It is unfair and indeed false to claim that Indrajala is perpetuating racist views. The idea that Tibetans are backwards isn't racist, but saying that Sino-Tibetan or Mongoloids are genetically inferior and therefore backwards is. Tibet clearly was backwards relative to the rest of the world, and to claim that is to make an economic, cultural and social claim completely divorced from the strands of DNA the Tibetans are made up of.JKhedrup wrote:However when a nuanced picture is brought in, or other issues, we are accused of derailing the thread. THis is hilarious, because actually abuse was not the OT of the thread anyways. Also the way these sad issues are used to paint a caricature of the "backward Tibetans". A type of racism that is somehow not seen by some people posting here who campaigned vigorously against racism in other threads.
I'm not sure I saw this happening. I don't recall Indrajala claiming that what you said was dismissable. To accept that what you say is true, but still push a little further on one side of an argument (by saying more investigation needs to be done) isn't to dismiss what you say. Indeed Tibetan organisations are doing stuff. I personally think it's completely justifiable for people to believe more should be done. It probably isn't justifiable for people to claim nothing should be done - unless they know that the claims of abuse are false, which I don't believe anyone has done.JKhedrup wrote:What is frustrating is that Rory and others dismiss my opinions, formed by years of experience including learning several Tibetan dialects, in favour of the "information" of someone who doesn't speak Tibetan and has very little actual experience with the tradition.
Also, everyone's own experience is biased - it's a truism obviously. At the same time, every nearly identical experience is biased by one's own thoughts. Someone who has the exact same experience as you may come out with very different picture of what is going on. Some people bend a little more to a permissive side on some issues, and a reserved side on others, they may not always be permissive, or always be reserved. Others may often always be permissive, or always be reserved. People's responses also may be influenced by their moods, whether they had a good or bad day, whether they have energy or not. So people naturally are going to disagree. I wouldn't take offence, and I wouldn't take it personally, unless it is personal, in which case a request for apology is appropriate.
It could also result in more suffering. Stability is a good thing. If things change, it is probably preferable for it to be in a stable manner. Twenty years of no riots or uprisings in Tibet, and no terrorist attacks from Xingjiang, are probably more likely to produce prosperity and happiness for both of those countries than a rebellion for independence. If these communities show that they are harmless, there'd be no reason for any repression.JKhedrup wrote:Which could be a wonderful thing from all of the minorities in China as well as the Han people. A country no longer under the iron shackles of a corrupt and cruel "communist" (now Totalitarian-Capitalist hybrid) party. I don't think this would be a bad thing at all. For both Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism, actually, I think it would be a great thing.
And Mao was dead, the cold war was over. There was no longer a risk of a communist infiltration, which was a genuine possibility.Indrajala wrote:It isn't the party so much as how the Chinese state operates and always has. China is a despotic bureaucracy as it always has been. The nationalists in Taiwan were the same way, though they allowed democracy in the late 20th century basically to secure international support and legitimacy for their fledgling country. I imagine the Americans also instructed them to do so as the age of supporting dictators had come to an end.