A provocative argument. Tibet has nothing to show for its well-intentioned pacifism, says the author.
Tibet today has the distinction of being the world’s largest colony. In official Chinese documents, it is classified as “Water Tower Number One”— a source of prized minerals and hydropower. Since annexing Tibet, Beijing has relentlessly disfigured it. It has mined and carted away its mineral wealth, dammed and diverted waters from its bountiful rivers, herded innumerable Tibetans into communes, stamped out the expression of Tibetan identity, and annihilated whole ways of life.
No, sharing a border with China has doomed Tibet. Pacifist or not, they never stood much of a chance in a stand-up fight and were doomed since long before Mao’s goons marched in, March 7th, 1950.
OK sure, but you did actually read the article, rather than just respond to the headline, right?
Sorry, next time I’ll be sure to ask your permission before I decide how I should react.
Sorry to target you specifically but personally I’m getting tired of this idea that social media means zero-click drive-by comments (or more likely upvoting and downvoting) of headlines based on vibes and emotions alone. It adds no value. Who cares that you agree or don’t agree - or that I agree or don’t agree - with some headline? It’s a waste of time for everyone concerned.
If you stop posting inflammatory ragebait headlines, maybe I would stop reacting to them. Once you post, it is not up to you how other people react.
So you admit that you didn’t bother even reading the article and just responded to the headline (which I didn’t write). Well, personally I did actually read the article. All of it. Some I agreed with, some less so, in any case it was interesting and I still recommend it.
I admitted no such thing. You are not discussing the topic in good faith, so I will block you and good riddance.
Does the author have also some evidence for statements like, “Beijing’s refusal to deal with him [the Dalai Lama] has eroded some of his authority within the Tibetan community in exile,” and other claims or is this just a baseless rant?
Let’s be honest, I could post an article about Sichuanese cuisine, or C-pop, and you’d get upset and say it was pro-Beijing.
Does the author have also some evidence for statements like, “Beijing’s refusal to deal with him [the Dalai Lama] has eroded some of his authority within the Tibetan community in exile,” and other claims?
The statement is unfalsifiable. And the article expresses an opinion. That opinion is generally deeply hostile to the Chinese government. But still you find a way to comb its every phrase looking for some shred of “evidence” of wrongthink. This behavior is typical of an authoritarian mindset.
