Dalai Lama to retire from politics?
Filed under:-guest-posts, -mini-posts | Tags:dalai lama, religion, tibet
Add comments
However, if it turns out that he really does retire from politics, I wonder if that might not end up being better for the Tibetan movement in the long run. I think that the fundamental problem with the negotiations between Beijing and the Dalai Lama so far is that they are not interested in negotiating on the same subject. The Dalai Lama wants to negotiate on behalf of the Tibetan people for political reforms in Tibet. The government in Beijing has never said they wanted to talk about that; instead, they have said they will negotiate about the Dalai Lama’s personal status. If the Dalai Lama gives up his political role and leaves it to the exile prime minister to have political negotiations, then maybe it will become possible for him to start negotiations with Beijing regarding his personal status. That is, he might actually be able to return to Tibet as an individual. By doing so, he might be able to create a degree of trust and goodwill which would eventually make political reforms possible.
The tricky part that remains, though, is that the Dalai Lama can give up his political role, but I don’t think he can retire from his religious role. In order to return, he would probably need some kind of reliable assurances that there would be reduced political interference in Tibetan religion. Most importantly, how could he return to Tibet if he thought the CCP would still control the selection and education of the next Dalai Lama?
There are currently 1 comments highlighted: 54646.
December 27th, 2008 at 9:13 am
The DL is old hats and only white westerners care to listen to him, even his fellowers have left him for dead.
The CCP should not bother to give a minute to this sick old fool and just go on without him.
December 27th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Hi Otto and Admin,
This post is not showing up on Recent Posts, the Posts’ RSS feed, and the main page. It is showing up on the calendar. The comments are showing up on Recent Comments and the Comments’ RSS feed. Can’t figure out why.
Thanks,
–Jerry
December 27th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Jerry,
Yeah, there was some sort of technical problem when I first submitted this, which was a few days earlier. I don’t know what the problem is now.
December 27th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Hi, Jerry and Otto,
Thanks for pointing this out. I would say this is actually not a bug but a feature. This blog has a “Letters” section and readers have multiple ways to check out those posts. Once someone makes a comment on a post, it shows up on Recent Comments and the RSS feed so more people will notice the post. That way, a topic few people are interested in will not occupy the limited real estate space on the main page. On the other hand, a hot topic in the “Letters” section can still get a thorough discussion.
December 28th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Hi admin,
LC, thanks for the information. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I agree with your thoughts about clutter and taking up valuable space.
I just started using Google Reader, which is why I just noticed this feature (the word “feature” brings back many delightful moments at MS 😛 Perhaps, someday, we may get a chance to chat about this and other MS adventures and misadventures. The misadventures were far more interesting. 🙂
Let me first say that I do not wish to cause any more work or hassle for you. That said, if it is not too much trouble, would you considered creating an RSS feed for Letters. You could advertise it in the Meta section on the right hand side. Or you could leave the RSS feed as an undocumented feature, which would still be accessible by typing in “http://blog.foolsmountain.com/letters/feed/”. Kind of like a secret “key”. ::LOL:: 😀
BTW, if we keep sending messages this way, this may end up as one of the most highly-commented Letters’ posts. Mostly with meta-comments. 😀
Have a great New Year.
Thanks,
–jerry
December 28th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Hi, Jerry,
That’s a great suggestion. I created a RSS feed just for Letters (
http://feeds.feedburner.com/foolsmountain/sPhs ).
If anyone else wants to discuss this further, please email me directly.
Happy New Year!
January 9th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Isn’t HHDL sort of a live-appointment? No disrespect if you belive He actually reincarnates, then it’s the same diety (which makes it a theocracy doesn’t it?)
Anyways, unlikely as HHDL recently opined about Charter 08.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
I do not know it is good or bad for China.
DL could be less confrontational than the one who will succeed him. His successor will be less colorful for sure.
Here is an updated version I wrote on Tibet.
http://tonyp4joke.blogspot.com/2009/02/free-tibet-my-holy-foot.html
October 28th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
@TonpyP4,
It’s probably good. Recently I’ve read several stories in the Western press about the Karmapa Lama taking over as the interim leader of the Tibetan exile movement – after the Dalai Lama passes away. When I was in Tibet earlier this month (I’ll write a post about it soon; my guide with whom I spent a week turned out to be a former exile), I saw pictures of the Karmapa Lama openly displayed in two people’s houses and one car.
If the exiles are going to look to the Karmapa Lama as their leader, and if the Karmapa Lama does not provoke the same type of response from the Chinese government as the current Dalai Lama – perhaps we will see the return of most of the exiles after the current Dalai Lama passes away.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
There’s always hope – provided China be more flexible. If China won’t entertain Tibetan independence, Tibetan autonomy (the real sort, not the empty words there are today) or even Tibetan political autonomy, what exactly is it offering?
It would help if Beijing and Chinese people tried to think at it from the Tibetan perspective. They’re tired of Chinese people telling them what to do and how to live. If Chinese people are happy with an interfering government, fine. But don’t impose that system on Tibetans. Once you start working from that angle things will become easier.
In a situation like this a fresh leader is only useful if you provide a fresh policy approach.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:45 am
#9 — so you are saying “14th Dala Lama should hang himself today or let one of his servants poisoning him to death just to finish off his tortured this life ” — just kidding …
October 29th, 2009 at 6:40 am
@jpan #11,
Nah … the karma repayment will be hefty. I personally certainly can’t afford it!
October 29th, 2009 at 7:09 am
This is a relatively new interview with Karmapa:
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/the-karmapa-breaks-his-silence/358897/
October 29th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Now, a little off topic.
Buddhism is the most respected religion to me. Compared to the ever-lasting religious wars between Christians and Muslims, Buddhism is pretty tame. However, we have conflicts in Tibet and at least two leaders (Canton and HK) live in rich folks’ style with drivers for their expensive cars. There must be some rules against this kind of life style.
I am reading a book on the historical event of the Tang Monk’s Journey to the West. It is written by a modern scholar commenting and with some educated guesses. It is fascinating. The book’s ISBN 978-986-6873-48-5 in traditional Chinese. I found the following.
* The ancient text was written about 1,400 years ago. We can still understand most of the text and almost 100% with the author’s comments and occasional educated guesses. The author needs to translate the modern terms for city names, nations, local terms at the time…
* Ancient language is short. It could be due to the expensive paper and ink (or bamboo and carving at earlier time). It must be more enjoyable at their time. I guess we only have modern way in writing in longer and easier to understand form in Qing time.
* Ancient China has record history over 2,000 years ago I guess but not so in many ancient civilizations like India. Tang monk translated the Hindi text to Chinese. Now, India translated back the same text to Indian language so they can understand the history, culture and geography at that time.
Thanks for our heritage!
* The facts and wisdom of Tang monk are quite different what were described in the popular friction, which is one of our top four literature classics.
* Ancient India is quite advanced. The Arabian numbers actually was invented in India. We call it Arabian as it is the country that passed the idea to Europe. If we do not progress, we let others pass us by and India is a good example.
* Most likely, most modern musical instruments were invented in Middle East and passed to Europe, India and China which have their own individual modifications. Just from the book.
—- thanks for reading my book report and I hope my teacher would give me a passing grade —– 🙂
November 10th, 2009 at 4:02 am
“Tang monk translated the Hindi text to Chinese. Now, India translated back the same text to Indian language so they can understand the history, culture and geography at that time.”
That is very true, especially insofar as the history of medieval Buddhism in India is concerned. The travel records of Faxian, Xuanzang, and others are of among the main sources of information about on-the-ground Buddhism of that era. This is partly due to a more developed tradition of written history in China, and partly due to the fact that paper tends to deteriorate very quickly in the Indian climate, so much of what they did write down is long gone.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
China warns Obama about Dalai Lama, citing US President Lincoln on abolishing slavery
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5AB1BF20091112
November 12th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
China warns Obama about Dalai Lama, citing US President Lincoln on abolishing slavery
Lincoln didn’t abolish slavery only to impose all new kinds of restrictions on their lives, such as getting to choose the leadership of their respective religions.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:51 am
@linho #16, @Raj #17
Several comments.
China Daily also reported on this in Invoking Lincoln, China warns Obama.
Tibet, since the 1600’s, has been independent, on and off. Tibet was de facto independent after the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1912 until 1949 when the PRC invaded. That is hardly a claim for “national sovereignty and territorial integrity”.
South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia were all original American colonies. They were all signatories to the Declaration of Independence in 1776. They seceded, along with Mississippi (part of South Carolina, Georgia and disputed Spanish territory), Florida (Spain ceded to the US after 1st Seminole War), Alabama (originally part of Mississippi territory and Florida), Louisiana (purchased from the French), Texas (Texans defeated the Mexicans and joined the US), Arkansas (part of the Louisiana Purchase) and Tennessee (originally part of the N. Carolina and later the Southwest Territory).
Before the Civil War, territorial integrity and national sovereignty were not issues. Slavery, and its euphemism, “states rights” were the issues.
China daily further quotes Qin Gang:
No question. Obama is right on the money.
Mao invaded Tibet to abolish serfdom? And Mao is the “Great Emancipator”? Right! And the Pope is Jewish and I am an ET. Right! ::LMAO::
And as Raj points out in #17, China replaced “serfdom” with “all new kinds of restrictions on their lives, such as getting to choose the leadership of their respective religions.” That does not sound like what Lincoln had in mind. American freedoms vs. Chinese restrictions. I think I will go with America on this one.
It is absolutely specious and meretricious of Qin Gang to compare the US with China. Bogus to the max!
The invocation of Lincoln is not only specious, meretricious, duplicitous and hypocritical; it downright beggars belief and credibility! Lincoln was the “Great Emancipator”, a troubled, introverted, thoughtful reflective, decisive, elected leader. Mao, as Lord Acton reminds us, is the product of “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
If China wants to do whatever it wants to do in Tibet, well, that is the way it is. As for China painting itself as a “saint”, that is hypocritical and bogus to the max. And downright mendacious and deceitful.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:12 am
I saw several remarks at the abovementioned link to China Daily in #18:
My initial reaction was to LMAO and ROFL. Really, who cares if the “Chinese people should not be humiliated”? Certainly not I. If the Chinese choose to be humiliated and lose face, it is not my problem. So what?
My second reaction was to think that this hits at a core issue, if not the core issue, between China and the US. “Saving face” versus “get over it”. If I worried every time somebody disagreed with me, to the point that I believed I was being humiliated, I would not have a life. As my dad has told me, “It is not important how many times you get knocked down. It is important how many times you get back up!” Right on, dad. Perhaps the Chinese have a chip on their shoulder and are hypersensitive.
I also saw this at the article:
Hmmm. C’est la vie. Those are the breaks of the game.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Hey Jerry #19,
that’s a good one.
“90 percent of polled Chinese Internet users are against such a meeting.” — sounds about right, even on this site. And once again, China seems to be shooting herself in the foot. The Dalai Lama has met with many world leaders in the past. So does China think the Dalai Lama would get more mileage by meeting with Obama, or by China whining and complaining and drawing publicity simply in anticipation of such a meeting?
“The opinion of Chinese people should not be humiliated” — or perhaps Chinese people should avoid espousing opinions that may be ripe for humiliation. Or as you suggest, maybe they should suck it up and grow a thicker skin already.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:01 am
SKC #20
Sounds like you don’t consider yourself to be Chinese. I have a feeling that it is not simply a matter of citizenship.
Well, personally I really don’t care which group you feel like you belong to. I just hope that you are not one of those people who has to be whiter than white to show that they belong. It would be really sad if that’s the case.
Jerry #19
There are certain things that certain people are sensitive to given their history. We should all bear that in mind when we throw things like “get over it” out there so care freely. For instance, I would never tell a Jewish person to “get over it” when it comes to a sensitive part of their history — even if it has been more 60 years.
Given the history of foreign “interventions” in China, their immediate and lasting consequences, I personally has very little tolerance when it to foreign intervention in domestic matters. All that jet setting and what not by the DL is simply just that, naked solicitation of foreign intervention. It is domestic support that he really needs. Lasting time I checked, he is doing a really swell job on that front.
Oh yeah, I know someone is bound to bring up the those hackneyed arguments about HR and what not. Yeah, I am going to care more about HR when people are pissing on my face. More broadly, we can ask ourselves, will people be more willing to cooperate with us if we so wantonly go about doing things like that. Then again, we can just tell people to grow thicker skin and get over it, right?
November 15th, 2009 at 1:52 am
To Flags,
thanks for the psychoanalysis. I must say that leather couch experience was fairly painless…so much so that I didn’t even need to be present. That’s the type of navel-gazing I appreciate best, so thanks for that.
I’m a Canadian internet user who happens to be Chinese, so the first quote doesn’t apply to me. And even if it did, I’d be among the 10% who wouldn’t care if Obama met with the Dalai Lama.
Oh, and I’m the type of Chinese person who avoids espousing opinions that are ripe for humiliation. So perhaps I simply don’t consider myself to be your type of CHinese.
“I just hope that you are not one of those people who has to be whiter than white to show that they belong.” — ahh, worry not, sir. I don’t need to pretend to be any colour. Nor do I need to pretend to belong to anything. I’m quite content to simply use my brain. More people should try it…quite a satisfying experience, really.
November 15th, 2009 at 1:59 am
Hi Jerry #19,
“My initial reaction was to LMAO and ROFL. Really, who cares if the “Chinese people should not be humiliated”? Certainly not I. If the Chinese choose to be humiliated and lose face, it is not my problem. So what?”
For the Chinese people killed by the riot in 2008 in Lhasa – the girls burnt to death are not going to “get back up.”
Let’s suppose a faction of the DL’s TGIE was partly responsible for organizing the riot in 2008. I don’t think this is LMAO or ROFL.
So, who cares? Of course the Chinese people and the Chinese government care. With your comment #19, I think less of them expect you to care for sure.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:32 am
To Dewang:
Jerry’s response in #19 seems directed at the usual Chinese party line of objecting to international leaders meeting with the Dalai Lama, wherever, whenever.
It seems to be quite a ridiculous stretch to accuse him of similar sentiments in response to innocent people being killed during the riots, doesn’t it? Besides, where has he said that “girls burnt to death” in Lhasa was a funny matter? You wouldn’t happen to be guilty of accusing him of saying something he never did, then attacking him for it, would you?
“Let’s suppose a faction of the DL’s TGIE was partly responsible for organizing the riot in 2008.” — but if we assume that no such faction existed, or that they bore no responsibility, then can the chuckles safely resume?
“Of course the Chinese people and the Chinese government care.” — care about what? About the innocent victims of the riots? Sure they should. But what does that have to do with Obama meeting with the Dalai Lama?
See, here’s the thing. What exactly is it about Obama meeting with the Dalai Lama that China objects to? The fact that they would have a conversation? For all we know, they could be reading each other bedtime stories on the horn every night as it is. Or maybe Obama is texting the Dalai Lama on his Blackberry every chance he gets. They could be conversing this very second. So it can’t be just a conversation that CHina objects to.
So, is it the public nature of such a meeting that CHina objects to? If so, what aspect of such a public meeting does China find objectionable? Do they object to Obama meeting a Nobel-laureate? Doubtful. Do they object to him meeting with a religious leader? Doubt that too. So do they object because some see the Dalai Lama as a separatist? Probably.
Okay. So Obama meeting in person publicly with the Dalai Lama and having a conversation might be construed by some to buttress the separatist bonafides of the Dalai Lama. Of course that would ignore all the other potential reasons for meeting with the guy. But if such publicity is what China abhors, do they think the meeting would receive more publicity by them whining and complaining in its lead-up, or less? If China wants to restrict the Dalai lama’s access to the international spotlight, does her constant belly-aching about it further her cause, or does it hurt it?
November 15th, 2009 at 4:02 am
flags,
“All that jet setting and what not by the DL is simply just that, naked solicitation of foreign intervention. It is domestic support that he really needs. Lasting time I checked, he is doing a really swell job on that front.”
“Domestic support”, really? Does that strike you as a reasonable goal for him to try for at this point? I’m not sure there’s any evidence that the Chinese public is at all interested in developing a positive opinion of him, but, even if they were, it wouldn’t matter that much, because the Chinese government is not required to go along with what the people want anyway. What the Dalai Lama really needs to do is get on Hu Jintao’s good side, I guess. If he promises not to meet with foreign leades anymore, I suppose the Politburo will warm up to him and decide, what the heck, let’s meet him halfway for the sake of peace and brotherhood? That seems like a very unrealistic scenario. Outside pressure isn’t a very good tool, but it seems like the only one he has at his disposal. I guess it would help develop “domestic support” if he would just cave in on all of the issues he cares about. I can’t help but feel like that’s what this sort of advice really boils down to: “give up”.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:20 am
Hi S.K. Cheung, #24,
Frankly, I’ve got nothing more to add.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:57 am
@dewang #23, @S.K. Cheung #24
Thanks for your comments, SK.
As I have said before, Dewang, you seem very troubled. If you wish to take potshots at invisible bogeymen, engage in unbelievable non sequiturs and go off on tangential extrapolations, be my guest. It is a free country. They may beggar belief, but such is your right.
In #19, my initial reaction to Qin Gang’s statement, ‘ “The opinion of Chinese people should not be humiliated,” he said’, was to laugh and heap ridicule on it, for IMHO, the statement was ridiculous.
Then, out of the middle of nowhere, you write in #23:
Huh? Where the hell did that come from? I don’t laugh about people’s suffering, injuries or deaths. That was a truly amazing non sequitur. BTW, you seem to have forgotten that Tibetans suffered, were injured and died. And they continue to suffer. Rather convenient on your part, Dewang, eh?
Then, in an extremely imaginative tangential extrapolation, you write:
Really, Dewang. ::shaking my head::
Thanks, again, SK for your pithy retort to Dewang. You covered the rest of my points very well.
Dewang, you seem to be packing a loaded agenda. And I provided a convenient detonator for your explosion.
IMHO, you have stretched the limits of your credibility with me.
BTW, I saw your original post yesterday. Really bizarre. Unbelievable.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Getting back to the original post from Otto, my opinion is that in the view of the CCP, the Dalai Lama can never “retire” in their eyes. He will never see Tibet again. They decided years ago to wait him out and deal with the next guy, which looks like it’ll be the Karmapa Lama.
@ FOTR #21: Sounds to me like you’re calling SKC a “banana”. Who elected you as judge and jury? Because someone might not agree with you, that makes them somehow less “Chinese”? Or is it that SKC lives in Vancouver rather than China and only people living in China can truly judge who is Chinese? So what part of China do you live in? At least SKC is honest when saying he is Chinese Canadian. It reminds me of bygone days when Japanese students who came to the States would not tell other Japanese when they got back to Japan because they might be considered to be “contaminated”.
So are Chinese Canadians “contaminated”? How about Chinese students studying in the States or Canada, are they “contaminated” and not quite “Chinese”? How about Chinese working in the States or Canada with a work visa? Are they contaminated? Is their contamination more or less than the students? How about if a Chinese person gets a green card. Are they then SUPER contaminated? Which contaminates you more, study or work? Well, I’m sure anyone even visiting either country from China would be partially contaminated, right?
Is there a sliding scale? For instance, people who have never set foot outside of China are 100% Chinese. Does a one week holiday in the States makes a Chinese person only 95% Chinese, two weeks brings you down to 92%, a student visa would probably make you only 70%, and if you had a green card? Hell, then you’d only be 22% Chinese unless you visited China every year, which would bring you up to 34.7%, right?
So exactly how “Chinese” are you?
What I find annoying is that this reminds me of GWB and his “you’re either with us or against us”, implying that if you weren’t with him, you were unpatriotic. Whenever I hear any “all or nothing” opinion, I’m immediately suspicious and question the intelligence of the person making the remark, just as I question the intelligence of people whose political opinions are drawn from listening to radio show talking heads, both conservative and liberal.
You wrote, “It is domestic support that he really needs. Lasting time I checked, he is doing a really swell job on that front.”
The Dalai Lama doesn’t have CCP support and he doesn’t have Han Chinese domestic support but from what I’ve gathered, he seems to have Tibetan Chinese domestic support and he also seems to have Taiwanese domestic support (judging by the crowds he attracted, or does Taiwan only count as being part of China when it is convenient?). So again, it’s not an “all or nothing” situation. All or nothing pronouncements are intellectually “clean” solutions that usually have nothing to do with reality. Both life and politics are shades of gray, not black and white.
You wrote, “Oh yeah, I know someone is bound to bring up the those hackneyed arguments about HR and what not. Yeah, I am going to care more about HR when people are pissing on my face. More broadly, we can ask ourselves, will people be more willing to cooperate with us if we so wantonly go about doing things like that. Then again, we can just tell people to grow thicker skin and get over it, right?”
I’m not going to claim I have any idea what you meant by this since I don’t have a clue. Rights are hackneyed? You don’t care about rights unless you’re arrested? If other people are abused because they have no rights protection, you’re ok with it as long as you’re not the one being abused, but if you ARE the one being abused then you care? Should others also care at that point? If they did, they’d be disagreeing with your original position. It’s a real mess of a paragraph and by the way, a pretty gross metaphor unless you are particularly kinky.
@ DeWang #23: I can just as easily write, “Let’s suppose a faction of the CCP was partly responsible for organizing the riot in 2008. I don’t think this is LMAO or ROFL.
So, who cares? Of course the Tibetan people care. With your comment #23, I think less of them expect you to care for sure.”
See the problem? When you start to “suppose”, you open up a big can of worms. You “suppose”, someone else “supposes” back, you get into a big “supposing” battle that is all speculative and eventually goes round in circles.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:14 am
DELETED FOR PROFANITY AND RACIAL SLUR
November 16th, 2009 at 12:28 am
flags, I see no substance in your response, just some vague handwaving.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:52 am
DELETED FOR PROFANITY
November 16th, 2009 at 5:17 am
@ flags of the republic: You’ve been on this blog long enough to know the rules. The cursing is bad enough but the racial slur is way over the line.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:27 am
LOL flags. Twice in 38 minutes! Well done m’boy. Too bad I didn’t get a chance to read them. Pretty rainy and wet in my neck of the woods today…could’ve used a laugh. Maybe next time.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:54 am
Hi Jerry, #27,
First of all, “And I provided a convenient detonator for your explosion.” You have in fact exploded and seemed to have claimed Steve #28 as a casualty.
“BTW, you seem to have forgotten that Tibetans suffered, were injured and died. And they continue to suffer. Rather convenient on your part, Dewang, eh?”
Btw, one of them burnt was ethnic Tibetan. Its interesting you assume when I say “Chinese” I don’t mean to include all 56 ethnic groups. That’s your assumption, isn’t it – Chinese do not include the Tibetans in Tibet? In fact, if you know the “opinion of the Chinese people”, they’d tell you Chinese include Tibetans in Tibet – including Russians too in case you don’t know.
Why do you think the 90% polled object to Obama meeting with the Dalai Lama?
1. First of all, they view the DL as a politician:
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2008/05/27/questions-for-the-dalai-lama/
2. Second, the Chinese government says the DL/TGIE was responsible for the 2008 Lhasa riot.
3. The Chinese people believe #1 and #2.
You may personally not agree with #1, #2, #3 or you don’t know about them – well, its entirely consistent with your comments, again:
Hi Steve
The CCP example is pretty lame. That’s like saying the U.S. Republican party was responsible for 911.
You have been around FM long enough to know what I am talking about #1, #2, #3 above. So I am surprised by your comment in defending Jerry.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:38 am
To Dewang:
“if you know the “opinion of the Chinese people”, they’d tell you Chinese include Tibetans in Tibet” — actually, if you ask justkeeper in one of the new threads, it appears he thinks of Tibetans in Tibet as “buffers”. Also, you should consider asking Tibetans about how they consider themselves.
“the Chinese government says the DL/TGIE was responsible for the 2008 Lhasa riot.” — you don’t say. Well golly-gee, it must be true then.
BTW, still waiting for you to draw any semblance of a link between all this Lhasa stuff with a meeting between Obama and the Dalai lama, to which Jerry had found the Chinese reaction to be worthy of laughing off body parts and rolling about. It seems you’re still accusing Jerry of saying stuff he never said. Is that a fun game?
“That’s like saying the U.S. Republican party was responsible for 911.” — that comparison itself is just as lame. Steve was mocking your “supposition” as in “Let’s suppose a faction of the DL’s TGIE was partly responsible for organizing the riot in 2008.” Which is also why he wrote “You “suppose”, someone else “supposes” back, you get into a big “supposing” battle that is all speculative and eventually goes round in circles.” What is up with you these last few days? Can you not make an honest argument anymore?
November 16th, 2009 at 7:47 am
Hey Steve,
Aren’t you being a little over sensitive? When didn’t what I wrote ever considered as a racial slur? Heck, when I was in Oakland. They try to teach it in public school.
When did FM become too good for ebonics?
Anyhow, at least you and Otto read it. That’s what mattered. I don’t even care about the part that you put words in my mouth about SKC.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Hey SKC,
Don’t laugh.
The only thing that I wrote about/to you in those comments is the following with respect to #22: “I am a trained psychologist. That’s what I do. No Joke.”
November 16th, 2009 at 8:05 am
To Flags,
alrighty then.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Hi S.K. Cheung, #35,
if you know the “opinion of the Chinese people”, they’d tell you Chinese include Tibetans in Tibet” — actually, if you ask justkeeper in one of the new threads, it appears he thinks of Tibetans in Tibet as “buffers”.
Wow, in all honesty, after seeing all the comments on FM, you’d say Chinese people don’t consider Tibetans in Tibet Chinese? Unbelievable!
“the Chinese government says the DL/TGIE was responsible for the 2008 Lhasa riot.” — you don’t say. Well golly-gee, it must be true then.
That explains why the following Jerry comments, AGAIN, chimes really well with you:
“BTW, still waiting for you to draw any semblance of a link between all this Lhasa stuff with a meeting between Obama and the Dalai lama, to which Jerry had found the Chinese reaction to be worthy of laughing off body parts and rolling about. It seems you’re still accusing Jerry of saying stuff he never said. Is that a fun game?”
“Can you not make an honest argument anymore?”
Should we go back and forth on this theme?
What parts of #1, #2, and #3 in my prior comment don’t make sense to you. I’d say that’s the Chinese people’s feeling, and yeah, if Obama meets the DL, I think they consider that humiliation.
I simply do not understand why that point is difficult to understand. But I won’t start questioning your honesty.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:33 am
To Dewang:
you know I’m one for precision in language. So if you want to do this dance, I’m game.
“you’d say Chinese people don’t consider Tibetans in Tibet Chinese? Unbelievable!” — please show me where I said this. What I did suggest was for you to check out Justkeeper’s thread on “Understanding China Geopolitically”, where I interpreted him to be suggesting that Tibetans in Tibet are “buffers”, based on his writing. I have not stated, suggested, nor insinuated that other Chinese share his thoughts. I’ve also asked what you think Tibetans in Tibet might consider themselves. I noticed you’ve conveniently ignored that part.
“That explains why the following Jerry comments, AGAIN, chimes really well with you” — just so you’re not surprised, most of what Jerry says chimes pretty well with me.
Your #1/2/3 are fine. My question is this: what does any of that have to do with Obama meeting with the Dalai lama. After all, Jerry found the Chinese reaction to this meeting quite humourous, and you objected to that. What part of my question is confusing you?
“I’d say that’s the Chinese people’s feeling, and yeah, if Obama meets the DL, I think they consider that humiliation.” — whatever floats their boat, and yours. And I (and possibly Jerry, but you’d have to ask him) think they should get over it already. If that doesn’t sit well with you, so be it.
“But I won’t start questioning your honesty.” — fantastic. But I’ve started to question yours. And if you want something else to think about, you should respond to #24.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:50 am
@flags of the republic #21
Flags, I am Russian Jewish American. I would have written “a bi gezunt” rather than “get over it”, but you probably don’t know Yiddish. Not the same as Ebonics.
You pointed lectured me, “There are certain things that certain people are sensitive to given their history. We should all bear that in mind when we throw things like “get over it” out there so care freely.”
How sensitive for a person who uses the “N” word; yes, I read the post and have a copy. You are nothing more than a racist bigot. Then, you have the nerve to cover your use of the “N” word with (#36), “Aren’t you being a little over sensitive? When didn’t what I wrote ever considered as a racial slur? Heck, when I was in Oakland. They try to teach it in public school. When did FM become too good for ebonics?”
How do you say David Duke or Josef Mengele in Chinese? You are some professional, trained psychologist, n’etes-vous pas? ::Shaking my head::
Regarding my insensitivity, I have said “a bi gezunt” to Jewish people. As my dad said, “It is not important how many times you get knocked down. It is important how many times you get back up!” And “a bi gezunt” applies to ridiculous statements such as ‘ “The opinion of Chinese people should not be humiliated,” he said.’ I do not use “a bi gezunt” or “get over it” flippantly. For sure I don’t use the “N” word.
Finally, SK is Chinese, Chinese Canadian, to be exact. He is Chinese. He may not meet your approval, for whatever reason. Tough luck. A bi gezunt, Flags.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:10 am
@Steve #28, @dewang #34
Dewang wrote in #34
Steve, I am soooo sorrrrrrry for victimizing you and making you a casualty. ::LMAO:: (I seem to be good at LMAO). Your comments are spot on. Wow, I never knew that I had such power over you, Steve.
Dewang, perhaps you forgot your explosion in your first post, which I believe was pulled by you. Very bizarre post!
Dewang, you wrote, “Its interesting you assume when I say “Chinese” I don’t mean to include all 56 ethnic groups. That’s your assumption, isn’t it – Chinese do not include the Tibetans in Tibet?”
I guess it is that I consider them Tibetans. And, actually, I wrote, “BTW, you seem to have forgotten that Tibetans suffered, were injured and died.” Sorry if I seemed to assume that because you did not say Tibetans. Thanks for the clarification. And I am sorry that you imaginatively assumed that I did not care about the innocents who were harmed during the Lhasa Incident. BTW, you seem to have this penchant for missing key modifiers and words. Perhaps you are in too much of a rush to attack. Remember, “haste makes waste”! ::ROFL:: (Oh, there I go again!)
“they’d tell you Chinese include Tibetans in Tibet – including Russians too in case you don’t know.”
Bad choice of citations. We Russian Jews don’t seem to care what the authorities in Russia think, espouse or propagandize. We have some bad memories of Russia and do not wish to relive them. Yes, Dewang, we “got over it”; we Jews, in general, are experts at getting up after life knocks us down! And, Dewang, no sense in living in the past, is there?
“1. First of all, they view the DL as a politician”
Dewang, the Chinese are entitled to their opinions of the DL. When I read the vilifications directed at the DL here at FM and elsewhere, I am reminded of similar vilifications directed at Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Mahatma Gandhi, Pablo Neruda, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and others.
“2. Second, the Chinese government says the DL/TGIE was responsible for the 2008 Lhasa riot.”
Sure, the Chinese government is telling the truth in this case. Just like J. Edgar Hoover was telling the truth about MLK. NOT!! ::LOL:: (I really have to kick this habit of laughing whilst I write!) I trust the PRC and CCP not one iota. Just my opinion.
“3. The Chinese people believe #1 and #2.” (and earlier you wrote, ‘ “opinion of the Chinese people” ‘)
All of them; 100% of them? Might not we be getting carried away here?
“The CCP example is pretty lame.” (response to Steve)
Wrong, Dewang, IMHO! Steve is spot on! He is just pointing out how preposterous your original supposition was.
Dewang, it is getting more difficult for me to take you seriously! Really! And you seem to take yourself too seriously! Too bad! Life is short; have fun!
November 16th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Hi DeWang: Per your post #34, you wrote, “The CCP example is pretty lame. That’s like saying the U.S. Republican party was responsible for 911.”
Actually, the neo-cons in the Republican party have been blamed for 911 in conspiracy circles. So has Mossad, the Pakistanis, the Bush administration (so they could invade Afghanistan and Iraq), American Jews, the CIA and a host of other possibilities. Do I think that is absurd? Yes, we agree on that. I think it just as absurd to suggest that the Dalai Lama planned riots that killed innocents unless someone can show me some proof of it.
Look at it this way: I tell you “My son has six fingers on each hand” and you ask, “Wow, I’d like to see that!” I say, “You don’t need to see it, I said it so it must be true since I’m his dad,” You reply, “Sorry, but I need to see some proof that he actually has six fingers on each hand.” My reply? “By asking me for proof, you are insulting me and humiliating my entire family.”
So while I don’t believe the CCP had anything to do with the riots, unless I’m offered some credible evidence that extends beyond unverified accusation, I don’t buy that the Dalai Lama had anything to do with those riots. Therefore, we’re in the world of “suppose”, which by the way was exactly what you wrote: “Let’s SUPPOSE a faction of the DL’s TGIE was partly responsible for organizing the riot in 2008.” I don’t think “suppose” arguments are constructive, that’s all.
You also wrote, “You have been around FM long enough to know what I am talking about #1, #2, #3 above. So I am surprised by your comment in defending Jerry.”
DeWang, I wasn’t defending Jerry. I was trying to show the danger of resorting to “suppose” style arguments. If I actually look at your arguments 1, 2 &3:
1. First of all, they view the DL as a politician. – I agree with you.
2. Second, the Chinese government says the DL/TGIE was responsible for the 2008 Lhasa riot. – They certainly did say that.
3. The Chinese people believe #1 and #2. – Here we have a divergence of opinion. I’d bet if you asked Han Chinese this question, the overwhelming number would agree with you. I’d also bet that if you asked Tibetan Chinese this same question, the overwhelming number would not agree with you. Since many here like to compare China to the USA, let’s go back to the ’50s. If you had asked Americans then if blacks were being in a racist manner, the majority of non-blacks would have said no while the majority of blacks would have said yes. Since there were far more non-blacks than blacks, could we then conclude that there was no racism in the USA at the time? That’s the weakness of said argument.
I enjoy reading comments from both you and Jerry, but I’d rather they stay relevant because they’re far more interesting when they do.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
#28
Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle.
The DL has Taiwanese domestic support. Even if true, aren’t we conveniently mixing religious with political support?
I wish people would learn to understand Taiwan before they comment on Taiwan here. But so it goes … at least for now.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Hi Steve,
I have to speak up here.
I read Flags’ comment (29) before it was deleted. I didn’t see anything wrong with it. He language use might had been a bit rough. But that’s simply just part of the popular urban lingo. It is just not right that now Jerry thinks Flags is a racist because he doesn’t understand its usage.
You should set it straight.
Best
Kain
November 16th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
@ Allen: Aren’t we being a bit sarcastic today? I didn’t realize you were living in Taiwan these days. Oh, you’re not? Gee, I wish people would learn that being Taiwanese American isn’t the same as being Taiwanese before they comment on Taiwan here. But so it goes…
If you had bothered to read my initial comment (which you obviously didn’t), you might have noticed that in my opinion the political and religious sides of the Dalai Lama cannot be separated, and that’s why a “retired” Dalai Lama would never be accepted by the CCP.
What I’d like to know is, why is it that every time we have a post or reference to Taiwan, you suddenly become holier than thou and feel the need to desecrate anyone’s opinion that doesn’t agree with yours? Why is it that when I lived in Taiwan, many Taiwanese expressed the opinion that they wished Taiwanese Americans (they’re referring to people such as yourself) would worry more about American politics and less about theirs? Hmm… I believe it was something about telling them how to live while conveniently living somewhere else, voting in their elections and then returning home to the States, donating money to political candidates in Taiwan but not having to live with the decisions those candidates make once they are elected?
You might find that most Taiwanese don’t particularly care about your opinion of their country nor my opinion of their country. Having opinions is fine and that’s what this blog is all about, but how about canning the condescending attitude, huh?
November 16th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Hi Kain~
In the past, we allowed far more latitude but it was being abused and we were losing our thoughtful bloggers, so we put together blog rules which you can read here. Rules don’t mean much unless we enforce them, and we’ve had many positive comments after doing so.
We’re trying to be inclusive, not insulting, and we do not want to be a “flame wars” blog. There are plenty of those to choose from where you can insult and curse to your heart’s content. Personally, I have rarely come across anyone who is as witty as they seem to think they are.
I have no patience with racist remarks. I’m originally from New Jersey near New York City and as urbanite as you can get so I’ll tell you what, why don’t you go down to a black section of town in New York, walk up to a group of guys and say to them what FOTR wrote. I’ll come visit you in the hospital.
It’s easier to be a bigot online than in real life. What I’ve found in my experience is that people with the biggest mouths are also the biggest cowards when you’re face to face. If FOTR doesn’t understand the usage of the language he wrote, then he shouldn’t use it, period. Ignorance is no excuse. But if he’s truly from Oakland, then he should understand it’s usage and if he did, that would make him a bigot as Jerry said.
If you really don’t understand why what he wrote is offensive, I would strongly encourage you to talk about it with an African American friend, especially an older one.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Hi Jerry, S.K. Cheung,
Life is indeed short. Honestly, nothing more further for me to say.
Hi Steve,
“I think it just as absurd to suggest that the Dalai Lama planned riots that killed innocents unless someone can show me some proof of it.”
It seems you are doing exactly to me what Jerry is accusing me of doing. Did I suggest this? If factions inside the TGIE like the TYC was responsible, don’t you think the head of the TGIE – the DL ought to take responsibility? Only the DL and the Chinese authorities know for sure of the DL’s direct involvement.
For me personally, as long as the TGIE organized the protest inside Lhasa which in turn turned into a riot, they will need to take responsibility for what transpired.
Why do I personally believe the TGIE was involved in the planning of the Lhasa protest? Because it is a fact that the TGIE and some Tibetan separatists in Canada and the U.S. were organizing a global protest of the Olympics Torch Relay. Are we that naive to believe these same people are not trying to stir up as much unrest inside Tibet as much as possible?
Thx for responding to my points #1, #2, and #3. And, I am totally fine with the way you see it. So, going back to Jerry’s LMAO and ROFL about Chinese peoples feeling about a potential meeting between the DL and Obama – that’s all I wanted to say – the Chinese people are going to feel humiliated for those 3 reasons. It ain’t a LMAO or ROFL matter.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Hi Steve,
I appreciate your candor. But our experience differ quite a bit. I grow up in the Bay area. It is not New york, but some parts are by no means a walk in the park either. I have seen that phrase used quite frequently, and across racial lines. Maybe the racial and social dynamics are different here on the west coast because I haven’t seen anybody sent to hospital over it. But given your over righteous tone, I am not going make any more quibble about it.
best
Kain
November 16th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Hi Steve, #46,
Then you should compare “chuckle chuckle chuckle” to “LMAO”, “ROFL”, shaking my head and all that nonsense.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Hi DeWang #50:
I had no problem with “chuckle, chuckle, chuckle” or Allen’s opinion, I had a problem with the last sentence.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Hi Kain~
As I’ve said before, what is “over righteous” to some might not be “over righteous” to others. I tend to form my opinions on what constitutes racist language towards black Americans by asking black Americans, as I suggested you do. I’m not black and therefore not qualified to make that judgment. It’d work the same way if the subject were potential Asian slurs; I’d ask the Asian culture in question rather than make that judgment myself.
When it comes to racism, I’d rather err on the side of caution rather than the other way ’round.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
@ DeWang #48: You wrote, “It seems you are doing exactly to me what Jerry is accusing me of doing. Did I suggest this?”
Re-reading what I wrote, you are certainly correct and I apologize. Without realizing it, I distorted what you wrote. Mea culpa. You mentioned indirect responsibility and I wrote it as direct responsibility, which are two completely different behaviors.
You wrote, “If factions inside the TGIE like the TYC was responsible, don’t you think the head of the TGIE – the DL ought to take responsibility?”
In my opinion, no. If a faction inside the TGIE did something without his knowledge, that’d be like a faction inside the CCP engaging in something the leadership didn’t know about. If someone is corrupt, is that person responsible or is the party responsible for his corruption since he is a member of the party? You might think the party IS responsible, but I would still blame it on the individual. Our opinions are valid as long as they remains consistent, though they might differ.
You wrote, “Only the DL and the Chinese authorities know for sure of the DL’s direct involvement.”
I would think if the Chinese authorities had proof of the Dalai Lama’s involvement, they would shout that proof from the rooftops. They did not. I seem to recall another government saying that Iraq had WMD’s but later we found out that they did not. No proof, no belief, at least for me. You have more confidence in their accusations and that’s fine, agree to disagree here.
You wrote, “Why do I personally believe the TGIE was involved in the planning of the Lhasa protest? Because it is a fact that the TGIE and some Tibetan separatists in Canada and the U.S. were organizing a global protest of the Olympics Torch Relay. Are we that naive to believe these same people are not trying to stir up as much unrest inside Tibet as much as possible?”
We can speculate in any direction we want, and in speculating need to look at what any action would accomplish. Organized global protests? I personally think they did and I also think it eventually backfired on them by doing so. There’s a time and a place for everything and an Olympic torch run wasn’t it.
Stirring up unrest in Tibet? I need more proof. And remember, organizing a protest isn’t the same as organizing a riot. There are many instances of riots spontaneously erupting; in my lifetime I’d say most if not all of them weren’t planned but resulted from local youths becoming destructive during legitimate protests a la the Rodney King riots. But even if the TGIE was responsible for planning protests, two things pop to mind: 1) Locals also had to plan them and 2) Protests aren’t riots.
If in the end, some or most of the Chinese people choose to feel humiliated by Obama meeting the Dalai Lama, then that’s what they’ll be. And if some non-Chinese think that humiliation is a result of government manipulation and has no real meaning, then that’s how they’ll feel. If you personally feel humiliated by that meeting, that’s your right and if Jerry ROFL, that’s his right. Personally, I don’t particularly care one way or the other whether Obama meets the Dalai Lama. To me, as Shakespeare’s Macbeth once said, this whole debate is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
The Dalai Lama might be a religious figure, but it ain’t my religion. He might be a politician, but it ain’t my country. I truly believe the CCP has decided that he will never be a relevant political or religious figure inside Tibet if they can help it, and he will die before he returns there. What happens after that, only the future can reveal.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Steve,
Re:
I don’t necessarily agree with this opinion. But let’s say it is the right approach, it doesn’t seem that many of critics of China and CCP take this advice…
November 17th, 2009 at 12:23 am
For the record, the Tibetan Youth Congress is not an arm of the government-in-exile. It is private organisation in the Tibetan exile community. Its members are not banned from the government-in-exile. They are far from being the dominant faction, which is basically an old guard consisting of people close to the Dalai Lama. As far as I can tell, the Tibetan Youth Congress is the closest thing to a loyal opposition to the incumbent old guard.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Hi Otto Kerner,
I recommend you read the link I provided in my comment #34, and I re-post again:
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2008/05/27/questions-for-the-dalai-lama/
I recommend looking up Lodi Gyari in that post.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:34 am
If it were true that TYC organised violent actions in Lhasa, which I think is very unlikely, then the Dalai Lama should definitely keep them out of the government as much as possible. His stated goal is to achieve an honorable pece between the Tibetan people and the Chinese government and people. Actively working with Tibetans who are actively engaged in insurrection against China is not compatible with that goal.
Since almost all of the seats in the exile parliament are democratically elected, he can’t actually keep people from voting them into office, but he can make it clear that any TYC members elected would be an opposition party (no Tibetan exile actually wants to be seen as an opposition figure if what they’re opposing is the Dalai Lama). He could also keep them out of the executive and judicial branches.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:40 am
dewang,
That’s a good point (this website is much poorer for Buxi’s absence). What I said in my post #55 is true, but it’s definitely worth noting that there are additional complexities. Lodi Gyari is both an old guard insider an and a TYC person, or at least a former TYC person.
Not everyone in TYC is a radical, by the way. Dr. Lobsang Sangay, for example, is from TYC, and he is one of the most vociferous proponents of the Dalai Lama’s “Middle Way” plan.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:53 am
@ DJ #54: I agree with you and I’d also say that not many critics of the West take that approach either. I value consistency of argument, regardless of whom is making that argument. So if “the buck stops here” and “here” is at the top, then the Dalai Lama would be responsible for decisions made by those under his leadership just as Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao would also responsible for decisions made under their leadership. The CCP critics want Hu and Wen to be responsible, and the DL critics want the DL to be responsible but each side wants an exception for their own leader.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:29 am
I would like to add to Steve’s comment by saying that it seems common both among Han Chinese and Tibetans (at least historically) to view the highest leader as free from fault. In the Chinese example, all corruption stems from petty local officials. Historically the emperor played the same role as the politburo does today, which is why local people still go on with the system of petitioning. As for the DL, he claims in his autobiography that it was the aristocracy, mostly local, that was against his reforms.
I’m not saying this is entirely wrong – certainly the highest leadership might have very good intentions and not be sufficiently informed on local bullies, but why would they not be corrupt?
November 17th, 2009 at 5:49 am
To Steve #53:
well said. Particularly this: “I would think if the Chinese authorities had proof of the Dalai Lama’s involvement, they would shout that proof from the rooftops.” That they haven’t yet done so is pretty telling to me.
To Dewang #48:
“Honestly, nothing more further for me to say.” — since you had basically said the same thing in #26, I guess time will tell.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:11 am
@Allen #44, @Steve #28
Allen, you wrote:
Allen, Allen, Allen! Yes, the DL is seen as a religious icon here by quite a few. His presence was very reassuring to and very appreciated by many here in Taiwan after Typhoon Katrina, oops, I meant Morakot! Especially after the disappointing performance of (some here labeled it non-performance a la Dubya) and lack of concern/caring exhibited by Ma in the days during and after the typhoon. The DL seemed to be a breath of fresh air and great solace to those he visited. A number of people here, who did not personally see the DL, told me that they felt better because of his visit.
That said, quite a few here see him as the leader of his people and Tibet. There is a very noticeable “Free Tibet” movement here.
In addition, there are a number of supporters of Rebiya Kadeer here in Taiwan. They have shown her film here in Taiwan, at least at the Kaohsiung Film Festival. The government blocked Kadeer’s visit to Taiwan.
As official spokesman for Taiwan, American and the Jewish nations … NOT! I just speak for myself. IMHO, people are free to comment about Taiwan, China, Israel, the US, the West or the East or whatever. I wish you well, Allen, on your wish, “I wish people would learn to understand Taiwan before they comment on Taiwan here.” I wish people would understand a lot of things, but them thar’ is the breaks of life, colloquially speaking. Oh well. Oy vey! I also wish that some people would drop the hypersensitivity, too. Or at least breathe and reflect before initiating their rants and/or diatribes! 😀
Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle, sob! 😀 😛 😉
I find Steve’s comments to be very appropriate in #28, including those that you quoted.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:40 am
@S.K. Cheung #40, @Steve #43
SK, you wrote, in response to Dewang:
Well, since I wasn’t asked, I will still chime in, here. From #19:
The Chinese people and the PRC/CCP, all or part, are free to disapprove, protest, or state whatever opinion they would like, whether I like it or not. It is a free world. They are free to feel what they will. But for someone, like Qin Gang, to state (#19):
I think this statement is ridiculous. To me, this is a blatant attempt at manipulation, which is nothing new in the foreign relations game. To me, it is tantamount to some of things said by my ex-wife, or by my kids while they were growing up. Or by the Republicans, birthers or teabaggers in the last year or so.
Yes, SK, to the “humiliated” statement by Qin Gang, I say, “A bi gezunt, nebbish!” Or as you would say, “Get over it already!”
####
Steve, you wrote in #43:
Ah yes, the offensive Joe McCarthy QED defense! It worked for a while until Murrow, the old Wazzu Cougar alumnus, went after him.
Unfortunately, that style of proof/QED/defense is too prevalent at times here at FM. That won’t get us very far here. You gotta love cognitive dissonance and teleology! Ah, well! ::LOL and all that nonsense:: 😀 😛
November 17th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
@Steve, @my mother
Kain, unfair or not, right or not, I see people like Flags as racists and bigots. I have heard many racial slurs towards and seen very horrible treatment of blacks or African Americans, however they may wish to identify. I have seen Mexicans and other Hispanics subjected to horrible treatment and racial slurs. The same goes for Chinese, Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Koreans, Japanese, Africans, Jews and others. I myself am an American who is Russian Jewish. My family was subjected to unbelievably harsh treatment in Russia under the tsars, for hundreds of years. The Chinese were subjected to decades of unfair treatment and denigration in the US.
That said, I have heard young blacks refer to each other by the “N” word. I wince when they say it. I have seen Mel Brooks handle material in his movies that would have gotten a gentile director labeled as anti-Semitic. And I love Mel Brooks’ movies.
For several years now, my daughter has been dating an African American boyfriend (NYC). Kevin is wonderful. I don’t want to hear anyone call Kevin by the “N” word or treat him unfairly because he is African American. My niece, Sara, is married to a Chinese American kid. I live in Taipei and have a Taiwanese girlfriend who is half Hakka, half Han.
I am a West Coaster, myself, being raised in Portland and living in Seattle while working for many years at msft. I would not suggest that anyone use the “N” word in East Oakland and some areas of San Jose. I would also add to that list: Compton, Watts, some neighborhoods in Portland and Seattle, and certain large areas of Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Detroit, just to name a few.
I agree with Steve.
####
Steve, you wrote in #53:
Amen, Steve! That is almost a “smoking gun”! Pretty damned close! Just one of the reasons I don’t believe the Chinese government’s accusations. I also don’t have any use for that overused term, “splittist”. Just remember, similar invectives and diatribes were dumped on the heads of Gandhi, MLK, Nelson Mandela, George Washington, Malcolm X, just to name a few.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Jerry,
I told Steve that I am not going to make any more quibble about it. Flags can defend himself if he want, but I am not going get drawn into it.
The only thing that I can say after reading your comment is that your opinions matters even less to me now than before. Yeah, liberal prejudice is even more sinister than it’s racial brethren.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:57 am
@ Kain & Jerry~
Kain, I have no problem with your asking about it and no problem with your position, I just wanted to explain our policy. I had a problem with Flags’ remark, not with Flags himself and I didn’t feel there was any racist attitude behind the remark, just that it was inappropriate for this blog.
Just to let you and everyone else know, the editors are having a discussion about our policies as we speak. I’m more about being consistent rather than being beholden to any particular policy. How can you stay behind a line if the line keeps shifting? If we reset the line, we’ll let everyone know.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:36 am
@my mother #65
Kain, thanks for sharing! You are most entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. BTW, I think you are assuming way too much here (liberal prejudice), but such is your right.
“Yeah, liberal prejudice is even more sinister than it’s racial brethren.”
Surely you can do better than that. We Jews have heard much worse. Your insult game needs some work. I would suggest studying Dick Cavett’s blog out at NYT. Dick is a master! You might try his blog entry, A Better Sort of Insult. He is so witty! ::LOL and all that nonsense:: 😀 😛
Many sins have been committed bearing the mantle of racial prejudice. I guess I am not tolerant of racial prejudice.
“It is just not right that now Jerry thinks Flags is a racist because he doesn’t understand its usage.” (#45)
It sounds to me that you are trying to hide racism and bigotry behind the euphemism of “he doesn’t understand its usage.” So sad! And then, IMHO, you seem to attempt to downplay the implications of racism and bigotry by means of the euphemism “liberal prejudice”.
BTW, I, personally, would not have removed Flags remarks in #29. I prefer dealing with it up front. Let me give you an example. I remember in the 80’s when Al Campanis of the LA Dodgers front office caused a huge stink in MLB. Ted Koppel, on his Nightline Show, was interviewing Al Campanis regarding the 40th anniversary of Jackie Robinson’s MLB debut for the LA Dodgers; Campanis had been a teammate of Robinson. Campanis was asked by Koppel why there were few black managers and no GM’s in MLB. Campanis remarked that blacks may not have all of the requisite capabilities to be managers and GMs. He then went on to say that blacks are often poor swimmers because they don’t have the proper buoyancy.
Needless to say, a huge controversy ensued. Campanis resigned several days later.
Peter Ueberroth, then MLB Commissioner, brought in UC Berkeley professor, Harry Edwards, to deal with the dearth of blacks in management. Edwards’ first action was to hire Campanis. He wanted the problem to be front and center. I was thrilled that Edwards chose the non-PC route.
BTW, Harry was one of the major impetuses behind John Carlos’s and Tommy “Jet” Smith’s Black Power Salute at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City. In fact, Harry had advocated a boycott of the Olympic Games that year. He is a provocateur I truly admired and still admire.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Jerry,
There isn’t any equivocation nor insults in my comments. You don’t understand what it meant, period!
If you have a copy of Flags’ original comment as you’ve claimed, post it. Let people be the judge. Why not put into practice the virtues of the democratic principles people have been preaching?
If your pronouncement on Flags is just, you will be vindicated. You don’t need to provide your vita to show that you are right. All you need to do is ante up.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:39 am
@my mother #68
Thanks Kain, but no thanks. I have no interest in “proving” that I am right or “proving” that my “pronouncement” is just. If that be your wont and desire, you are welcome to it. But vindication or proving or anteing up is not my game. Yes, I have Flag’s comment, sent out by FM subscription email which gets sent out with each post from this thread. I would imagine that others have subscribed to this thread and have/had the email.
My vita is proof of nothing, just the tip of the iceberg into whom I am. I am whom I am and I am what I am! 😀
Speaking colloquially, ain’t democracy a drag? Ain’t freedom a drag? Ain’t life a drag? At the same time, they are so wonderful and complex and messy. ::LOL::
Y’all have a good day! 🙂
December 1st, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Jerry,
I kinda figure that you don’t have the marbles to stand up to the challenge. Yep, just keep on writing them terrible novels.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
@my mother #70
Mom, that is a rather juvenile response. Not surprising at all.
As I said to you before in #67, “I, personally, would not have removed Flags remarks in #29. I prefer dealing with it up front.” I did not agree with Steve pulling the remarks. Nonetheless, it was Steve’s call, as an editor on FM, to pull it. I had and have no desire to go around Steve’s call and repost Flags’ remarks. In my book, that would not be the right thing to do. Maybe some day you will develop some ethics and understand why. We’ll see.
I have no need to prove anything to you. I do not need or seek your approval.
Have fun growing up!
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Jerry,
Funny, I was going to say the same about you in the last post, but decided not too.
It was not only juvenile, but cowardly, for you to post your indignant condemnation of Flags after his post was deleted. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was just due to simple ignorance, rather than malice, or worse Sanctimony. That’s the reason why my posts were initial addressed to Steve rather than you. But when you not only reaffirm your initial condemnation of Flags in comment 64, but also added that “unfair or not, right or not,” that’s your pronouncement, it became crystal clear that you reek of liberal prejudice and hypocrisy. Not only that, it dawned on me that the reason, and perhaps the sole reason, that you posted your initial condemnation of Flags was nothing more than just grandstanding. What’s worse, you did it when Flags’ comment had already been censured. So, the only thing that was available to people perusing this blog is your self righteous declarations. Maybe you knew this all along.
That’s the reason why I made that challenge to you to re-post Flags’ comment and let other people be the judge. Yes, you don’t have to prove anything to anybody. But I have to see for myself whether or not I was right about you. Someone who posts indignation condemnation of the other people for the sake of attention grabbing would never stand up and defend their comments. So far, I haven’t seen anything that would suggest the contrary.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:40 pm
OK Jerry, My Mother,
Let’s move on. You’ve both made your points. I don’t know if others are interested … but you’ve both made your points.
Just to be on the record, I don’t think Flags’ comments were too out of line. While they contained a couple of vulgar words, they also contain many valid remarks. I would not have deleted them. I have even written a personal email to Flags to apologize.
However, since Steve has made the call, let’s just abide that decision. The ref said it was out of bound, so it was out of bound. Don’t harp on the play or the player. The play is over. It’s time to move on.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:25 am
Allen,
You are right. I won’t waste anymore time on it.