On Fri, 3 Jul 1998, Gary MacLennan wrote:
> >The tendency to romanticise the most backward and barbaric social
> >conditions in the East arises out of a contemporary mood in the West:
> >the mood that rejects modernisation as a mistake, and celebrates instead
> >the 'uncorrupted' values of primitive societies. The small Tibetan
> >theocracy is a romantic counterpoint to the Far East that the Western
> >racist most profoundly fears: the Far East that is developing into a
> >competitor, and creating a mass working class, that provokes fears of
> >the oriental horde in the minds of western elites.
> Well there are no surprises in Jim's contribution and I suppose my post
> won't be that novel either.
> First though let me say that the Tibet fad is big in Australia and I think
> it is as Jim suggests based on Romanticism one of the central ideologies in
> the Australian cultural complex.
> The Scorsese movie (Kundum?) could not get an official release from
re: Tibet... I realize that it was a very hierarchical society when it got invaded, but at the same time, almost 100% of the world's governments at that time were dictatorial, imperialist controlled, or had severe class hierarchies. I think the most important question is what Tibetans would like, today. It's been my understanding that they still want autonomy, but I haven't researched that particularly. If the Timorese and Quebecois and northern irish and czechs and slovakians all democratically would vote for a separate government, then they should have it - my only exception for this principle would be for when rich folks try to form their own separate school district or living enclave.