Tibet podcast

[Puppycow]

I really enjoyed that podcast. I didn't know much about Tibet before Communist Chinese rule. But I do agree that many Westerners have a naive view of Eastern religions like Tibetan Buddhism or Zen Buddhism.

I would like to know where Brian learned about the history of Tibetan society. If it is true that most of the people were in a state of serfdom (which is practically the same as slavery), then they already lived under tyrrany.

[arthwollipot]

I have to agree. I also am guilty of jumping on the "free Tibet" bandwagon without having any clue about the pre-1959 history of the place. This one really opened my eyes. Of course, I am a skeptic, so I can't take what Brian says as gospel, but I have not had any reason previously to doubt his research.

[leonAzul]

This is a difficult problem for any person of conscience: When, if ever, is it better to disrupt a society without first understanding the assumptions on which it is founded? Are words more effective as bridges, instead of barricades?

[tydas]

As usual, very well done podcast, however...I find it hard to believe that the entire pre-1960 Tibetan society is as Brian describes. While I’m sure what he says is factual I’m not convinced of the scope. China has a long and proven history of human rights violations while Tibet does not.

Also, you can go back 150 years in this country and see similar conditions as Brian describes in Tibet, were we invaded and conquered because of our sins?

[Kittyclaws]

As usual, very well done podcast, however...I find it hard to believe that the entire pre-1960 Tibetan society is as Brian describes. While I’m sure what he says is factual I’m not convinced of the scope. China has a long and proven history of human rights violations while Tibet does not.

It depends on whose history you read: Chinese writers assert the pre-takeover system was a cruel serfdom, Tibetan writers call it a "mandala of peace." Who can you believe?

Also, you can go back 150 years in this country and see similar conditions as Brian describes in Tibet, were we invaded and conquered because of our sins?

You might want to be specific about what country you're referring to. Forum members are truly an international bunch. And who was sinning and why wasn't I invited?

[arthwollipot]

As usual, very well done podcast, however...I find it hard to believe that the entire pre-1960 Tibetan society is as Brian describes. While I’m sure what he says is factual I’m not convinced of the scope. China has a long and proven history of human rights violations while Tibet does not.And I thought it was quite clear that Brian was not absolving China of all responsibility. But you can't claim that the Tibetan aristocracy was the most benign of governments either.

Also, you can go back 150 years in this country and see similar conditions as Brian describes in Tibet, were we invaded and conquered because of our sins?Assuming you're talking about the USA here, there is quite a bit of difference between the American slavery situation and feudalism. But it would probaby require quite a bit of discussion to explain exactly how they differ. For a start, even when slavery was still legal in the USA, it was still a democracy (actually, elected oligarchy, but let's not go there). A low-born, but free, person was permitted hold any position or office they aspired to. In a feudal society, people are born into their position and there is little or no way that anyone can change that. The aristocracy rules by divine right. Everyone else had to work for the lucky few. For it to be analogous, the slaveholding landlords and plantation owners would have to themselves be slaves. It was a very different situation.

[Wolfman]

I'll add more here, not only from my experience in China, but from my work with the Mosuo (a minority group in the Himalayas who are not ethnically Tibetan, but who follow the Tibetan Buddhist religion).

It is easy to idealize a culture. But let us look at some relevant facts:

* The idea that Tibetans were peaceful -- it is bunk. Actually, the Tibetans political/religious authorities conquered extensive areas around Tibet, including the modern provinces of Sichuan and Yunnan. At various points in history, these were either officially parts of Tibet, or were tributary states of Tibet. The Mosuo themselves became Tibetan Buddhist after being conquered by the Tibetan state, and forced to convert. In fact, the Mosuo can still take you to a valley where more than 500 Mosuo were killed fighting against the Tibetan military (and where no Mosuo will build homes or farm, because they believe the spirits of the slain live there). Unfortunately, no, I cannot provide any definitive documentation of this, since the Mosuo have no written language, and the history is a purely oral history handed down from father to son over several generations.

* No matter how much you may idealize a culture as 'peaceful' or 'harmonious', I have a hard time in defending a state where the status quo was to keep the vast majority in ignorance and poverty, and a minority of leaders (religious leaders, at that) in power and wealth. The only way to get education, power, or wealth in the old Tibetan system was to join a monastery and become a part of the religious power structure yourself -- virtually guaranteeing a continued hold on power.

* I'm not going to justify the invasion of Tibet...but in the larger context, Tibet and China had had numerous past conflicts with each other -- Tibet would invade Chinese territory and claim it as its own, then China would turn around and do the same. It provides a very different perspective is one sees this as a one-time event; or if one sees it as just part of a much longer rivalry between both sides, in which neither side could claim innocence. ie. Tibet was also guilty of invading other areas, and forcing people to adopt their culture/religion (the Mosuo again being a prime example). China's guilty, yes. But that doesn't implicitly make Tibet innocent.

I have no problems with complaints from Tibetans about restrictions on their religion, their loss of freedom, abuse from the government, etc. They have very real cause for concern and complaint. But I do have significant problems with the deceit and propoganda that they use, presenting Tibet as some peaceful utopia where all lived in harmony and equality, and didn't bother anyone else.

[Puppycow]

It depends on whose history you read: Chinese writers assert the pre-takeover system was a cruel serfdom, Tibetan writers call it a "mandala of peace." Who can you believe?

Here is where a good understanding of human nature, history and society comes in handy. "Cruel serfdom" is pretty easy to imagine. This was common all over the world in ancient and medieval societies. It is the default pattern for society. A "mandala of peace," (whatever that means) OTOH, doesn't strike me as a realistic description of any known human society in history. Unless you think the Tibetans were some sort of special angelic breed of enlightened humans.

So the comparison is between an ordinary claim and an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[fullybakedbear]

This was my second podcast and I was very surprised to head such faulty logic used. I'm not a Tibetan expert, but the podcast rung particularly untrue, not because it questioned Pre-1960 Tibetan culture but because it was based on nothing.

One of the first flaws is the proposition that the system of government is a reflection on the actions of the people. For a shepherd living a sustenance life on a mountain, whether or not you are a serf is irrelevant.

It 'felt' as if there wasn't any real research done on the subject (but i don't have enough information to form a strong rebuttal) so I turned to my mother, a practicing Tibetan Buddhist, to listen to the podcast and provide feedback on any inaccuracies. She will listen but she brought up a few points

1. While the rightless serfdom is an accurate description of the old society, she says that the current Dalai Lama was preparing to end that system.
2. She also said that he does not intend for the country to remain a theocracy and is/was planning to step down from temporal authority.

I just can't believe that the podcast would imply that the current Dalai Lama was a knowing participant in the supression of human rights and was some sort of resource hoarding dictator (I believe that this was strongly implied and not just inferred on my part) IN A BROADCAST ABOUT CRITICAL THINKING and people just bought it.

I'll ask mother to post to this thread as well. I believe that she will be able to shed some insight as to where the middle ground truth is in the situation.

[tyr_13]

I’m very confused as how you can say that the podcast was built on ‘nothing’.

If the system of government is not a reflected on the people, you make a good argument for why Tibet might as well stay with China.

You ‘feeling’ as if no real research was done, doesn’t in any way mean no research was done. Admitting that you don’t know much on the subject also seem to mean you shouldn’t trust your feeling that much.

Why did you go to a practicing Tibetan Buddhist when you were looking for unbiased information? Obviously, a Tibetan Buddhist would be EXTREMELY biased into believing the Dalai Lama because, well, that is the definition of a Tibetan Buddhist. A historian or cultural psychologist would be better people to go to. Heck, a Chinese, Japanese, or Indian Buddhist would have been a better source if they knew anything at all on the subject. (It would kind of be like asking a Protestant about what the Pope did.) Besides that, you went to your mother? Generally, a person is biased into believing their own mother, and not arguing with her.

The argument that the current Dalai Lama was preparing to end the rightless serfdom is weak. Why should we believe him? Tenzin Gyatso is a human, and can lie, has lied, and has absolutely no proof he was preparing to end the serfdom. It is similar to the way convicts ‘find Jesus’ and cite that as a reason for an early release. “Oh we were about to become a good government, if only the Chinese had left us to our eye-gouging, palace-living, theocracy for a few more years.” As for your mother’s second point, it is easy to keep promises you will never get the chance to keep. Even if Tibet was freed, it doesn’t have to follow that Tenzin Gyatso would be the one given power in the first place, so he wouldn’t have to step down. He has too much fun living with his rich friends in the US and like countries in the first place. For what it is worth, I do not intend for the country to remain a theocracy and am/are planning to step down from temporal authority should Tibet ever make me its theocratic ruler.

I don’t know who you think Tenzin Gyatso is, but he did and was a, “knowing participant in the suppression (sic) of human rights and was some sort of resource hoarding dictator.” I learned that in my Asian History classes. Tibet was at one time known for it’s warriors and conquering all it’s neighbors. Tenzin Gyatso had gorillas (insurgents) trained to fight the Chinese for many years. He actively encouraged violence and was paid to do so. This is a matter of public record because he was on the CIA payroll to do so.

I believe that the, “middle ground truth,” on this matter is that Tibet, Tenzin Gyatso, and China are/were all wrong. All have done bad things, all still do bad things, everyone is human. ‘Free Tibet’ is a moot point. Even if Tibet were to become independent of China governmentally, it would still need aid form China (or some other country).

I’m with Wolfman on this one, especially his last paragraph.

[Alex Libman]

I am far more interested in Hong Kong / Guangdong secession where it comes to China, and other pro-liberty secessionist movements as well, some of which don't even exist yet.. ;)

America will have a serious libertarian secession movement too some time in this century. A lot is happening in New Hampshire with the Free State Project, and then there's the Alaskan Independent Party. And so on. Sooner or later, Atlas will shrug.

[jakerock]

Why did you go to a practicing Tibetan Buddhist when you were looking for unbiased information? Obviously, a Tibetan Buddhist would be EXTREMELY biased into believing the Dalai Lama because, well, that is the definition of a Tibetan Buddhist.

Does that also mean that Christians are biased into believing Pat Robertson because that is the nature of the Christian? Or is this just a pretty silly thing to say?

The argument that the current Dalai Lama was preparing to end the rightless serfdom is weak. Why should we believe him? Tenzin Gyatso is a human, and can lie, has lied, and has absolutely no proof he was preparing to end the serfdom.

Could you provide an example of a significant lie that Gyatso has been caught telling?

It is similar to the way convicts ‘find Jesus’ and cite that as a reason for an early release. “Oh we were about to become a good government, if only the Chinese had left us to our eye-gouging, palace-living, theocracy for a few more years.”

Nice quotes! Yarn spinning time is it?



He has too much fun living with his rich friends in the US and like countries in the first place.

Interesting. No crime committed here, just resentment on your part for some reason. Is it that people are rich, or that he is in the USA? Or is it that you are not having any fun with YOUR rich friends?


I don’t know who you think Tenzin Gyatso is, but he did and was a, “knowing participant in the suppression (sic) of human rights and was some sort of resource hoarding dictator.” I learned that in my Asian History classes. Tibet was at one time known for it’s warriors and conquering all it’s neighbors. Tenzin Gyatso had gorillas (insurgents) trained to fight the Chinese for many years. He actively encouraged violence and was paid to do so. This is a matter of public record because he was on the CIA payroll to do so.

Could you provide any evidence of his participation in human rights violations, the "hoarding of resources", "encouraging violence", or his connection to the CIA.

This could turn out to be quite an "enlightening" conversation.

[tyr_13]

I would link you to the lies of the Dalia Lama, but I can't post links to outside sites yet. Just google 'dalai lama lies' and you'll find that he somehow thinks Tibetans are a minority in Tibet, that he has said he hasn't said things he has said, and that he denied ever meeting Chairman Mao before the invasion when there are freaking pictures of it.

Yes, saying that Christians are biased toward believing Pat Robinson is a pretty silly thing to say. I agree. No, Christians aren't biased towards Pat Robinson because Pat Robinson holds no official power in Christianity which is not the position of the Dalia Lama. You see, the Dalia Lam is the Dalia Lama, which means he is the head of Tibetan Buddhism. A more apt comparison would be to say that Catholics are biased into believing the Pope (which they would be). I didn't say that all Buddhist are biased towards believing the big L man, and in fact said that other Buddhist would be better people to ask. Thus, using Christianity as an example, instead of a specific sect of it, is also misleading. (Don't make me say strawman, please. It's really overused on this forum.)

My 'quote' was to point out how silly the argument is. It isn't actually a quote from anyone but me. Sorry if I confused you into actually thinking I was quoting 'his holyness'. Obviously I was not. However, that pretty much is exactly the same thing your mom said. Mine is no more a 'yarn' than yours (which is to say, the both completely are).

I never said what he was doing in that regard was a 'crime' and how is my statement resentful? I don't blame people for being rich, having rich friends, like the USA (which I love by the way), or not wanting to leave those nice things. I simply pointed out that that is the current state of his affairs and that that is motivation not to change that state.

Again I state that the CIA payroll from the 1950's is a matter of public record, and as I am not allowed to post links yet, I simply say google, 'dalai lama cia money' and read.

[Wolfman]

I'd personally say that tyr_13's stuff quite adequately represents the opposite end of the spectrum...and a lot of what he says/claims should likewise be taken with a very large dose of salt. Sounds more like fodder for the Conspiracy forums, in my opinion.

I will say this, however, in response to fullybakedbear (even though its been mentioned by others):

Your mother practices Tibetan Buddhism. I likewise used to practice Christianity. However, the fact that I practiced that faith didn't mean that either A) I was was fully informed about the religious/political plans of religious leaders from 60 years ago, or that B) I would be able to examine their claims about events 60 years ago uncritically.

Aside from the fact that your mother practices this religion -- which, as has been pointed out, very obviously makes her biased -- what actual authority does she have to back up her assertions? Was she involved with Tibet before it was taken over by the Chinese? Has she met with the Dalai Lama, or anyone else who was alive at that time and involved with the religious/political discussion?

It is a matter of historical record -- quite verifiable, and from numerous sources -- what the state of Tibet was prior to the Chinese takeover. It is a matter of historical record -- quite verifiable, and from numerous sources -- that Tibet was militant, and did in fact conquer other territories and enforce both political and religious authority over those regions.

It is easy for the Dalai Lama, or any of his followers, to say that they planned some sort of reform...but where exactly is the proof of that? Where are the transcripts of speeches that the Dalai Lama gave before they were conquered by China, that indicated his intent? Absolutely everything I've seen and read about the man indicates that he didn't even begin to talk about such concepts until well after his exile from Tibet, and his need to garner Western support in his effort to regain Tibetan independance. It's kinda' a no-brainer that he wouldn't have become internationally famous, or gotten a Nobel prize, for preaching things such as "education should be made available only to a chosen few", or any other such stuff. He was a smart man...he knew what message would play best with the Western powers, and that's the message he preached. And I'd even go so far as to argue that today, he more than likely believes in that message...regardless of his original motivations.

My goodness, man...you start your comments by saying that you felt this podcast was poorly researched...yet your own "research" consists of "I'll ask my mom".

Tell ya' what. Do your own podcast, based on "What my mom said", and see how seriously anyone takes it.

[tyr_13]

Obviously I am new here, and claiming that a man who won the Nobel Peace Prize for preaching non-violence was on the CIA payroll might sound like a conspiracy theory, but it does happen to be, you know, true.

"The government set up in exile in India and, at least until the 1970s, received $US1.7 million a year from the CIA.

The money was to pay for guerilla operations against the Chinese, notwithstanding the Dalai Lama's public stance in support of non-violence, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.

The Dalai Lama himself was on the CIA's payroll from the late 1950s until 1974, reportedly receiving $US15,000 a month ($US180,000 a year)."

That is from 'The Age' (and I'm still not allowed to link to it.) There is also an article from Church and State I found on EBSCOhost that sites the LA Times saying the same thing.

Even Penn and Teller on their series ******** were able to find the records that state this.

Wolfman, while I love your comments, even about taking what I say with a dose of mineral, I do not think my comments represent the opposite end of the spectrum. To do that, I'd have to agree with China's stance, which itself is full of holes and myths.

For the record, I think the Tibetan people have cause for a gripe about how they were treated in the past, although I can't say I have a good grasp of their current situation, but the Tibetan Lama is pretty much full of it. Although the man could be said to inadvertently be doing some good by spreading a message of peace he doesn't (or didn't as I can't possibly know what he believes now) believe that some people might follow. Or that he as gotten some people in the west interested in foreign culture and other forms of Buddhism than the one he heads.

[Wolfman]

"The government set up in exile in India and, at least until the 1970s, received $US1.7 million a year from the CIA.Let me point out that this was smack dab in the middle of the Cold War, when the U.S. would give money to anyone who opposed Communism. Hell, the CIA also provided plenty of money and armament to Taiwan during the same period -- does that make them evil, or terrorists? You are taking a basic fact, and then drawing largely unsupported conclusions from that fact.
The money was to pay for guerilla operations against the Chinese, notwithstanding the Dalai Lama's public stance in support of non-violence, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.And there we go...exactly what I said. Where in any of the CIA documentation, or other documentation, does it state that this was for guerilla operations? Or that, if such operations were undertaking by some Tibetans, that they were done so at the explicit instructions of the Dalai Lama?
The Dalai Lama himself was on the CIA's payroll from the late 1950s until 1974, reportedly receiving $US15,000 a month ($US180,000 a year)." Which corresponds directly with the tail end of the McCarthy years, and through the Cold War, when the U.S. was incredibly paranoid about anything labelled Communist. Why not check out how much money the CIA spent on hiring "psychics"? They'd throw money at absolutely anything. The fact that someone got money from the CIA didn't automatically make them their puppet, or their informant. You'll need a lot more than just vague innuendo and unsupported conclusions to make your argument.
Even Penn and Teller on their series ******** were able to find the records that state this. Documents that state simply that the Dalai Lama and his organization received money from the CIA? Or documents that state that they used that money for guerilla/terrorist activities? I've seen plenty of the former; none of the latter.
Wolfman, while I love your comments, even about taking what I say with a dose of mineral, I do not think my comments represent the opposite end of the spectrum. To do that, I'd have to agree with China's stance, which itself is full of holes and myths. My apologies...you are correct. I didn't mean opposite end of the spectrum in regards to China's position...I meant one side arguing the Dalai Lama's complete innocence, the other side arguing that he was a CIA puppet and engaged in guerilla war against China. Those do seem to me to be rather strongly opposing stances. Mine is more in the middle. I don't see the Dalai Lama as some enlightened individual who planned to bring institute policies of economic and political equality in Tibet; I see him as an opportunist who, after he was kicked out of Tibet, realized that the best way to get Western support and sympathy was to preach a message of equality and peace. But neither do I see him as a guerilla fighter waging war against the Chinese invaders. Quite the opposite, he has been quite vocal in condemning violence against the Chinese, even when he was advocating strongly for Tibetan independance (a position he no longer fights for).

[SkeptiKilt]

World News Briefs; Dalai Lama Group Says It Got Money From C.I.A.

Published: October 2, 1998
The Dalai Lama's administration acknowledged today that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960's from the Central Intelligence Agency, but denied reports that the Tibetan leader benefited personally from an annual subsidy of $180,000.

The money allocated for the resistance movement was spent on training volunteers and paying for guerrilla operations against the Chinese, the Tibetan government-in-exile said in a statement. It added that the subsidy earmarked for the Dalai Lama was spent on setting up offices in Geneva and New York and on international lobbying.
New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFD61538F931A35753C1A96E9582 60)

I don't have to bold the relevant text, do I?

[tyr_13]

I think we have a mis-communication here. You see, I never said the Dalai Lama was an evil terrorist. I also didn't say he was a CIA puppet. Being paid by someone isn't exactly the same as being a puppet. I personally think he is just an opportunistic deposed politician from an old, mean, governmental system. An opportunist who would take money from the CIA or anyone else for whatever reason they came up with, good or bad.

Also, I didn't say the CIA money was well placed with him, and I don't know he used it for what it was earmarked for. However the documents, which I admit I've only seen in video, are specific for a Tibetan commando training center in Colorado if I remember correctly. Thus, even if he didn't use the money for violence, he took it under that pretext. All your points Wolfman about the money are valid, and I'm sorry I didn't clear up the point I was trying to make with the statement.

I'm not using, "vague innuendo," to support the argument that he is an evil, violent terrorist or a CIA puppet because that isn't my argument. My argument is that he isn't the person his PR department claims him to be. And no, I don't actually know that he has a PR department. I'm not even claiming that the CIA is/was evil. I'll say they were foolish to give money away like they did. How come every time someone mentions the CIA it is assumed it is in connection with some conspiracy theory? If I was on the CIA payroll, I don't think that would make me their puppet.

Yes, he has spoken out against violence against the Chinese, eventually. He has also said he can not condemn the actions of separatist movements, until other groups condemned them and forced him to. What he says often times has a lot to do with who he is speaking to. Of course when he is speaking to the people in/of Tibet and China one has to rely on translations too, and we all know how slippery those can be. Well, except of Wolfman, who I assume speaks some of those local languages based on his line of work.

[Wolfman]

tyr,

Let me offer my apologies then. I guess I get so used to the conspiracy theories that are posted here that any time someone starts saying, "So-and-so was paid by the CIA", they mean that they were a CIA puppet, or something like that. I am, myself, apparently guilty of making unwarranted assumptions!

[tyr_13]

No harm! I'm habitually forgetting how some things become charged with a different meaning and not explaining my position well enough on forums. But don't be afraid to call me or anyone else on it if we slip off into la-la land!

[Wolfman]

But don't be afraid to call me or anyone else on it if we slip off into la-la land!
Hmmm...I've been called many things...but not "timid" ;);)

[applecorped]

vote mccain.

[Dictator Cheney]

a very very good podcast. thank you very much.

[MDI]

Brian does it once again, makes one feel ignorant of the facts surrounding a currant issue and pokes fun at spoilt celebs in the process, he's the man. Old China is so unusual in the way that the advanced and powerful nation was so ruthlessly defeated by those around it right up untill the end of ww2, and was rarely ambitious on the imperialistic front,they may have been trying to turn things around in the fifties with Tibet, so little so late, they just wanna hang on to it, as for the Dalai Lama who'd trust a spiritual leader?