|
Nosfereefer posted:In both the cases of India and the US, a peaceful resolution was made possible by the long standing traditions of rule by law. The western philosophy of the right of the individual, as a fundamental part of both law and morality, has enabled movements such as King's or Gandhi's to reach resolutions vis-a-vis the central governments without resorting to violence. The Oriental Mind, however, knows not of such concepts, where the only respected authority is borne through violence. Their collectivist societies can thus only achieve changes due to outside military pressure (see: the Mongol Invasion, western influence in the 19th century). Remind me again, what peaceful solutions where used towards Vietnam?
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
Gandhi would have used violence if the populace had been capable of it. According to saul alinsky anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Remind me again, what peaceful solutions where used towards Vietnam? Jesus I missed that post completely, it has to be the most racist thing in this while thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:In both the cases of India and the US, a peaceful resolution was made possible by the long standing traditions of rule by law. The western philosophy of the right of the individual, as a fundamental part of both law and morality, has enabled movements such as King's or Gandhi's to reach resolutions vis-a-vis the central governments without resorting to violence. The Oriental Mind, however, knows not of such concepts, where the only respected authority is borne through violence. Their collectivist societies can thus only achieve changes due to outside military pressure (see: the Mongol Invasion, western influence in the 19th century).
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:is this a joke post I thought my use of the "The Oriental Mind" would make it pretty clear, but then again Trump got elected so... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
There are creepy parallels between Israeli Settlements in Palestine and Han migration to Tibet. Modern post-neo-colonialism (we need a new term) has become sufficiently advanced that both violent and nonviolent modes of resistance appear futile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Fascinating topic and I enjoy reading all the posts so far. I can't really contribute except to say I've heard that China just doesn't have a liberal or democratic tradition like us. Confucianism or something has molded the populace into a very collectivist, conformist mindset. This is not a criticism at all and it might be false for all I know, I just recall researching on Google once about why some countries are supposedly more inclined to authoritarianism. NikkolasKing posted:Hm. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has heard "some countries/cultures just don't mesh with democracy/are inclined towards dictatorship." I'll always remember my high school textbook even said this about Russia. It was Conservative trash though I'm fairly certain but I always remember it because it was a frickin' school textbook. liberalism is a political-economic phenomenon that developed in early modern england, liberalism is not embedded in the essential, eternal culture of any country on earth in the sense that you're describing here. confucianism is no more illiberal or 'collectivist' than catholicism and the culture of 'the west' AKA medieval and later western europe is. this is a racist and orientalist narrative that coincidentally plays very strongly into the hands of fascists in china and other nonwestern countries that don't like liberalism very much anyways Shbobdb posted:I'm glad LKY's philosophy is getting more play. And by "glad" I mean "deeply saddened". bro aristotle argued that Asians were a servile, totalitarian hive mind by nature 2500 years ago. at least LKY was nominally a socialist for a while icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Mar 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The characterization of chinese culture as 'collectivist' is kinda orientalist, but there are measurable differences in attitudes that basically came down to whether or not the areas practiced wet-rice irrigated farming (which even in smalls scale requires a large investment in labor and therefore some kind of central control) or wheat rainfall farming (which doesn't). hydraulic despotism is another one of the orientalist theories that have been floating around since aristotle 2500 years ago yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't bullshit. i'd like to see actual evidence for it because i'm pretty sure such evidence doesn't exist. the sociological data i have seen shows that 'collectivism' correlates pretty strongly with poverty and lack of economic development, IE people become much more individualistic when a consumer society exists and when individual human capital becomes more important in the economy than manual labor. and this does not correlate with rice farming, IE Russia, Latin America and Africa are about the same as India, SE Asia and China icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Mar 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:
Different kind of Asian but whatever. Though I do agree that LKY is one of the most benign, enlightened despots ever. We should all be so lucky.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
The idea that Asians are "naturally" or "culturally" devoid of individuality is ahistorical. The hundred schools of thought era originated things very similar to what we'd call Renaissance era ideals or amenable to Western life (like Taoism) before they all got subsumed by Emperor Qin's armies. That's not a fault on the part of their philosophers though. There's plenty of examples of Chinese people such as the contemporary Falun Gong believers doing things their own way in defiance of Beijing despite being threatened with hard labor and/or death. The issue is that the CCP itself very much is collectivist except when it's to the benefit of the people at the top. China is basically a communist experiment that became a country-sized company town except the company is called the Party. I mean, just look at this poo poo. No way does a group with that attitude and sufficient power give anything up to people demanding "self-determination" and "human rights."
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 23:11
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Shbobdb posted:Different kind of Asian but whatever. LKY literally organized society on the basis of a racial pecking order with Han at the top and is on record on numerous occasions espousing Chinese ethnic supremacy over literally everyone else and advocating eugenics programs aimed at Southeast Asians. There is nothing positive to be said about Lee Kuan Yew aside from mealymouthed "trains on time" dictator apologism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:liberalism is a political-economic phenomenon that developed in early modern england, liberalism is not embedded in the essential, eternal culture of any country on earth in the sense that you're describing here. confucianism is no more illiberal or 'collectivist' than catholicism and the culture of 'the west' AKA medieval and later western europe is. this is a racist and orientalist narrative that coincidentally plays very strongly into the hands of fascists in china and other nonwestern countries that don't like liberalism very much anyways Sorry, I did not mean to be offense or racism. I haven't researched the topic beyond Google or Wikipedia some time ago. I just recall Wikipedia had a whole page on Chinese views of democracy and China was used as an example, with Confucianism being listed as to why this was. But I realized that was hardly authoritative so I figured I'd ask someone around here while I had the chance. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:hydraulic despotism is another one of the orientalist theories that have been floating around since aristotle 2500 years ago yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't bullshit. i'd like to see actual evidence for it because i'm pretty sure such evidence doesn't exist. the sociological data i have seen shows that 'collectivism' correlates pretty strongly with poverty and lack of economic development, IE people become much more individualistic when a consumer society exists and when individual human capital becomes more important in the economy than manual labor. and this does not correlate with rice farming, IE Russia, Latin America and Africa are about the same as India, SE Asia and China You'll notice I avoided and actually disavowed the word 'collectivist', because honestly collectivism isn't that bad, and it's used basically as a bit of ideological bullshit by the US, for the purposes of domestic propaganda. Linking it with ideas of ethnicity is also, needless to say, really really loving racist. But, not every country has the same value systems, and those differences are a result of past history. That's not to say those differences are somehow intrinsic to that region or peoples, nor does it support the fatalistic idea of what is possible or is not possible (ie- a democratic china is not actually impossible because of culture, the only reason it can't happen is because of the CPC, who'd rather engage in brutal suppression than give up one iota of influence). The more pertinent history to this particular issue, the effectiveness of protest, comes down to how China (read: the party) sees its place in the world and its mission. In particular for the Tibetians, the Chinese government (either consciously or subconsciously) see itself as a Han-supremacist state, with all foreigners/non-Han being a negative influence on Chinese (Han) prosperity and strength. All prejudice or crimes against outsiders (non-Han) is justified because unequal treaties/5000 years history/The Unnamed Countries' evil plot to split China apart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 11:10
|
|
|
I don't understand why people in this thread are determined to draw a "cultural" line between China and America. Are you proposing that there is something inherent in our western democratic values, that we respect the sovereignty of cultural minorities? And that if they want to leave our nation, we just allow that? Try to imagine a Native American call for independence. A non violent campaign for sovereignty. No matter when in American history, there is no way that would happen. The autonomy of the nations are routinely ignored whenever capital sees potential, like the pipeline incident.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:By "memories of the era" you men cultivated propaganda developed post Tiananmen Square. For the younger generation maybe, but the older generation, including the current leadership in Beijing remembers the cultural revolution -very- well first hand and don't want street mobs beating them up in public again
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Hm. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has heard "some countries/cultures just don't mesh with democracy/are inclined towards dictatorship." I'll always remember my high school textbook even said this about Russia. It was Conservative trash though I'm fairly certain but I always remember it because it was a frickin' school textbook. There is a grain of truth to the whole conformist mindset thing but it actually doesn't apply all that well to China. The one country that you could see this in is Japan where the LDP was basically a one party state within a real actual democracy for 50 years in a way that would be unimaginable in the US. OTOH look at Korea or Taiwan and see volatile the electorate gets in "confucian" countries. Chinese politics if democratized would probably look a lot more like that than Japan LDP one party rule. Typo fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Typo posted:OTOH look at Korea or Taiwan and see volatile the electorate gets in "confucian" countries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This is dumb as gently caress. Every great power - Russia, France, Britain, America and yes China - has shitloads of blood thirsty citizens who will cheer any military chest beating by their national government. It's not for nothing that even the most unpopular government just about anywhere in the world will tend to get more popular right after they start a war. Citing this kind of bog-standard nationalism as evidence of some uniquely Chinese character trait or analogizing it to a "religion" just comes off as a none-too-subtle way of implying the Chinese are somehow different from other countries in this regard. I think you'll find that the pseudo-religious reverence for national boarders is called 'nationalism' and has been a common feature of geopolitics since for several centuries now, basically ever since 19th century states started investing heavily in national education systems. The difference between China and say the UK is precisely that Chinese nationalism is 19th century style nationalism which doesn't exist in western Europe anymore If you want evidence for this look at how the UK is allowing Scotland to vote itself out of the country, and how China is willing to go to war to preserve the fiction of Taiwan being a part of China If any region of China tries Scotexit the government will send in the People's armed police to kill/imprison literally everyone who voted for independence
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Sun Wu Kampf posted:It's not just their borders. It's official Chinese policy that anyone of Chinese ancestry, anywhere in the world, is a citizen of China, whether they like it or not. This seems wrong to me btw, the Chinese government historically have this attitude of "if you leave the country: ur on ur own" and defines citizenship very narrowly as "people who were born within 1949 declared Chinese borders" as oppose to ethnic Han Chinese. The Chinese government hasn't done poo poo in response to the multiple rounds of massacres directed against ethnic Chinese in SE Asia countries. Maybe you can point to me some evidence to the contrary though. And the reason for this is pretty obvious, a whole bunch of Southeast Asian countries is something like 10-25% of the population being Chinese and if Beijing starts with the policy that those guys are all really Chinese citizens then the whole region all of a sudden look a lot like eastern Ukraine in 2014. Typo fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Typo posted:There is a grain of truth to the whole conformist mindset thing but it actually doesn't apply all that well to China. The one country that you could see this in is Japan where the LDP was basically a one party state within a real actual democracy for 50 years in a way that would be unimaginable in the US. The LDP was dominant because it basically had no ideology and wasn't even really a centralized party; The MPs themselves had much more power internally than they do in a normal parliamentary party, the party did not campaign as a party, instead having individual candidates campaign as individuals and members of patronage factions, it basically did not have a coherent policy platform, instead letting the executive bureacracies basically run themselves. 'Vote for me and I'll petition the ministry of construction to build you a bridge' isn't an ideal way for democracy to work, but it's not really a single party state in the 'Japs are a conformist fascist hivemind' sense you're saying here. To say that a politics based around patronage isn't a real democracy is nonsense, that's how things work in most third world countries that run elections. Remember that Japan did not reach parity in wealth with Western Europe And the USA until the 1970s, in the 50s and 60s it was closer to Latin America than the USA and actually was kindof a third world country. Since the early 90s the LDP has become a much more consolidated, centralized, and much more right-wing party as most of the people associated with that style of purely transactional patronage politics, who dominated it for most of the postwar era, left it to join the DPJ and left the LDP run by the far-right ideologues who had always been in the party but had been pretty well marginalized within it during the 60s and 70s Meanwhile in SK and Taiwan it does not seem to me they have functioning party systems either, it seems like they have a party that represents the former authoritarian regime, and a protest party that gets in office maybe 25% of the time as a check on the system's power, unable to make fundamental changes in policy. They (SK at least, Taiwan is better) have more of a culture of protest than Japan but they also have the still-remaining apparatus of an authoritarian state to protest against icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Typo posted:The difference between China and say the UK is precisely that Chinese nationalism is 19th century style nationalism which doesn't exist in western Europe anymore Tell that to the Basques. quote:If you want evidence for this look at how the UK is allowing Scotland to vote itself out of the country, and how China is willing to go to war to preserve the fiction of Taiwan being a part of China I think you can explain those different stances more effectively by appealing to geopolitics rather than the inscrutable oriental's "pseudo-religious" reverence for national boarders. And if or when Scotland (and perhaps Northern Ireland after it) do exit the United Kingdom I suspect you're going to see a massive popular backlash against whichever government "loses" those territories. Reverence for national boundaries inevitably plays out differently depending on context but its very much the rule in most countries. Except in some post-colonial states with really weak or barely legitimate central governments you're going to find that most populations get really upset when their government oversees a loss of territory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Helsing posted:
I explicitly gave an European analogue for this (France over Alsace-Lorraine 1871-1914), so yeah this is a phenomenon with white people too and yet you still insinuate the other side being racist thing quote:And if or when Scotland (and perhaps Northern Ireland after it) do exit the United Kingdom I suspect you're going to see a massive popular backlash against whichever government "loses" those territories. Typo fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Look at the nonviolence of Occupy and NoDAPL. It loving failed spectacularly. Nonviolence practiced as a dogma is a joke. Also love the posts about the civil rights movement not resorting to violence. People forget, or were never taught because of whitewashing, the work of activist groups that were blowing up police stations and arming the black panthers and also all the riots. poo poo was violent as gently caress. People have been pointing at the anti-war movement as a nonviolence success as well, and whatever, because holy poo poo wasn't the national monument bombed during the anti-war movement? Nonviolence is poo poo. Any time someone says "Don't get violent, now." or in any way implies that violence of any sort isn't justified in the various struggles that exist in the US or across the globe, punch them in the face. I guess I'm just saying, the results are mainly different because the methods are different. Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Typo posted:I explicitly gave an European analogue for this (France over Alsace-Lorraine 1871-1914), so yeah this is a phenomenon with white people too The Chinese example is far more typical. Even within Britain hardcore nationalist sentiments aren't buried all that deep below the surface.There was a low-intensity guerrilla war ongoing in Britain until 1998. It's misleading to present Chinese nationalism as an anachronistic throwback or exotic cultural tick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:Look at the nonviolence of Occupy and NoDAPL. It loving failed spectacularly. Nonviolence practiced as a dogma is a joke. Also love the posts about the civil rights movement not resorting to violence. People forget, or were never taught because of whitewashing, the work of activist groups that were blowing up police stations and arming the black panthers and also all the riots. poo poo was violent as gently caress. People have been pointing at the anti-war movement as a nonviolence success as well, and whatever, because holy poo poo wasn't the national monument bombed during the anti-war movement? i hear your argument, but while the status quo isn't perfect it's working out ok for me and now i've gotten used to it and don't want active change in my life anymore. in summary, the police arresting and/or blatantly murdering you is preferable to you changing things faster than i can adapt to without having to really put in an effort~
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:Look at the nonviolence of Occupy and NoDAPL. It loving failed spectacularly. No it didn't: OWS pushed the 1% vs 99% economic inequality dialogue into the national spotlight front and center, 6 years later you have Bernie running on that platform and the current POTUS running on "the game is rigged" quote:Nonviolence practiced as a dogma is a joke. Also love the posts about the civil rights movement not resorting to violence. People forget, or were never taught because of whitewashing, the work of activist groups that were blowing up police stations and arming the black panthers and also all the riots. poo poo was violent as gently caress. People have been pointing at the anti-war movement as a nonviolence success as well, and whatever, because holy poo poo wasn't the national monument bombed during the anti-war movement?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:Look at the nonviolence of Occupy and NoDAPL. It loving failed spectacularly. Nonviolence practiced as a dogma is a joke. Also love the posts about the civil rights movement not resorting to violence. People forget, or were never taught because of whitewashing, the work of activist groups that were blowing up police stations and arming the black panthers and also all the riots. poo poo was violent as gently caress. People have been pointing at the anti-war movement as a nonviolence success as well, and whatever, because holy poo poo wasn't the national monument bombed during the anti-war movement? As far as current political dogmas go, I'd say not hurting or killing people based on political belief structures is a relatively safe one. It's all well and good to say "I think violence should be on the table as an option in times when I feel politically disempowered," right up to the point when that same violence blows back on you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The Chinese example is far more typical. Even within Britain hardcore nationalist sentiments aren't buried all that deep below the surface.There was a low-intensity guerrilla war ongoing in Britain until 1998. It's misleading to present Chinese nationalism as an anachronistic throwback or exotic cultural tick. sure if the British is ready to declare martial law in Scotland anytime in the near future let me know granted though, I guess if you move away from western Europe then yeah territorial integrity does get important and then maybe it's subjective whether the chinese care about it more or the Serbs or Hungarians do the serbs still care about Kossovo nowadays? Cuz the Chinese sure as gently caress cared about HK after like 100 years. Typo fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:Look at the nonviolence of Occupy and NoDAPL. It loving failed spectacularly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Typo posted:The black panthers and the Watts riot came -after- the passing of the civil rights act of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965 Riots in Cambridge, Birmingham, and Oxford come to mind as specifically being before the civil rights act was signed. Not to mention, the fact that the act itself didn't put an end to things is proof that poo poo ain't happening purely through legislation and asking our overlords to give it to us. That we still live a society where a police officer can shoot and kill a black man then walk away with with paid time off is proof of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:Riots in Cambridge, Birmingham, and Oxford come to mind as specifically being before the civil rights act was signed. Not to mention, the fact that the act itself didn't put an end to things is proof that poo poo ain't happening purely through legislation and asking our overlords to give it to us. That we still live a society where a police officer can shoot and kill a black man then walk away with with paid time off is proof of that. violent actions on the part of the left gave rise to blue-lives matter administrations This:  Turned into this:  In just 8 years Americans are not a people intimidated by violence, when you threaten them with it, their instinct is not to placate the instigators but to grab a 2nd amendment gun and defend themselves, or at least give the police more latitude to beat the crap of out of protesters Typo fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:Riots in Cambridge, Birmingham, and Oxford America really shouldn't have places named exactly the same as places in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Hmm yes, clearly it was leftist violence that killed mcgovern, not mcgovern causing a party civil war and nixon being a real scumbag For the OP the simple answer is that nonviolent protest must serve as the alternative solution alongside violent protest: in India the news of britain gunning down people they had convinced themselves were becoming enlightened by white rule soured the brit public on the colony, and it quickly became too expensive fiscally and politically to stay and inspire violent uprising. In America violent protests preceded nonviolence, and showed the damage a nation divided could cause. In China there are no reprecussions; nobody cares about a small minority group and said group swears by nonviolence. They literally kidnapped the dalai lama's next incarnation (a little kid) and held a fake ceremony for their 'own' Dalai Lama. At this point a peaceful Tibet is pretty much hosed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
The core issue with India that people forget was that running India as a colony, on the other side of the world from Britain, was fantastically expensive and really only worked thanks to local collaborators. By simply removing the collaborators Ghandi upset the whole economics of the whole thing. Maintaining power over Tibet is much easier for China due to geography and modern technology, and that at the end of the day it's a tiny budget item to support the nationalism that's the CCP's main claim to legitimacy these days. If they don't have any local collaborators they'll just import new governors. And new citizens, if I recall their policies there correctly. They don't care about the economic output of Tibet, they care about projecting an image of strength and national respect in contrast to the pre-WWII "lets give parts of china away as souvenirs to tourists" approach other countries took with Chinese territory. So things that puncture Tibet's economic output, whatever, the government doesn't care. Things that puncture the governments' democratic legitimacy? That's not what they rest their claim to power on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Sometimes like three or four at once! It's probably accurate to say that the PRC is the least insane political situation China has ever had and is definitely an outlier historically. Yeah. The Deng to Jiang transition is the first time in Chinese history that power was transferred without bloodshed or the existing ruler dying. sincx fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:They literally kidnapped the dalai lama's next incarnation (a little kid) and held a fake ceremony for their 'own' Dalai Lama. At this point a peaceful Tibet is pretty much hosed. Choosing the Dalai and Panchen Lama was the prerogative of the Emperor for a looong time. Especially during the Qing, which is when most fenfen irredentists plant their flag. What's more interesting is that that is the kind of political legitimacy the government is going back to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Choosing the Dalai and Panchen Lama was the prerogative of the Emperor for a looong time. Especially during the Qing, which is when most fenfen irredentists plant their flag. The funny story is that the Dalai Lama actually thought the Communists were gonna be nice to him when they took over and refused CIA aid to fight a guerrilla war precisely because the Chinese government since the 1700s had a long history of accommodating the political elite in Tibet and he thought the Communists were gonna do the same. welp
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Horrific despot ruling by divine right not as smart as he thinks he is -- film at 11.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Horrific despot ruling by divine right not as smart as he thinks he is -- film at 11. It's not like there was an obvious alternative plan that clearly would have worked. Violence is not the one simple trick that works to get you what you want, any more than non-violence is. The Ughyurs of Xinjiang have tried most varieties of violence over the course of 50 years, variously supported by the Soviet Union, Islamists, and some say the CIA. Got them slightly less than the nothing Tibet got. If you are weak, and they are strong, there is not really that much pragmatic difference between violence and non-violence; both are means of attempting to persuade the strong party to make a certain decision. Consequently, the likelihood of different techniques of persuasion working depends mostly on the history and culture of the party you are trying to influence. Ghandhi's pacifism worked on British Liberals, Mandela's pragmatism on Boers, King's Christianity on Americans. But equally Maori military proficiency won them respect amongst British imperialists, Castro's revolutionary communism worked to win Soviet support, and so on. You have to treat each case in context. One experience that is shared by many cultures is losing to stronger forces, as China did to Britain in the Opium Wars. A common reaction to this is to treat violence by a weaker opponent with similar demands as an invitation to a historical reenactment. Except this time your side gets to win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
Neurolimal posted:They literally kidnapped the dalai lama's next incarnation (a little kid) and held a fake ceremony for their 'own' Dalai Lama. At this point a peaceful Tibet is pretty much hosed. You're confusing the Dalai Lama with the Panchen Lama here -- it was Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the 11th Panchen Lama who was kidnapped when he was 6. He'd be about 27 now. According to the Chinese government he "is being educated, living a normal life, growing up healthily and does not wish to be disturbed," which is certainly a disturbing statement. The Dalai Lama is still alive and his next incarnation won't be found until he dies, which will hopefully be a little way off in the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 12:07
|
|
