Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by thinktankie 1758 days ago
A reminder of how great life was for Tibetans under the feudal, theocratic serfdom of the lamas [1].

[1] “In old Tibet there were small numbers of farmers who subsisted as a kind of free peasantry, and perhaps an additional 10,000 people who composed the “middle-class” families of merchants, shopkeepers, and small traders. Thousands of others were beggars. There also were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned nothing. Their offspring were born into slavery. 15 The majority of the rural population were serfs. Treated little better than slaves, the serfs went without schooling or medical care, They were under a lifetime bond to work the lord's land--or the monastery’s land--without pay, to repair the lord's houses, transport his crops, and collect his firewood. They were also expected to provide carrying animals and transportation on demand.16 Their masters told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama.”

“ The serfs were taxed upon getting married, taxed for the birth of each child and for every death in the family. They were taxed for planting a tree in their yard and for keeping animals. They were taxed for religious festivals and for public dancing and drumming, for being sent to prison and upon being released. Those who could not find work were taxed for being unemployed, and if they traveled to another village in search of work, they paid a passage tax. When people could not pay, the monasteries lent them money at 20 to 50 percent interest. Some debts were handed down from father to son to grandson. Debtors who could not meet their obligations risked being cast into slavery.20”

“There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, breaking off hands, and hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling. The exhibition presented photographs and testimonies of victims who had been blinded or crippled or suffered amputations for thievery. There was the shepherd whose master owed him a reimbursement in yuan and wheat but refused to pay. So he took one of the master’s cows; for this he had his hands severed. Another herdsman, who opposed having his wife taken from him by his lord, had his hands broken off.”

- http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

6 comments

As I believe you know, single-purpose accounts are not allowed on HN and certainly not for political/national flamewar. I've banned this account.

I understand the frustrations of trying to represent a minority/contrarian view in a large internet forum. But you can't do it this way. It breaks the site guidelines and it only feeds the cheap and lazy fantasies ("bots, spies, and astroturfers") that internet users indulge in when they see things they don't like on divisive topics.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Commenting with verifiable information on life in Tibet pre Chinese annexation is a bannable offense?
Of course not.

> single-purpose accounts are not allowed on HN and certainly not for political/national flamewar.

I agree that the romanticized view of the tibetan societal structure is often very naive.

But, of course, this does not mean that a forced annexation and subjugation by china is the only way that reforms could be made, or in fact the best. There are many different ways of modernization, some totalitarian ones and more liberal ones.

I guess it should be clear which are preferable.

At that time the brits, the colonists had plenty of time to reform, just that no one were ever interested enough in that poor uninhabitable land to pour enough resource to it, even if history repeats itself, no one would. Hell, we hardly do enough in Africa today.
Well this is becoming a very complex argument. We can speculate about the political and economical conditions for reforms, which may not have been present in the UK (not set on that, but possible).

But when we look across history and search for desirable models, neither the UK (or any other) colonialism nor modern annexations by totalitarian regimes seem like the best outcome (from an enlightenment/liberal POV).

This is not so complex, it's someone else's backyard. Unless the US or the EU is seriously considering the possibility of pouring money into the conservation of minority languages on the native people of their own land. I'm not convinced.

The idea all culture exist and will all continue to exist as-is is a beautiful, beautiful dream, and also an expensive one. Gentrification is San Francisco is the obviously example of how fragile local cultural groups are in the face of industrial producticity.

And then they got invaded by a government that managed to run things even more poorly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

Even if it was a better government invading, the potential benefit would be fairly limited. They probably would have moved away from that social structure without interference. Much of the world used to be crappy feudal societies with powerful religions.

How does that justify taking over their land/people? If this is really their excuse, it sounds to me like the same kind of justification Spain had when conquering the Native empires of Aztecs and Incas. Maybe they should have helped them without wiping out the culture? I'm still learning details of this, but I think ultimately it is very hard to justify persecution of peaceful monks.
That land is probably billions years old. I fail to see how it can belong to one tribe of people.
Same can be said about China?
The PRC didn't invade Tibet for these reasons. This is historical revisionism.
Is the takeaway here supposed to be colonialism is good when a government you support does it? You know, in the US, they used to call it manifest destiny...