Tibet - modern and gay

[Max Sawicky]

> I think there are two different questions here:
>
> The first is, does Tibet have the right to self-determination and when it
> was a theocratic state did it have that right vis-a-vis its
> supposedly more progressive neighbor China? Would it have had that right
vis-a-vis its supposedly more progressive neighbor India had that nation
chosen to invade it?
>
> I think the answer is unreservedly "yes." .  .  .

You're the first one to answer this question, which
I believe I was the first one to put forward as a
challenge to the less critical advocates of
nationalism among us.  All I got was a canned
statement from the PRC and included disclaimer.

Which points up the shortcoming of appeals for
self-determination or democracy in general.  Such
appeals are often not motivated by the explicit
principle but by a confidence that such a change
would result in some progressive policy change.
We are less interested in people being "free"
then in their being free to do what we want them
to do.  (Another factor, I think, in nationalist
suspicion of their would-be supporters in the
non-nationalist left.)

It is not hypocritical to advocate some kind of
democratic 'process' change at the same time as
other 'outcome' changes, but it seems, at minimum,
grossly inconsistent to withhold support for
democracy/self-determination/etc. when the
conditions for outcomes are not regarded as
propitious.  This follows especially for well-
defined, oppressed national groups, such as
Tibet.

MBS