We boycott, and the west stands to potentially lose economic ground with China. As an Australian at least, I can see the economic importance of China to Australia, and I would imagine it's not much different for the US and Canada.

We don't boycott, our weakness for standing against the Fulong Gong killings and the world in general will possibly view each other as less humanitarian.

The games are about sport and coming together as a world to celebrate sports, so it's of social and cultural significance too.

But as for not helping the people in Tibet, I disagree. How can a whole world of competing nations boycotting the games not have any impact on this?

The people of Tibet(and other minorites) and all opposition movements are brutally surpressed.

Mao 's regime is responsible for the death of at least 35-40 million people and the portray of Mao can be still seen on the central square of Beijing.

I don't want to say that the western democracies are close to perfection, they  are actually very corrupted  and materialistic but the maoist regime is one of the worst on Earth.

 

 

BTW, while we are at it, why don't we boycot the USA for invading and forcefully opressing the people in Iraque, Afghanistan, and New York, same with Great Brittain, The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, France and other countries involved in oppressing parts of the world.

 

I'm very much in favour of a free Tibet (not that it affects me in any way), but I think it's rather hypocritical to point the finger when you live in a Western society which supports western intrusion all over the world, and never in the places where it matters (Sudan, Erithrea, and where do we stand regarding Birma and stuff like that, as long as there's oil or other natural products or cheap labour to harvest).

 

Let's first pull back our troops where they don't belong and than we can tell other country's to do the same (lead by excample not by force).

 

I wonder if Tibet's claim is right, should they be independant, or are they as China claims an integral part of China.

 

The only time Tibet was remotly independant was between 1912 and 1949, but only because of English and Russian interventian with a severly weakend China, and in a period of big revolutions going on (WOI, Russian Revolution, WOII, end of British Ruling of the region etc.). Before that Tibet had been under Chinese ruling for a millenium. and between 1912 and 1949 Tibet wasstill under Chinese control for the most part (making the Tibetians unaware that they had been invaded in 1949 untill 1959 when the first upheaval started).

 

Another interesting point IMO is the fact that in early 20th century it was the imperialistic west who had a reason for weakening China (a formidable former worldpower at the time) by trying to force separation of Tibet from China and still today the largest support for the 'Tibet''  cause is from the west, and again China is becoming a world power and the support is on the Tibet side again.

 

Of course the Tibetans claim that they never where an integral part of China, and I guess they are right in that assertion (they claim the relation is more likely to be called a Priest-Patron type, the Tibetan Monks being the Priests and the Chinese empire their protector-friend, a situation that might have been true between 1200 and 1700).

 

Anyway, I don't know what to think of the situation (I have a Free tibet sticker on my wallet for ages now, and I still keep it, but I don't know if I should).

EDIT: when I mean "nation" I'm not thinking exclusively as Tibet being solely an independent country.

 

 

Lead by excample, excactly how i envision it, However it's an Utopic vision created by people outside of Tibet who have recreated their memory's of their native land as some garden of eden, a sanctuary of peace and whatever.

 

I think the Tibetians inside Tibet will be satisfied if they are left their religion and culture with as little as possible interference from strangers.

 

I do however always endorse good Utopian ideals, so let's make it happen.

 

Seoul (88) was the first games that really derailed the sports. They eliminbated Johnson but didn't check Carl Lewis who was also a doped athltetes. etc....

 

 

 

Far away from me the idea of supporting China (I really don't), but when they invaded Tibet in the late 40's and when the Dalaï Lama fled in 59, it is because the communists eradicated a feodal system where 85% of the population was either slaves (serfs) or part of the religious community, headed by a semi-living god called Dalai Lama. 90% of the land belonged to the clergy. Foreigners were killed as to not say what was happening in this land. The Tibetan buddhism absolute monarchy  was one of these religious regime mankind can certainly do without.

 

Other buddhist absolute Monarchies like Bhutan, Sikkim (part of India) and some provincies of Nepal are not much better in terms of human rights as Tibet of the 40's or today's China.

 

While there was no genocide, one can draw comparison between China's invasion of Tibet with Vietnam's invasion of Kampuchea/Cambodia during the Pol Pot years; However Vietnam withdrew as quick as they could, something these arseholes in China are not willing to do.

 

I know it's very trendy to be buddhist in our western democracies, partly because it likes to define itself as a philosophy, rather than a religion (this is pure BS, of course, it's a religion just like others), but we should definitely look that the Tibet regime in exile as something else but saints.

 

 

BTW: the head of Olympics is Belgian Jacques Rogge and there is an all-important Tibetan institute in Belgium (Chateau Fontaine L'Eveque in Tihange/Huy), so you can't say that I'm biased after reading this post of mine

 

 

Oddly, I side with you on most accounts, though I have to point out that the Chinese did not improve things in Tibet. THey just overtook Tibet due to their imperial ambitions and expansionism, grabbed a big piece of real estate. Bringing freedom to the oppressed Tibetan people was a no-entry on the list of their intentions. The internal situation didn't change much.

 

The modern-time Olympics have been politicized long before '68. I would say since Helsinki (52) and Melbourne (56) when the Soviets began participating actively. Definetely since 1960, when they won gold in hockey in Skwo Valley and a few gold medals in Rome. But the pinnacle of hypocrisy the Olympic commettee reached in the late 60's and 70's when they excluded athletes from South Africa on the grounds of apartheid while screaming and yelling that the big sport should be free of politics.

 

Didn't they just have "elections" that ranked among the worst mascarades ever seen??? I think that even Saddam and Stalin played the game more respectfully!!!

 

Oddly, I side with you on most accounts, though I have to point out that the Chinese did not improve things in Tibet. THey just overtook Tibet due to their imperial ambitions and expansionism, grabbed a big piece of real estate. Bringing freedom to the oppressed Tibetan people was a no-entry on the list of their intentions. The internal situation didn't change much.

 

 

I sort of resent that you saying I side up with the Chinese, because I don't, I simply think we should look at the other side of the medal. And that these unrest came as a way to embarrass China just before the OG.  As I said, I couldn't care less. Just want to draw the attention that the angelism that Tibet is draping itself with is pure fallacy. Armed resistance during the 70's , by those few that did not belong to the feodal buddhist system, then the CIA providing much help to those troops and supporting Dalaï Lama.....

 

China only brought the XXth century to Tibet and hardly nothing else positive . 

As for Buddhim as a religion (and my anti-stance on religion): I see monks, prayers, monastries, shrimnes etc.... China and its Confuscianism and Taoism (we can call them deviationist currents and both are still much rampant, including in the communist regime of China) is also a buddhist country.

 

Anytime I speak to those western buddhist (when the subject arises between friends and I, which is not often), they are clearly not aware of the feodal history and really don't want to, because it might hurt their beliefs

 

At least the Christians are aware of their flaws and horrors committed throughout the history of their cult.

 

 

 

 

 

As any religion, Buddhism is a well-established business. Ever wonder what the sources of income of the Dalai Lama are? There's no question it's a religion. The claim to its philosophical status is to reassure its followers of their sophistication as if they not merely follow a religion but a philosophy.

 

THe entire situation in Tibet is used as a counterbalance to China - the West supports the Dalai Lama and the separatist movement, etc. but no Western power has no interest in Tibetan feudalism and standard of living. Neither do the Chinese or anybody else for this matter. Even if they brought the XX century there, the change was miniscule, nothing to celebrate. One opressor replaced the other. So the Dalai Lama might very well stay in charge, what's the difference?

 

Sorry for misreading you!!

 

 

 

 

 

As far as I can read from your posts, we agree very much on these issues.

 

Of course, part of the problem is really full accessibility of the Chinese market, but we should not underestimate their resistance and xenophobia (the Hans are extremely xenophobic). Even if they do open up completely, the average Chinese will buy Chinese.

 

I see monks, prayers, monastries, shrimnes etc....

 

 

Could've fooled me

 

Tibet will continue to be oppressed, so will Burma, Zimbabwe,Sudan etc.etc.

 

Athletes are not politicians and the world voted for China to hold these games so no use crying about it now.

 

What I find amazing is the majority of people I know could not give a damn about sport but these last three weeks have become experts in shotput, Canoeing, Hockey, Track events, swimming.

 

To quote Roger Waters, this species has amused itself to death

 

So what if people only take an interest once every 4 years?  What is the harm?  I admit there are many aspects of the Olympics I don't like but nothing is perfect and in the end the hard work of every athlete that gets a chance to compete doing something they love is something to celebrate. Isn't it the reason we have Progarchives?  Celebrating someone's hard work and vision?  Funny how many armchair "'experts" we have here as well.

 

Is the Olympics the forum to talk about Tibet? I think not.  These are about bypassing governments and promoting good will and sharing cultures even ones we don't really agree with. Understanding is the first key to real peace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

..." we got Pepsi in the andes, we have McDonalds in Tibet

between the tigris and euphrates we have a leisure centre now

we got all kinds of sports, we got bermuda shorts.....it's a miracle"

 

ps: glad you enjoy the olympics I know in my house I am in the minority. Anyway I am off to watch the Zimbabwe cricket team....

 

Up unto this particular team I would agree.  But I have seen Kobe and the rest of the team in the stands rooting for the Women's BB team and both Kobe an LeBron James in the stands when Michael Phelps won his 8th gold rooting and yelling like any other fan.  It was kind of inspiring and Kobe even said in an interview now I understand how a fan feels watching us.  They are so jaded and sheltered that maybe this was a great experience for them.  Really Mick is it their fault they are millionaires?

 

I like watching good competition and that is the only reason I like the games. It is drama in the moment (well in tape delayed fashion ) but people who spend there whole lives for this moment and in some cases how they will live depending on the result is pretty heavy drama.  How about a 38 year old Romanian woman wining the marathon?  or a 41 year old American woman winning silver against 18 year old in swimming? or little Kenya and Jamaica taling gold in some of the most prestigious track races?

 

So are you really in the frame of mind to punish the athletes for the arena they have to perform in if they are to perform period? Sounds like a 70's prog band singing with a major label.