h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I can now see why you feel so strongly about this country. It's a very good article; while it concentrates on the plight of the country it also provides the rudimentary facts easily. You use your sentiments about what is going on in a very good way, showing how wrong it is without sounding preachy.
I had one question, and one grammatical correction. Do you know the age at which he would become the Dalai Lama if not for what happened?
In the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, there is a comma early on that isn't really wrong, but reads awkward. I had to read the sentence a few times to get it.

Thanks Fenchurch.

I think the Dalai Lama is assumed to be the Dalai Lama from birth, as he is the reincarnation of the last Dalai Lama. He doesn't become head of State until age 18, under normal circumstances. The reincarnation of the thirteenth Dalai Lama, the present Dalai Lama, was discovered, after an exhaustive search, at the age of two.

I'll take a peek at the comma. Thanks for the tip.

JTG

Thanks. you were right.

JTG

Yep, now it's perfect.

The seal of approval! Thanks pard'ner!

Hi John, sorry for the late reply but my PC monitor conked out on me so I was PC-less all weekend (don't worry I've *borrowed* one from work for the time being .
I can see no flaws in the Tibet article. The only possible argument against it is that it is 'one sided', but nothing can be as one sided as the Chinese communists so to hell with it (let's not forget Tiananmen Square).
China is a worry, not just with Tibet, but also with what may happen in Taiwan (although I personally feel less bothered about threats to free trade capitalism than I do about threats to spiritual freedom.)
h2g2 staffers should't be concerned with an anti-Chinese bias as the vast percentage of the Chinese are not allowed to know about the internet let alone use it.
Keep up the good work.
- TWF

I'm not anti-Chinese (or anti-anyone, for that matter). The people who are doing this evil business just happen to be Chinese. What gets my ire is that 50 years ago Tibet was a peaceful place, full of simple contented farmers and monks, who wanted nothing more than to be left alone.

JTG

Yeah, if you can't be left alone up some of the highest mountains on Earth, what chance the rest of us

BTW I meant you came across as anti the Chinese-Government, not anti the Chinese-people (like their government seem to be).

Yea, I got that. Sorry if my reply came across a bit prickly WF.

Excellent, JTG! Reading your article earlier would have saved me the bother of watching Brad Pitt play a Nazi. (Actually I didn't think it was that bad)

Here is a question for you. You mention that the Chinese invaded to protect Tibet from foreign oppression. What is their excuse 50 years later? Are they still protecting Tibet, like the crime lord who demands "protection" payments? Or do they consider Tibet a legal part of China?

China is presently pretending that Tibet has always been a part of China. The international community, for the most part, seems willing to play along. Tibet has vanished from the maps. The Chinese argument is that it *used* to be theirs. On the other hand, part of western China used to be Tibetan (Mongolian too, for that matter). France used to be English. England used to be French. The rationale is absurd.

In *this* century Tibet was generally recognised as a sovereign State. In WWII, Combatant nations respected the neutrality of Tibet. If China had a legitimate claim on Tibet, that certainly would not have been the case, with the problems that existed, at the time, supplying China from India.

It's a case of the West getting it's nose bloodied in Korea; and pretending not to see what China was - and is - doing in Tibet, because there's damn all they can do about it. Not forgetting the buck to be made from China, whenever its xenophobia goes into remission.

JTG

Thanks JTG! You might think about adding a line or two about this in your article....

Thanks TVF. I will probably write a follow-up for Ginger's "Soapbox Susie".

You might find this interesting...

http://www.tibet.ca/panchenlama/

Save Tibet is good too.

http://www.savetibet.org/

The last, I linked to in the article.

JTG

Good links, indeed. The Panchen Lama situation is very sad and unfair. I think it is silly that the Chinese have announced the next Dalai Lama will come from Tibet, even if it is still a Chinese-controlled Tibet......

Umm, this may earn me your ill-will...
Historically Tibet was part of China whenever China was strong (5000 years of history for China -- so many ups and downs), and not part of China when China was weak. Most of the contries of the world seem to have acted like this throughout history. They expand when strong, decrease in influence when weak.
I guess I do have a question (being on the China side of the issue...I guess a kind of Chinese nationalism comes into play....even though I'm not Chinese ) How do these other historical claims affect the issue, since we're talking about several times in the course of thousands of years, rather than just the recent 50 year thing?

The issue of ancient history is a moot one, I believe. As you say, national boundaries eb and flo, and history is replete with examples of neighbouring countries exchanging dominance (as has been mentioned earlier in this forum). The historical relationship between China, Tibet, and the Mongol Empire is very complicated, and should really be viewed as a continuum in which political, military, and religious power were shared. As Mongol influence receded, China became the dominant military power, whereas Tibet assumed a dominant role in Chinese buddhist culture. In the 20th century, China had no legal claim whatsoever on Tibet. This is the simple truth, as recognised by the international community.

The issue of sovereignty is less important than the issue of genocide. The Tibetan people are ethnically and culturally distict from the Han Chinese who are occupying their land. The occupation of Tibet came about by armed conquest; the people have been oppressed in the most brutal and inhumane ways imaginable; and their national identity has been systematically destroyed over a period of fifty years.

Please don't take my word for it. Please read:

http://www.icj.org/pub/tibet.htm

This is a report on Tibet by The International Commision of Jurists, an international body not affiliated with any government.

Although I tend to get quite heated about this issue, I wouldn't like to be thought of as being anti-Chinese (or anti-anybody, for that matter). I greatly admire Chinese culture and the Chinese contribution to civilization, which is vast. The occupation of Tibet is a tragic product of the times we live in; I believe that sooner or later the Chinese themselves (as well as the rest of us) will come around to the point of view that life is better for everyone when compassion, mutual respect, and tolerance are the rules we live by.

I appreciate your comments, and I certainly don't bear you any ill-will.

JTG

JTG you put it very well. And I'd like to think I'm not anti-Chinese either. I am anti-coffee however - never could stand the stuff!

Ah, then I'm afraid you would make a very poor civil servant.

JTG

Aren't all civil servants poor? No, just kidding ha-ha-ha.

... but rich in spirit.