Yes, it's true; I am an idiot. I continue discussions far past the point of hopelessness. On the other hand, I am the idiot with the facts on his side.

In the 1950s, the CIA overthrew democracies in Guatemala and Iran; they installed tyrants in both countries. If you want to research this, google "mossadegh" and "guatemala 1954." In Tibet, the CIA supported a brutal theocracy.

Also, Godwin's law does not say you can't mention Nazis when you're talking about Nazis. Heinrich Harrer was a Nazi. Again, googling will help you.

Well, I am done with this thread now. Cheers!

Best moon Nazi trailer ever!

Doug, the flip side of your argument is that the Dalai Lama's people continue to serve the CIA's interests. The real question isn't who serves the US or China. It's who serves the truth.

The Dalai Lama's side has a problem there: Things like CIA funding and Heinrich Harrer's SS past were successfully hidden until the 1990s. Unsubstantiated impossibilities like the claim that a million or more Tibetans were massacred are still being repeated.

Truth matters.

Doug, unspecified is only unspecified. The fact remains that she is a Tibetan Buddhist, a "living Buddha," the head of an important monastery who was given her position before the Chinese came. She knows what she's talking about. Whether she was asked to specify or not, I don't know. The context of her quote seems awfully clear to me; spelling out the details may've just seemed redundant.

Gareth, historically, isolation leads to war. I would be reluctant to argue that sports boycotts were a major factor in ending apartheid, and I would also hesitate to equate the two countries. South Africa had different laws for different races. If you know of China having more restrictive laws for Tibetans than for Hans, tell me where I can read about them.

Speaking of a single group of Tibetans seems simplistic. Anna Louise Strong wrote, "The boundaries of Tibet have changed greatly through the centuries. Tibet, as the Chinese use the term, is Tibet as it stood in 1911, at the fall of the Chinese empire, and as shown on most maps of this century, whether published in London or Shanghai. This Tibet includes territory where the Dalai Lama directly ruled, and the territory of Houtsang, where the Panchen Erdeni ruled." See here.

And the twelfth Samding Dorje Phagmo, who was given her position before the communists freed Tibet's serfs, has said, "The sins of the Dalai Lama and his followers seriously violate the basic teachings and precepts of Buddhism and seriously damage traditional Tibetan Buddhism's normal order and good reputation." See here. Whether a living Buddha who stayed behind is more or less trustworthy than one who fled, I can't say. But I can say that Tibetan Buddhists are not a single group--there's clearly a Dalai Lama faction.

Tenn, I think we start by promoting the truth, something that the Dalai Lama's faction has trouble doing, as Patrick French was the most recent to point out. (See my link @40.) I think the world needs to engage China on issues of honesty and free speech—unfortunately, the US would look rather hypocritical there, given things like the Tuskegee experiments, the lies about Pat Tillman's death-- Well, the list is long. But we have to build the future on a foundation of honesty and open communication in the US, China, Tibet, and everywhere. It's better to go to China this summer and share knowledge than to shut down the Olympics and rattle sabers.

Tenn, it might be like that if someone was saying that, but I don't think anyone is. You seem to think we have to support China or the Dalai Lama's clique. I'm with Parenti: they're both in the wrong, and we need another solution. That's why I think calling for a boycott on the Olympics is a terrible idea: China needs to be engaged, not isolated.

Doug, more facts for you to ignore here; it's by the former director of the Free Tibet Campaign in London.

Nice cartoon!

"Parenti offers sources with an obvious bias and no actual research." Well, anyone who looks at Parenti's footnotes can decide whether that's true. If you want to learn about Tibet, following his sources is a fine way to begin.

I started wondering how credible Schrei is, so I googled him. He's on the Board of Directors for Students for a Free Tibet. Maybe he figures he doesn't need to document his claims because he's preaching to the choir.

Doug, Parenti's research substantiates his title. Schrei's title says he thinks you can ignore "far leftists," and he seems to think that's so true that he doesn't need to footnote his assertions. I would respect him, despite his far-right bias, if he was honest enough to offer sources that could then be checked. That's what respectable researchers of any political persuasion do. That's why Parenti is far more credible.

As for your suggestion that now there's a more aggressive group, the CIA was funding a very aggressive group of Tibetan rebels in the '50s and '60s.

Doug, as for "A Lie Repeated - The Far Left’s Flawed History of Tibet," the title itself reveals the bias. Schrei's argument is essentially that these historians were far leftists, so they should be ignored. He complains that their take isn't properly nuanced, and he attacks their adverbs and adjectives, but a comparison of his footnotes with Parenti's will tell you how much faith you should put in his version.

Brit and Doug, check the URLs. SFT has a version of the essay here:

http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=424

It's dated July 7, 2003. I don't know whether it's a faithful copy or not. But in the interest of timeliness, I recommend Parenti's "updated and expanded version, January 2007" version here:

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

Brit, I just checked the Students for a Free Tibet site. They don't link to Parenti's article. They claim to have a copy of the 2003 version. I don't know if it's an accurate copy. The one I linked to, on Parenti's site, was updated in 2007.

Brit, there are a lot of issues at play here. The greatest one is the intention of the Dalai Lama's supporters. I don't think they hope to restore feudalism, just as I don't think the former Batista-supporters hope to restore a brutal form of tyranny in Cuba. But I do think it's right to wonder about their agenda: do they want a better life for the average Tibetan, or do they want power in the land their parents ruled? They claim they want democracy, but it would seem to be a very limited form of democracy: the government in exile assumes the Dalai Lama would rule again. I'm an old-fashioned American; I don't think democracies should be in the business of restoring monarchs.

Your self-rule question assumes the Tibetans were self-ruled. The Dalai Lama's name is half-Mongolian because Tibet was always a part of China. Wishing the Chinese would abandon hundreds of years of history is sweet, but I don't think it's likely. The Chinese are in Tibet. I think the cries to further isolate China are wrong; if we want to help make things better, we need to engage with them, and that's exactly what the Olympics are for.

Doug, I have read that. It's remarkably empty of information; Students for a Free Tibet is an organization rather like the anti-Castro organizations: not a good source for information about life before a corrupt leader was ousted, and an extremely partisan source for current information.

It didn't occur to me that I should clarify my request: please provide links that you've read and believe are of substance. I've read Parenti and a great deal about Tibet. I'll happily read more.

If all you have is a link you haven't read and an insult, well, okay.

Oh, Antinuous, as for why I mostly comment on Tibet here, it's because I agree with the Boingboing folks on most issues. But on Tibet, I think they've bought into an overly-simplified history promoted by conservative capitalists in general, and by the CIA and the heirs of Tibet's feudal lords in particular.

Again, if you can refute Parenti, I would be grateful. I don't mind looking like an idiot when the facts are on my side, but I hate being wrong about the facts. Provide the evidence, and you will only have my gratitude.

Antinuous, if you think calling people names is a substitute for offering people facts, well, um, okay.

Antinuous, when you bring up the Nazis, what are you saying? That the US should go to war with China? Or simply that it should sabotage the Olympics in order to advance, well, what?

Your assessment of "right and wrong" suggests you know very little of Tibet's history. The genocide charge is especially silly—the Dalai Lama and his supporters claim that 1.2 million were killed when Tibet's population was about 1.25 million. No one could hide the killing fields if that was true—photos would've been smuggled out.

If you have anything of substance to refute Parenti, please provide the links.

If anyone's interested in learning about Tibet, China, and the US, the best place to start is with Michael Parenti's Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth. Parenti is scathing about China; he's not a pro-Chinese propagandist, and his research is thoroughly footnoted.

If you prefer video, there's some footage from the 1939 Nazi expedition to Tibet here and Parenti being interviewed about Tibet here.

Tibet's situation is much more complex than the two major sides pretend.

Antinuous, I understand your concern about passive aggressiveness, so I'm doing my best to leave out anything that might smack of the passive: You have nothing, but you won't admit it.

If anything I've said here or on my blog is "disingenuous," point it out. I cite sources. I prefer facts to prejudice. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Tibetan people, who were first abused by their feudal overlords and are now abused by China. Their situation is not made better by anyone obscuring the past for the benefit of either side.

Yo, Antinuous! Still waiting for you to substantiate your claim.

Ain't nothing passive about that, eh?

And don't be afraid to show me I'm wrong. I'm quick to apologize when I am, and far from being angry with people who point out my mistakes, I'm both grateful to them and filled with respect for them.

The clock is ticking....

Tenn, I just hate being called passive-aggressive. I've indulged in pure verbal aggression in my day, and the fighter is not deep in my heart. Politeness and passive-aggressiveness are only the same thing to people who live in binary worlds.

I do see how forgiving him might seem condescending to some people, but surely a follower of the Dalai Lama would appreciate that it is better to forgive than to fight.

And I think the contest for BB's resident child isn't over yet! *g*

Antinuous, when I was younger, I liked flames in debates, but now I'm old enough to find them boring. And I'm old enough to forgive you for suggesting that polite disagreement is passive-aggressive--I'm sure I've done my share of attacking the messenger when I couldn't attack the message. If you can point to an example of someone saying the Dalai Lama or any of his supporters hope to restore slavery in Tibet, please support your claim. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know it. There's enough misinformation on the web.

Antinuous, when you suggest that people either believe the Dalai Lama is perfect or China is, you're doing a great disservice to your cause. I've never seen anyone suggest that the Dalai Lama or any of his supporters currently hope to restore the feudal theocracy that existed before the Chinese invaded. Nor have I seen anyone say that China's policies don't need improvement. Michael Peretti, who is often damned by the Dalai Lama's most extreme supporters, is quite scathing in what he says about China.

Heinrich Harrer was a member of the SS, a group that no one was "forced" to join. He said it was a "stupid mistake" when his past was made public—make of that what you will. He seems to have been very comfortable with Tibet's feudal system.

We're losing a way to ridicule poor people who can't afford dentists? It's a sad day.

Frank @22, thank you. I'm thinking it's a good day for reflection, and I'm hoping tomorrow will be a good one for action. Five years is enough.

Mark @6, good point! I came here right after getting a notice from Zazzle saying essentially, "It's the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq War, and whether you're pro-war or anti-war, we don't care—we're just here to make a buck!" So my ability to laugh about the funny things people spend their money on had taken a major hit.

icky2000 @ 18, takes one to know one. (Ah, the joys of civilized discourse on the web.)

And sharing this makes the world a better place how?

Antinuous @177, was that to me? Where did I say I was on China's side? China is a one-party state, and I believe in democracy. Right now, they're controlling journalists in Tibet the same way the US controlled journalists during the Iraq War, and that makes me very, very worried: I believe in a free press.

I realize it's comforting to think that either someone is on the Dalai Lama's side or on China's side. But reality is not binary.

Takuan, if you're going to charge anyone of being responsible for innocent blood, you have to show the blood. Or the graves. Or photos of the massacres. Or census figures that show a loss of life. Or something that resembles evidence.

Did Tibetans die cruelly when China came in? Yes. Did Tibetans die cruelly while the Dalai Lamas ruled? Yes. Do Tibetans today deserve better than either has given them? Yes.

Choose your stand based on evidence. Otherwise you're no different than the people who claimed they knew where Saddam Hussein buried the WMDs. Screaming that you're taking a stand on rock will not change a thing if you're on sand.

It is hard for me to leave, I confess. Takuan, have you read Parenti? You say he's an apologist for China, but no apologist would say this:

Most Chinese live close to the poverty level or well under it, while a small group of newly brooded capitalists profit hugely in collusion with shady officials. Regional bureaucrats milk the country dry, extorting graft from the populace and looting local treasuries. Land grabbing in cities and countryside by avaricious developers and corrupt officials at the expense of the populace are almost everyday occurrences. Tens of thousands of grassroot protests and disturbances have erupted across the country, usually to be met with unforgiving police force. Corruption is so prevalent, reaching into so many places, that even the normally complacent national leadership was forced to take notice and began moving against it in late 2006.

Workers in China who try to organize labor unions in the corporate dominated “business zones” risk losing their jobs or getting beaten and imprisoned. Millions of business zone workers toil twelve-hour days at subsistence wages. With the health care system now being privatized, free or affordable medical treatment is no longer available for millions. Men have tramped into the cities in search of work, leaving an increasingly impoverished countryside populated by women, children, and the elderly. The suicide rate has increased dramatically, especially among women.

Antinuous @ 161, fortunately, we're not in Iran. The average Chinese person may not know about Tienanman Square, but we do. We have evidence that was smuggled out. Smuggling out the evidence for the massacre of a million people in the 1950s should have been possible, had it happened.

And you haven't addressed Parenti's heavily documented evidence for his positions. Shouldn't you be able to match them?

Takuan, the Dalai Lama only urged the rebels to stop fighting in 1974, after the CIA quit backing them. This isn't hard information to find on the web. There's a great documentary about the CIA in Tibet in six parts on youtube. The facts are available for those who care to look.

Well, time to let this drop. I realize you want to think you're on the Dalai Lama's side and I'm on China's, but I'm in between, saying both have made great mistakes, and if you want a peaceful resolution to the problems in Tibet, you have to accept its complicated history and move forward.

Tom, I'm back after a little poking around at that site. It's a great resource, and I love White's comments, especially about democracies warring on democracies, but his data has weaknesses. Here are the references for Tibet:

# Tibet (1950 et seq.): 600 000

* Chinese occupation. (For the most part, it's already been included in the numbers above.)
o Free Tibet Campaign [http://www.freetibet.org/info/facts/fact1.html]
+ Tibetans killed by the Chinese since 1950: 1,200,000
+ Died in prisons and labour camps between 1950 and 1984: up to 260,000
+ 1959 Uprising: 430,000 died
# K. in Reprisals: 87,000
o Our Times: 1,200,000
o Courtois: 600,000 - 1,200,000
o Walker, Robert: 500,000-1,000,000 (all ethnic minorities)
o Rummel: 375,000 democides inflicted on etnic minorities
+ ... incl 150,000 Tibetans
o Porter: 100,000 to 150,000.
o Eckhardt:
+ 1950-51 War: 2,000 civ.
+ 1956-59 Revolt: 60,000 civ. + 40,000 mil. = 100,000
o Harff and Gurr: 65,000 Tibetan nationalists, landowners, Buddhists killed, 1959
o Small & Singer say that China lost 40,000 soldiers in Tibet between 1956 and '59.

The only link he provides is to the Free Tibet site, which consists of unsubstantiated assertions that Parenti demolishes with many footnotes. Our Times simply repeats the number that the Dalai Lama and his brother like to use. I don't know when or if I'll get time to check out the rest—if anyone else wants to, I'd be grateful. But it looks like White simply took the range of available numbers and picked one in the middle.

Tom, thanks for that. I wasn't speaking of a span of 50 years; as recently as 2007, the Dalai Lama was claiming here that a million had died by 1959.

The census of 1953 was 1,274,000, if Parenti's source is correct.

Takuan @131: Democracy for everyone!

Antinuous @132, I'm not gunning for the Dalai Lama. I've praised some of his positions. I do worry that some Tibetan exiles are like some Cuban exiles, not wanting to return to the abuses of the old regime, but still wanting to return to positions of privilege.

Whether the Buddha ate meat is debated by Buddhists; many scriptures say he did not, as noted here. It's a bit like the question of whether Jesus ate fish, or whether John the Baptist ate locusts or bread: the records are contradictory.

Whether China wants to exploit Tibet is an extremely complex question; did you read the Atlantic Monthly article I linked to above?

"Implicit in your comments is the notion that those who do not agree with you do not use critical thinking skills in formulating our positions."

Uh, no. But when you ignore evidence, I become suspicious. If you think China killed a million Tibetans, you should be able to point to a census saying there were that many Tibetans to kill. You probably should be able to point to some evidence of killing fields: in the 20th century, it is extremely hard to kill a million people and completely hide the evidence.

"Remaining preternaturally calm while people are being murdered is not Buddhism."

I haven't check the papers today, but yesterday, the people being murdered were Han Chinese citizens living in Tibet. Yes, the Chinese government has done horrible things in the past, but are they guilty now? Evidence, please.

Takuan, are there any uncritical China supporters in this thread?

Teresa, a p.s.: Maybe I should get more heated in these discussions. Sometimes I wonder if calmness just makes angry people angrier, as though they believe only anger can find truth, and truth must be furious to be true.

But what I conclude is that when people get angry and have no facts to offer, they'll resort to implications about what a calm tone must imply.

And, if it helps at all, I did study Buddhism when I was younger. I greatly admire the Buddha's teaching, and I try to live by it. My complaint with Tibet's old regime is they changed a philosophy of simplicity to a philosophy of slavery.

Teresa, yes, I am obsessive about truth.

Takuan, quoting people who uncritically accept the Dalai Lama's numbers does not help your cause. From Parenti: "The official 1953 census--six years before the Chinese crackdown--recorded the entire population residing in Tibet at 1,274,000." He footnotes that, if you want to check his sources. (See link @8)

Michael Parenti, Peter Hessler who wrote the Atlantic Monthly article, and I are not Chinese.

Tom @114, your claim, "ethnic Tibetans are asking for their country back," suggests there are no class issues at work here. Here's something from the Washington Post, a conservative paper that has no love for the Chinese:

Tibet’s former slaves say they, too, don’t want their former masters to return to power.”I’ve already lived that life once before,” said Wangchuk, a 67-year-old former slave who was wearing his best clothes for his yearly pilgrimage to Shigatse, one of the holiest sites of Tibetan Buddhism. He said he worshiped the Dalai Lama, but added, “I may not be free under Chinese Communism, but I am better off than when I was a slave.”

Antinous @ #66, you repeat what many people claim without thinking: "The Chinese have killed as many as a million Tibetans since the occupation."

According to Tibet's official census in 1953, the population was a little over 1.2 million people. Since the Tibetan population was not wiped out, we have to conclude that those numbers are wildly inaccurate.

Seriously, read the Parenti article I linked to at #8. It's not a pro-China diatribe; he says many harsh things about China as well.

For anyone who wants to understand the complexities, I highly recommend two articles that are very critical of both sides:

From the Atlantic Monthly, Tibet Through Chinese Eyes.

And Michael Parenti's Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth.

Weren't the first deaths caused by rioters who burned shops and people? Focusing all of the blame on China seems simplistic.

Takuan, the rebels were funded for years, and then abandoned. The C.I.A. has a track record of doing that.

If you want to know more, there's a good documentary in six parts on youtube called "The C.I.A. in Tibet." Or simply google the subject, of course.

It's worth remembering that the C.I.A. funded Tibetan rebel fighters, including Buddhist monks, for a decade after the Dalai Lama fled. Disguised agitators could come from either side.

Takuan, you're referring to the Central Tibetan Administration of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, right? The name suggests you're mistaken.

As for waiting until the last Han Chinese is out, that's rather like the Palestinians waiting for the last Israeli to be out, or the Irish waiting for the last English, or the Native Americans waiting for the last European and African and Asian Americans, or-- Well, new situations call for new solutions.

Takuan, I don't like either side in this history. Based on the research I've done, Parenti's article (which I linked to at #7) is accurate. Yes, he takes a side, but the information he cites is still correct.

The parallels to Cuba are remarkable: the situation for the average Cuban under Batista and the average Tibetan under the Dalai Lama was atrocious, and life was better overall afterward, but life in those places could and should be better yet.

And your claim about the monastery system can only be defended if you believe serfs weren't people. The Atlantic Monthly has the tersest statement on this that I've found: “Tibetans were illiterate; 95 percent of the population was hereditary serfs and slaves owned by monasteries and nobles.”

And here's a good bit from the Washington Post, a very conservative newspaper: "While love for the Dalai Lama overflows in Tibet, few Tibetans would welcome a return of the corrupt aristocratic clans that fled with him in 1959 and that comprise the bulk of the Dalai’s advisers. Many Tibetan farmers, for example, have no interest in surrendering the land they gained during China’s land reform to the aristocratic clans. Tibet’s former slaves say they, too, don’t want their former masters to return to power.”I’ve already lived that life once before,” said Wangchuk, a 67-year-old former slave who was wearing his best clothes for his yearly pilgrimage to Shigatse, one of the holiest sites of Tibetan Buddhism. He said he worshiped the Dalai Lama, but added, “I may not be free under Chinese Communism, but I am better off than when I was a slave.”

Teresa, are there any inarguable statements?

In addition to the Dalai Lama getting his title from a Mongolian ruler of China, Tibet paid tribute to China for ages.

As for slavery, here's Kunzig Shamar Rinpoche on the subject: "Every monastery had land, sometimes extensive land. When monasteries bordered one another, they each wanted to protect their own land. They also needed a work force so the peasants became slaves of the monasteries, and administrators reigned like dictators. Sometimes they would fight for bordering land. When an animal from one monastery crossed the border of the other monastery’s territory, it would be kept there, and so on."

Yes, the situation with Tibet is complex, and yes, everyone should be free. But romanticizing the Tibetan slaveocracy is every bit as silly as romanticizing the Confederacy.

Shangui, that was just me being sloppy. Sorry!

On the other hand, Tibet under the Dalai Lamas was one of the world's last slave states. The Dalai Lama's title, which is half Chinese (Dalai) and half Tibetan (Lama), supports the argument that Tibet has always been part of China. Which doesn't mean Tibet shouldn't be free, but it certainly means the situation is not as simple as Bjork thinks.

Worth reading: Michael Parenti's Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth.

It is a good article. But it calls for artists who love managing their tribes, to use Seth Godin's phrase.

Given that the median US family income recently was $43,389, $100,000 sounds great to most people. But how much do publishers and record companies get from the true fans? Assume 10% for the rough calculations, and that income doesn't look so good.

Nekura20x6, an update: we're definitely going to have a license saying people can have noncommercial fun with Shadow Unit ideas, but it may not be one of the current CC licenses. The Shadow Unit writers are divided on the question of whether we should try to keep the official stories on our site. Now, I'm completely on the CC side, as shown by my own stories on the web, but so long as any of the other writers are uncomfortable with the idea, I'm not going to argue hard with them. The important thing is we all agree that people should be able to play noncommercially with our concepts. Fanfic is the highest form of flattery.

My theory is nearly all professional writers will stop worrying about file sharing in the next few years. But it's hard for people to let go of the 20th century model of copyright, especially when they know that if they don't get paid for their art, they'll have to find other jobs and make less art.

Dansinch, perhaps, 'cause we're still trying to decide on a business model, and "imaginary payment" may be an option. The one thing we know now is that lack of money will not prevent anyone from reading the material. The writers need to make a little money to survive, but we love to share.

Nekura20x6, definitely CC. I've thought CC was a good response to our screwed-up copyright laws pretty much since CC launched.

Another way to help people suffering under the US's primitive health care system: support HR 676.

India also sells skulls and skeletons to Buddhist monasteries: Skulls Smuggled for Monks' Chalices.

I think you missed the real story buried in this piece: "The Cuban government blames the limited Internet access on the U.S. sanctions that bar Cuba from hooking up to underwater fiber-optic cables that run just 12 miles offshore, a highway of broadband communication. Instead, Cuba must use expensive satellite uplinks to connect to the Internet via countries like Canada, Chile and Brazil."

If the US truly valued freedom of information, the Bush administration would be helping Cuba hook up to those cables.

My father-in-law has very "tall" feet. What can't he get a pair?

crickets @ #2, that's because we have names for the very far left: socialists and communists. But the armageddon-now christianists and the rightwing-libertarian let's-restore-slavery folks just don't have nice short names. So, really, be glad people don't use anything more descriptive than ultra-rightwing.