Andy writes:
> Isn't "Free Tibet" more of a lefty, or at least
liberal tropism?
The idea gets a lot of lip service, but little else.
Yoshie writes:
> That may be because China once was arguably
socialist . . .
I think that is part of it.
> . . . but the more likely reason today -- when
China is clearly capitalist and in some ways more
capitalistic than many longer-standing capitalist
countries -- is that the revolt of Tibetans against
China began with the support of the CIA
Who cares how it started? Either the concept of Tibetan autonomy is correct or it isn't. Sometimes bad people/groups do the right thing for the wrong reasons. We have to judge the situation as it is on the ground today in 2006.
> Beyond that, the Marxist left generally thinks of
the struggle against the Israeli occupation as one of
the most important struggles against US imperialism:
The problem is the left gets selective about what imperialism it is against. In my opinion the left should oppose all imperialisms.
> . . . but from the Presbyterian Church USA. That's
probably in large part because Palestinian Christians
worked hard with leftists in the PCUSA for a long time
and lobbied for change.
And Protestants are not too friendly toward Buddhists alas. They prefer their fellow Abrahamists.
Willy writes:
> If we apply a uniform standard of Lernerism, I'd
have to say that Chinese treatment of Uighurs is
probably far worse.
Then let's add it to the list of reasons to call for divestment from China. The more ammunition, the better.
> Your concentration on the Tibetan minority
therefore reeks of traditional anti-Islamic bigotry.
It is not a concentration: it just happens to be the example I picked out. Tell me more about the Uighurs and their situation.
> Personally, I'm for concentrating my fire where
it's likely to prove effective and where I'm implicated
as a taxpayer.
How about where you are implicated as a human being? You are certainly implicated in China in terms of economic choices you make.
Chuck writes:
> The conflict has been going on for a long time and
the occupation is an egregious example of an injustice.
And the Chinese have oppressed Tibet since just last week and their occupation is not "an egregious example of an injustice"?
> Israel gets lots of aid from the United States, to the
point where it could almost be considered the 51st state.
So? If China got a lot of aid from the US you might then be stirred to action?
> There are lots of good reasons to divest from China:
censorship, environmental destruction, labor abuses and
so on.
I agree. Probably a longer list than most other countries.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister