Protests in Tibet partially spurred by environmental resentment 4

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   caniscandida Posted 3:15 am
   19 Mar 2008

   "environmental exploitation"It is hard to get a very good picture of how important environmental degradation is in the complaints of the protesters.  For that matter, how much has already taken place, over against what is planned or feared?
   Grist has already reported on the Dalai Lama's statements about trafficking in furs, which is of course very encouraging.  Right now, though, and I think in general, he tends to emphasize "cultural genocide," and the Communist Party's efforts to root out Buddhist traditions.
   Anyway, it is heartening when the causes of religion, social justice and environmentalism can come together, as in that one detail about the destroyed sacred mountain in Ganzi Province.

   Permalink

2. 

   Wolverine Posted 6:03 am
   19 Mar 2008

   American Comments About Other Nations' ConductWhile I'm personally opposed to what China has been doing in Tibet for decades, it smacks of nothing short of total hypocrisy for Americans to complain about what another country does.  Moreover, as Noam Chomsky so aptly articulated it, we have very little control over what other countries do; what we can effect is what the U.S. does.  (The control we do have is to stop buying cheap crap made in China until China stops doing things we don't like.)
   I'm disgusted by Americans who make the Tibet/China issue their main issue.  With so many evils committed by the U.S. constantly, complaining about China to the exclusion of complaining about the U.S. is nothing short of imperialism.

   Permalink

3. 

   caniscandida Posted 12:38 am
   20 Mar 2008

   hypocrisyMy friend Wolverine's comment on hypocrisy is well-put, but the brush he uses is too broad.
   It is certainly true that the US government is in no position, right now, to criticize the bad behavior, regarding human rights, of anyone.
   And perhaps I am too generous to throw in the qualifier "right now."  Yes, it is the Bush administration uniquely that is associated with Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture, extradition, obscenely unfriendly border control, anti-Constitutional surveillance, and general hostility towards peace-loving law-abiding Muslims.  But, is it not fair to say that historic systemic violations of the rights of Native Americans and people of African origin (and East Asian too, to a lesser extent) are a profound part of our history and sociology?
   Nevertheless, we need to make an important distinction, regarding the use of the ethical term "hypocrisy," meaning in part "the pretense of innocence of a certain injustice, crime or sin, of which one is in fact guilty, and of which one loudly accuses someone else of being guilty."  Spokespersons of the Bush administration cannot avoid being called hypocrites when they blame other governments for human-rights violations.  Nor can other Americans, if they maintain a sense that "The US is the greatest country in the world," and can do no wrong.
   On the other hand, there are lots of Americans, who are mortified and abashed by the Bush administration, who are generally ashamed of the US's record on human rights, and who are openly critical about such things.  Even as we work to improve US government and society, it would be wrong of us to remain silent regarding human-rights abuses that we have come to learn about in other countries.  And when we speak out, we are not hypocrites at all.  If anything, we are ashamed sinners, hoping to do penance for our sinfulness by extending a hand of friendship to people in trouble.
   Are boycotts a good tactic?  I do not know.  Lots of young Americans in many universities in 1984 demanded divestment of their schools' wealth from companies that did business with then-apartheid South Africa.  Archbishop Desmond Tutu thought that that was not a good idea; and it is not certain that divestment contributed in any way later to the fall of the apartheid regime.
   But I would certainly not call those young idealistic Americans "hypocrites."
   Is the liberation, or autonomy, of Tibet the one issue that should dominate the US government's conversation with the Chinese government?  No, but it should never be forgotten.  Nor should the hunting of whales be forgotten in conversations between the US government and the Chinese government.  And the peace, autonomy and cultural integrity of the people of Tibet count higher in importance, if these things are truly comparable, than even the safety of the whales, as precious as the whales are.

   Permalink

4. 

   Wolverine Posted 11:57 am
   20 Mar 2008

   Government And PopulationI didn't say that the U.S. government shouldn't hold other countries to certain standards, though of course it has to get its own act together first.  But I've met many U.S. citizens whose main or only issue is Tibet/China, which I find thoroughly disgusting, hypocritical, and imperialistic.  Again, as citizens we have no control over what governments of other countries do except to boycott goods from those countries.  But we do have at least some chance to affect what the U.S. does, and that's where our time and effort should go considering the plethora of severely evil things the U.S. does.
   BTW, I was one of those protesting on a college campus during the last days of anti-apartheid in South Africa.  I strongly disagree that divestment was not a major factor in the downfall of apartheid; in fact, loss of investment was the main reason for it.

   Permalink