lama.
>
> Conditions have to modernize before people give up
> tightly held ideas including slavery.
Yes, the tibetans believe in the various Lamas.
It's their religion, like you said. When conditions modernize more, it
will still be their religion. An entire nation of people will not "give
up tightly held ideas" like their entire faith. ALthough I suppose
there's at least a small chance that, if the chinese left, they would
try a system that isn't a theocracy. I don't know, that's something you
could only find out by surveying the tibetan people...
And it seems unlikely to me that any of them would be holding on to the
idea of slavery, except maybe some of the aristocracy.
Anna wrote:
> > Ancient history, mate. That was in the middle of the last century.
> Everyone
> > who held a view on that conflict at that time is now long dead.
Maybe the people directly involved are long dead, but try telling some
of their descendents that "The War" is over... (I live in upstate south
carolina. I know these things ;)
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Are there any people on this
> NG who SUPPORT Lincoln AND the "Free Tibet" movement
> the way it exists now? I'd like to hear how they rationalize their
> opposition to what I am saying.
Well, tell me about the "Free Tibet" movement as it is now, as you know
it.
In everything I've read about it, no one has ever said "Let's try to
make everything *just* as it was before the Chinese invaded. Let's
reinstitute slavery!!"
"Free Tibet" is not synonymous with "Bring back slavery in Tibet".
Brian Jackson
namgy...@aol.com (Namgyal123) wrote:
>mi...@mim.org wrote:
>>What a crock of shit.
>>DL was already in power before Mao's China did
>>anything.
You have your sentence order mixed up here. It makes better sense this
way:
>>DL was already in power before Mao's China did anything.
>>What a crock of shit.
Dalai Lama was hurriedly given the powers of government *after* the
Chinese invasion had begun. He was 16 years old, the usual age for
Dalai Lamas to take active control from the Regent was 18.
>>See how readily this persyn distorts
>>things? Rage, this is the kind of scum you are
>>siding with.
You didn't directly address a single one of the points directed to
you. But your words here are a concise example of classic ComProp as
currently practiced by the Peoples' Lords and their mouthpieces like
China Daily, Tibet Daily etc. Accuse your opponent/rival of precisely
your own sins (your lie at the top being a handy example). Then call
to comrades! "Resist this debased, conniving" etc. individual/group.
>We must be getting somewhere near the heart of things as MIM is flipping out at
>this point. MIM claims that all MIM raised on this NG is that it isn't a good
>idea to put the supposedly reformed old ruling class back in power. I point out
>that that is what PRC has done with Ngabo and Panchen Lama. I point out that I
>have never seen Tibet activists on this NG suggest anything other than
>referenda or elections for Tibetans to determine their own leaders. MIM calls
>this idea "a crock of shit".
This idea that self-determination for Tibetans is in some way
equivalent to restoration of feudal theocracy is one of the favourite
red herring, but this fish is old and rather inedible. Neither exiled
Tibetans, their government nor Dalai Lama himself have ever advocated
such a regression. He wants no more part in government or politics,
and wants the Tibetan people to decide for themselves whether or not
the institution should continue at all. The Thais, and I would say
most nations, would not be in favour of returning to whatever regime
they had 50 years ago.
In fact Dalai Lama had recognised that the system seriously needed to
be changed in his country, while it was still governed by the Regent.
That would have made him, let's say 14 or 15 years old. What are most
children doing at that age? Armchair commies in Ann Arbor and China's
ultra-nationalists living in freedom (not to mention the scribes at
the Peoples Department of Information) have no problem calling him a
vicious slavemaster over Tibet - and worse, that he wants to go back
only to do more torture and slavery! MIM is just China Daily with a
slightly different flavour.
>Read all of MIM's stuff below. What is not there is an unequivocal demand for
>free elections for Tibetans or Chinese. Apparently 50 years of "liberation"
>doesn't give MIM much confidence the people would vote the right way.
What was Maoist International's position on the Timor referendum, I
wonder? How 'bout it, MIM? Care to fill us in? When the colonist is a
staunchly anti-communist regime, *then* how do you feel about
democratic self determination?
This one just sums it all up, and needs no further comment.
>>If the Dalai Lama and his majority asks someone to be a slave
>>or starve to death in the name of property, f*** his "democracy"
>>and f*** his capitalism.
Other than to note that he points to you Tom, as a "persyn" (PC-speak
or something?.) who "distorts things". Common ComProp transference.
Brian
--
I was in the midst of a privileged insider tour of the mind of the grand
inquisitor, I was his sole audience, and it was up to me to find my lines.
-- Gabriel Lafitte, "illegal interviewer",
on his interrogation by China's security apparatus
guard...@my-deja.com
> >>DL was already in power before Mao's China did anything.
>
> >>What a crock of shit.
>
> Chinese invasion had begun. He was 16 years old, the usual age for
> Dalai Lamas to take active control from the Regent was 18.
>
not totally accurate, no matter how young he was given the power of
government the PLA takeover of Tibet in 1951 was totally an internal
affair of China, not 'invasion'. Since 1914 the Tibetan Government has
recognized its subordination of China.
Guardiangel
mi...@mim.org
"Anna" <aod...@eircom.nospam.net> wrote:
[snip on Ireland]
> > Slavery is not just any "humanitarian reason."
> > Invading to bring McDonald's is not a good reason.
> > (That's leaving aside that the Rand McNally map
> > of 1943 (when communists were not in
> > control of China) already showed Tibet as part of China,
> > which means that your claim of invasion is
> > debateable from the beginning.)
>
> Oh please, talk about splitting hairs! What if the mapmaker was having
an
> off day and decided, 'Bugger all this for a game of soldiers, I've
just
> dropped my favourite pencil and I couldn't be arsed drawing the rest
of this
> map. I think I'll just leave this line out. Hey lads, I'm off for a
cuppa,
> anyone else fancy one?'
mi...@mim.org replies: This is encouraging
lazy relativism as if all evidence and non-
evidence is equal. Your proper reply would
be to point to all the world's maps that
DO include Tibet before communism. This sort of reply
encourages everyone to 'bugger the evidence.
>
mi...@mim.org replies: As we see in the post
in the NG referring to the Panchen Lama child, religion
continues its strong influence. The people
literally believe in the Dalai Lama and
Panchen Lama.
Conditions have to modernize before people give up
tightly held ideas including slavery.
>
> > Where did you stand on the U$ Civil War?
>
> Ancient history, mate. That was in the middle of the last century.
Everyone
> who held a view on that conflict at that time is now long dead.
> However, my grandparents remember the Irish Civil War in early 1920's
and
> they taught me one thing: War is stupid, it's a bloody failure of
rational
> human beings to realise that ideas are not worth killing for, worth
dying
> for, yes, but not worth taking another life over.
mi...@mim.org replies: There you have it. People were
supposed to go on dying in captivity from the whims of
their masters, but war that threatens comfortable people
is considered unjust. Are there any people on this
NG who SUPPORT Lincoln AND the "Free Tibet" movement
the way it exists now? I'd like to hear how they rationalize their
opposition to what I am saying.
--
## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
# # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
# # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
# # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
guard...@my-deja.com
guard...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > >>DL was already in power before Mao's China did anything.
> >
> > >>What a crock of shit.
> >
> > Chinese invasion had begun. He was 16 years old, the usual age for
> > Dalai Lamas to take active control from the Regent was 18.
> >
>
> not totally accurate, no matter how young he was given the power of
> government the PLA takeover of Tibet in 1951 was totally an internal
> affair of China, not 'invasion'. Since 1914 the Tibetan Government has
> recognized its subordination of China.
>
"subordination to China"
^^^^
Guardiangel
Heijma
> rain <nae...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> mi...@mim.org replies:
>
>> > be abolished by war. Then the violence of slavery
>> > is gone.
>>
>>
>> katie
>
>mi...@mim.org replies: You sound pretty
>sure of something without referencing anything.
>
>Here is what a 15-year-old ex-lama-in-training
>had to say in between 1935 and 1939 when
>Ms. Snow interviewed him, but definitely way before Mao
>came to power, at least 10 years before:
>
>
>"I entered the lamasery to study when I was seven,
>but now I don't believe in any religion. Religion
>is feudalism, and it is the opium of the Tibetan
>people. . . British imperialism is very bad in
>Tibet. . . And the lamas work with the British
>instead of standing for Tibetan independence."
>
>Helen Foster Snow,(new intro by raving anti-communist
>Harrison Salisbury) Inside Red China (NY: Da Capo Press,
>(reprint of original Doubleday & Co, 1939 book), 1979),
>p. 159.
The above is a good example of propaganda. You can say anything, and you even
can underbuild it with references. It just depends on which resources you use.
If you quote something, there are lots and lots of other quotes to prove you
wrong. It's simple to prove something if referring to only one quote, and some
so-called 'evidence' to go with it. I could ofcourse use a quote now, coming
from some great dictator, who let propaganda work for him (like Mao).
But I won't.
The only thing I'd like to say is that for any statement there are thousands of
supporting references, and another thousand to prove the statement wrong. So
this is a very weak defense, dear maoist international movement.
Heijma
Ofcourse, slavery is not nice. You limit someone else's freedom. Still, if we
are goin'on blabbering about historic facts, let me give you one:
The Roman Empire (I am no Nazi-fanatic, but everyone reacting has been using a
bit randomly chosen references, so here's mine)
was built on the backs of slaves. If the slaves hadn't been there, this whole
world (especially Europe and America) would have looked different. Maybe for
the best, but maybe for the worst.
I understand that this doesn't make slavery a good thing, and I would be damned
if I'd provoce the surpression of human beings, but this little fact just IS a
FACT. You can't turn it around.
And Tibet can't turn around its history. But what if you let history be
history, because this all is history. Don't judge it as bad or good. Judge now.
Referring to history never did anything good for countries. Look at Kosovo. The
Serviers referred to a myth, a warstory that happened around 1300-1400. They
still claim Kosovo, because they would have resisted the Asian regime to go
further West.
It shows great weakness to bring up old facts and twist them to fit in your
defense. So don't. The past is the past. We're all pretty sorry it all
happened, but it cannot be changed. So stop going on about it. Move on.
And something else really got me angry: >mi...@mim.org replies: Maybe they
would have or maybe
>Tibet had some unoccupied land and China had some
>mouths to feed or maybe they learned something from
>US Reconstruction.
Tibet had unoccupied land. Every bit of land was from time to time occupied,
and, by the way, if you only need that piece of land, why take it all?
And China had some mouths to feed. Well, Tibet had too. Now many tibetans are
living in poverty and hunger because 1 billion chinese didn't know how to
behave and started eating from other people's plates.
Maybe they learned something from US Reconstruction. Oh, so now it's all their
fault, huh? So you follow a VERY BAD EXAMPLE?!!?? Have you no integrity left?
This is the worst statement I heard in centuries. Blaming the US for being the
example for the invasion. Something isn't understood if you follow its example
in this way!
Heijma
>> in the NG referring to the Panchen Lama child, religion
>> continues its strong influence. The people
>> literally believe in the Dalai Lama and
>> Panchen Lama.
Oh yeah, that is a really bad thing. It would have been if the Dalai Lama was a
powersick maniac like Mao. But he isn't.
Mao has done a lot of bad things to bring China where it is now (which is not
the greatest position). He had power over all people. But he abused it. I never
heard about mass-humiliation and mass-execution in Tibet, so the Dalai Lama and
the Panchen Lama can't be worse than your sweetheart Mao.
Buddah Belly
everything that is going on over there is inviolate of human nature and
anything that is normal.I have been with chats in the area and they seem
to have a lateda
understandiing of what is actuallly going on.
I'f there is anything that I can do by email to anyone do not hesitate
to let me know.
mi...@mim.org
hei...@cs.com (Heijma) wrote:
> >In article <80i5di$nin$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > rain <nae...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> mi...@mim.org replies:
mi...@mim.org replies: Well then I guess we
don't have to read anything or know
anything, do we. So I suppose you should
not bother writing.
--
## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
# # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
# # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
# # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
mi...@mim.org
"lambchopz" <lambc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > mi...@mim.org replies: Humyn. That's who I am!
> > I don't care what culture, slavery has to go.
>
maoist
> regime is BASED in slavery....
>
> Work or die.
>
> Lambchopz
> -feel that burn silly bitch??
mi...@mim.org replies: Another case of
someone who does not know what slavery is.
mi...@mim.org
rain <nae...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> mi...@mim.org wrote:
> Anna wrote:
> > > Ancient history, mate. That was in the middle of the last century.
> > Everyone
> > > who held a view on that conflict at that time is now long dead.
>
> Maybe the people directly involved are long dead, but try telling some
> of their descendents that "The War" is over... (I live in upstate
south
> carolina. I know these things ;)
mi...@mim.org replies: You are right about that.
It's not just SC either. That's why I'm surprised
to see the reaction we have here on the Rage NG.
It seems like this Tibet thing should have rung a lot
of bells.
The Reconstruction period saw some quick advances
for Blacks. When the North ended its capitalist
dictatorship over the ex-slavemasters, Blacks lost their
right to vote.
In 1865 the Civil War ended. Hayes became president
in 1876 and started tearing down the gains of the
Black people. He pulled back the Northern troops, and guess
what happened? Jim Crow and the end of Black voting
happened.
Some people in this NG are complaining that a Chinese
army has played a role in Tibet for 40 years. Yet
it wasn't till 100 years after the U.S. Civil War that
Blacks got the same voting protections of everyone
else. Change does not happen overnight, or even
after 11 years of occupation as the South proves.
Somebody will undoubtedly make the comment that
I don't favor elections. It's true. The Jim Crow,
the KKK activism, especially the first 60 years
after the Civil War, the lynchings--all these
were hastened by a withdrawl of Northern troops
from the South. It's not just one issue--elections,
or two issues, elections plus slavery. Slavery
was the basic fact of economic life, but it
brought many other things with it in a world where
people grew up expecting Blacks to be inferior.
Some of the people in this NG are advocating
obviously facile positions. There is no way
slavery can be eliminated and then have no problems
from it overnight. That's especially true if the
movement coming back to power is either ignorant/mystic
or in denial (Western supporters). There are many
in the U$A still in denial about slavery,
what it took to end it and the other attitudes that
went with it. Likewise, the people in this NG
in denial, the people unable to define slavery and
the people seeking to evade "Comprop" prove
that there are still social forces that would set
back Tibet. They twist and turn instead of
facing facts honestly.
mi...@mim.org
mi...@mim.org replies: You remind me of Cordelia
on the TV show "Angel," except
you aren't working with "Angel."
History? Eh, too much effort.
Get rid of slavery? So what.
Build highways that cost lives? So what.
It's always easy for you to say, and I doubt
you are so cavalier in your attitudes when
the doctor gives you advice on how to save
your own life.
We believe history should be studied, and causation
patterns noted. You think it is just so much of
something under the bridge. Not so.
>
> And something else really got me angry: >mi...@mim.org replies: Maybe
they
> would have or maybe
> >Tibet had some unoccupied land and China had some
> >mouths to feed or maybe they learned something from
> >US Reconstruction.
>
> Tibet had unoccupied land. Every bit of land was from time to time
occupied,
> and, by the way, if you only need that piece of land, why take it all?
> And China had some mouths to feed. Well, Tibet had too. Now many
tibetans are
> living in poverty and hunger because 1 billion chinese didn't know how
to
> behave and started eating from other people's plates.
> Maybe they learned something from US Reconstruction. Oh, so now it's
all their
> fault, huh? So you follow a VERY BAD EXAMPLE?!!?? Have you no
integrity left?
mi...@mim.org replies: You just got done saying
history is history. Now you are telling me
I raise a "VERY BAD EXAMPLE?!!??" Make up your
mind. Either history is done and gone like you
said or it matters like I said.
And if it is a very bad example, then make
an argument, not just words with uppercase letters.
I suspect you don't really know much about
US Reconstruction, because otherwise you would
have realized that Amerikkkans that dominate these
NGs should have something to think about when they
talk about Tibet.
rain
> It's not just SC either. That's why I'm surprised
> to see the reaction we have here on the Rage NG.
> It seems like this Tibet thing should have rung a lot
> of bells.
Ah, I see your point now.
(and yeah, it's definitely not just in SC. It's sad how much of the
south is still hung up on the Confederacy and all of that... I just
used my place of residence as support that "yes I know what I'm talking
about! I *live* with these people!")
> Some people in this NG are complaining that a Chinese
> army has played a role in Tibet for 40 years. Yet
> it wasn't till 100 years after the U.S. Civil War that
> Blacks got the same voting protections of everyone
> else. Change does not happen overnight, or even
> after 11 years of occupation as the South proves.
>
> Some of the people in this NG are advocating
> obviously facile positions. There is no way
> slavery can be eliminated and then have no problems
> from it overnight. That's especially true if the
> movement coming back to power is either ignorant/mystic
> or in denial (Western supporters).
That's very true. As at least a few intelligent people (such as
Jefferson) pointed out in the pre-abolition days, you can't just turn
loose people who have been slaves all of their lives and expect them to
adapt and live normally.
Okay, I gather that your argument here is that the Chinese are working
to mend things in post-slavery tibet, and we just don't see the results
of their efforts yet because it hasn't been long enough. While I don't
know much about what the Chinese have done to the country economically,
I know that they haven't exactly been treating their citizens, chinese
or otherwise, with much respect for their human rights or rights to
individual culture, and I don't see how this is helping post-slavery
social conditions.
I don't think you've described exactly what you think they've been doing
to fix things. But I'd like to hear. From your perspective, what have
the Chinese been doing to help the Tibetans, and restore their society?
And how many of their efforts truely *have* helped?
lambchopz
Okay, i'll bite...What is slavery?
Lambchopz
-waiting patiently for your reply.
Namgyal123
>Message-id: <80qush$db6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <382F8F4E...@mindspring.com>,
> rain <nae...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
>> Anna wrote:
>> > > Ancient history, mate. That was in the middle of the last century.
>> > Everyone
>> > > who held a view on that conflict at that time is now long dead.
>>
>> Maybe the people directly involved are long dead, but try telling some
>> of their descendents that "The War" is over... (I live in upstate
>south
>> carolina. I know these things ;)
>
>It's not just SC either. That's why I'm surprised
>to see the reaction we have here on the Rage NG.
>It seems like this Tibet thing should have rung a lot
>of bells.
>
>for Blacks. When the North ended its capitalist
>dictatorship over the ex-slavemasters, Blacks lost their
>right to vote.
>
>In 1865 the Civil War ended. Hayes became president
>in 1876 and started tearing down the gains of the
>Black people. He pulled back the Northern troops, and guess
>what happened? Jim Crow and the end of Black voting
>happened.
>
>army has played a role in Tibet for 40 years. Yet
>it wasn't till 100 years after the U.S. Civil War that
>Blacks got the same voting protections of everyone
>else. Change does not happen overnight, or even
>after 11 years of occupation as the South proves.
>
>I don't favor elections. It's true. The Jim Crow,
>the KKK activism, especially the first 60 years
>after the Civil War, the lynchings--all these
>were hastened by a withdrawl of Northern troops
>from the South. It's not just one issue--elections,
>or two issues, elections plus slavery. Slavery
>was the basic fact of economic life, but it
>brought many other things with it in a world where
>people grew up expecting Blacks to be inferior.
>
>obviously facile positions. There is no way
>slavery can be eliminated and then have no problems
>from it overnight. That's especially true if the
>movement coming back to power is either ignorant/mystic
>in the U$A still in denial about slavery,
>what it took to end it and the other attitudes that
>went with it. Likewise, the people in this NG
>in denial, the people unable to define slavery and
>the people seeking to evade "Comprop" prove
>that there are still social forces that would set
>back Tibet. They twist and turn instead of
>facing facts honestly.
>
MIM is the one ignorant of facts of Tibet. We have personal stories of those
who have fled Chinese and best efforts of human rights groups to find out what
is going on now. MIM seems to be ignorant of racist attitudes of many Chinese
toward Tibetans. MIM references Charles Bell regarding incidences of slavery
on periphery of Tibet (in the 1920's or 30's)- meaning it was spilling over
into remote areas of Tibet from China and India - hardly a central part of
Tibetan life and culture - possibly completely outside the power of the Tibetan
Government. MIM seems to have some concern for slaves in US. Maybe it's time
for MIM to go as a tourist to Tibet and see firsthand how Tibetans live under
Chinese. MIM could ask to meet the slaves who were liberated by Mao and go
into the field to find out the reality and extent of these stories.
mi...@mim.org
rain <nae...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > mi...@mim.org replies: You are right about that.
> > It's not just SC either. That's why I'm surprised
> > to see the reaction we have here on the Rage NG.
> > It seems like this Tibet thing should have rung a lot
> > of bells.
>
>
> (and yeah, it's definitely not just in SC. It's sad how much of the
> south is still hung up on the Confederacy and all of that... I just
> used my place of residence as support that "yes I know what I'm
talking
> about! I *live* with these people!")
mi...@mim.org replies: If people hurry,
they can see this story at the CNN
site on what is going on with the
Confederacy STILL.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/19/flag.ap/index.html
mi...@mim.org
> I don't think you've described exactly what you think they've been
doing
> to fix things. But I'd like to hear. From your perspective, what
have
> the Chinese been doing to help the Tibetans, and restore their
society?
> And how many of their efforts truely *have* helped?
mi...@mim.org replies:
It's tough to answer this question, because
thus far I have been able to rely on British
and Dalai Lama sources to make my argument.
There haven't been a lot of people in a good
position to talk about Tibet before and after.
If I told you what the communists said,
there'd be screams of "propaganda." Even when
I say what the Dalai Lama's web site
says, you hear screams of "propaganda."
Let's just say you need to find some books.
One is "When Serfs Stood up in Tibet" by
the American Anna Louise Strong. There is
also the official Chinese book titled "Great
Changes in Tibet." See if you can find a 1972
edition. Another source would be Peking Review.
In my experience,
not a single "Free Tibet" activist tabling
had ever heard about the dispute regarding
slavery in Tibet. It goes without saying
they never read the communist side. Correct
me if I am wrong anyone on talk.politics.tibet
who is for "Free Tibet"?! Have you read
"When Serfs Stood up in Tibet"?
I have read "Freedom in Exile" and other
Dalai Lama publications.
One thing--things like building roads,
schools, hospitals should not be overlooked.
Building roads is no big deal in the U$A
anymore, but in India, Tibet and other
parts of China, it can still involve a lot
of deaths. This is something admitted
by the Dalai Lama as well in the "Freedom in
Exile" book.
The biggest and best change aside from
abolishing slavery is the land reform.
No country anywhere ever goes forward
economically without land reform. We
Marxists do side with capitalism above
feudalism. Taiwan, southern Korea, China--
these are moving along economically because
they got rid of semi-feudalism, thanks
to the strength of communist movements.
(I post to talk.politics.tibet to see if
there are any denials out there on this
central point more important to the world's
hundreds of millions of malnourished or starving
peasants than anything else.)
The most important thing to mention is
that it is not what the Han Chinese have
done in Tibet that is so important. They
tipped the military balance toward the
slaves. The "Free Tibet" movement would
like you to believe that it all just
Chinese conflict with Tibetans. They are
apt to point to violence or destroyed relics
or damages from the Cultural Revolution. What
they don't show you is the Tibetans fighting
Tibetans. Under Mao, a slave womyn who
had been a slave nine years was the
leader of the party in Tibet and as I already
posted, there were Tibetans in the Red Army
of Mao's before 1939, never mind 1949
(Liberation) or 1959 (when Tibet had a civil
war and the Dalai Lama fled).
I am not interested in debating whether
or not Tibet modernized "enough" under
Mao. That dispute should really start
with the Tibetan communist leadership
and even moreso the people who resisted
the abolition of slavery, the end of
land reform and other sensible ideas.
The more people resist obvious changes
and go into denial, the harder it is for
an autonomous region or country to go forward.
We know something about that here in the
United $tates.
I'd like to see the "Free Tibet"
activists dispute my point on the
decisiveness of land reform for economic
development. They should also tell us
what they did not like about the Tibetan leaders
in place when Mao was alive.
Kim
Anna wrote:
> <mi...@mim.org> wrote in message news:80hb8n$qjv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > The Dalai Lama's supporters
> > do not deny that slavery existed.
> > They only say that they don't
> > want to bring it back now and the
> > Dalai Lama was too young to do anything
> > about it.
> >
> > This latter point is making excuses
> > for a political system, because if the
> > system has someone in charge who is
> > too young to do something about slavery,
> > then there is something wrong with the
> > system. The regents who were in charge
> > while children were growing up would
> > be to blame and they would be to
> > blame because the political system
> > was so poor it needed to be overthrown.
> >
>
> So that gives the Chinese the right to invade a country ethnically and
> culturally separate to their own?
We can continue to discuss what happened in history but the current situation is
more important than history. Tibet is part of China and there are already more
Chinese than Tibetians in Tibet so Tibet independence is un-reasonable. Let's
condemn what happened in history but NO Tibet independence!
>
> That's what the British did to Ireland in the last few centuries with almost
> exactly the same results as we are seeing in Tibet now, i.e., famine, death
> of human beings and of culture, followed up with a massive wave of
> emigration. Funny really, as they defended it as 'improving' the lot of the
> average Irish person, just as the Chinese now make truly unbelievable claims
> to have 'liberated' Tibet. Yeah, right. Thanks but no thanks, I for one
> could do without that kind of help.
> But then again, I guess it's always the conquerors who write the histories,
> eh?
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-communist, that ideology has a lot of good
> principles BUT it doesn't excuse invasions and killings in the name of
> 'liberation'.
> History is full of incidents when one big, powerful country overwhelms and
> absorbs a smaller neighbour. Usually there's some 'humanitarian' reason
> given by the aggressor, but it still comes down to who's bigger and stronger
> and can force the issue and get away with it.
> China did it to Tibet.
> England did it to Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
> The US tried it in Cuba, Southeast Asia and wherever else they could get
> away with it.
> The USSR did it to Mongolia.
> Etc., etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
> Different ideologies, same results: famine, suffering and death.
Kim
Namgyal123
>Date: Sun, 12 December 1999 09:38 AM EST
>Message-id: <3853B352...@hotmail.com>
Your reasoning is flawed. PRC has long had a one-child policy for Chinese and
no restrictions on children for tibetans and other minorities. As Chinese
population is shrinking there is obviously increasing room for them in China
and as Tibetan population increases, Tibetans have more need of room for
themselves.
TomDuggan