The Brian Lehrer Show

The US should not attend the Olympics.

Yes it is hypocritical for the US to criticize China for their human rights record.

Since the US invades countries at will and has caused directly or indirectly the deaths of over a million Iraqis.

However the Chinese government has been behaving with impunity for years.

You can’t just kill and attack Tibetans without some penalty right?

Brian,

Beijing, Jing as in jingle. It's a hard sounding J, unlike the movie Gigi. It's Chinese. So no need to make it French.

I understand people who advocate boycotting the olympics due to political reasons. The original olympics were created for athletics and warring groups put aside their differences to engage in athletic competition. Can't we have an event which is not used to accomplish political goals? Couldn't we engage in some other economic pressure tactic to pressure China into better behavior?

do we knew the fate of these monks?

Who is that person the Chinese brought out as a Tibetan leader on the news conference. He looked more Chinese than Tibetan.

So long as the Chinese see the Dalai Lama as the pretending political leader of Tibet they will NEVER speak to him, because that would imply that Tibet is NOt part of China.

Once he dies, they thinl half the problem will go away and they can populate Tibet with Han Chinese.

The only reason a country pushes so hard to get the olympics games hosted in their country is for: 1) politics, and 2) money, money, money.

So to say we should have an Olympic games where people don't have a political agenda is just an impossibility. Those who block the olympics and those who host the olympics have their agendas.

How is Ms. Liu allowed to talk so openly from Beijing? Wouldn't her call be monitored? I've heard a lot of reporting to that effect regarding the reporters who will be there for the olympics.

Question for Miss Liu: Has Dalai Lahma condemned the violence by the rioters?

Regarding the Dalai Lama's position towards violence, on Monday Hofstra University announced the following award to him in recognition of his efforts towards world peace:

His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, has been selected as the first recipient of Hofstra’s international Guru Nanak Interfaith Prize, Hofstra President Stuart Rabinowitz announced March 24, 2008

Why doesnt the media (Newsweek) etc. put mmore pressure on the Chinese to hold talks with the Dalai Lama. The Chinese gov't will do and say anything to repress these people. I think the US and other countrys should take a more active part in pressuring the chinese gov't to allow the Tibetan to have their way of life.It is clear they are "demonizing" them just look at the language they use. The media always gets involved with issues and milks it to death, why not keep this story alive to help the Tibetans. And I favor boycotting the olympics or at least threathening too to shame the gov't into making changes. That is all culturally that they respond to image and how things "look". Sharon Tappan,NY

I'm no fan of the Chinese government but wasn't the Dalai Lama and his class in Tibet able to rule by slave labor and a horrific class seperation?!

There is a difference between a host country's political agenda and the competitor's reasons for competing. The ethos of the olympics is pure competition and we should have that take place without piggybacking political issues.

Well, by that logic, every country should've attended the 1936 Berlin Olympics without the consideration that Hitler was using it as a platform to champion the purity of the Aryan race and the superiority of National Socialism... why should the host country get a free pass on turning the event into a platform for their ideology?

Piggybacking polititcal issues?

We never should have participated in the 1936 Olympics! Hitler?

Paulo: by your logic, on the other hand, perhaps US should be banned from Olympics as long as it is occupying Iraq. Are you ready for a game of moral equivalences?

It seems like Hitler's plan backfired on him. His political agenda was itself defeated by the free competition and he looked like an idiot when Jesse Owens kicked butt. That is the point.

wuming: I never said anything about banning. I said that if a country finds what another country is doing morally objectionable, they should be able to abstain without being accused of "politicizing" the Olympics while the host can turn it into an opportunity to tout their particular ideology or even just the might of their own country.

DP: I assumed that the Jesse Owens argument would come up... and in that very particular situation, yes. It made a difference. Hitler was embarressed because his racial ideology included the physical superiority of whites over non-whites. However, if no such component to the ideology exists, or if the supposedly inferior person DOES lose, then it will have had no effect at all or reinforces the ideology of the hosting country. To say that the sport will somehow resolve these issues is absurd. Being good at sports does not necessarily make one RIGHT.

And, if we take your argument, then Owens's success SHOULDN'T have had any value outside the game because that would've been politicizing the event. But it did. And in a positive way thankfully.

First thing I have to say is a riposte to a caller who compared the Chinese lack of appreciation of commentary on their actions in Tibet to what might be the American response to commentary on comparable events in Hawaii or Alaska. Both are apt choices, as Hawaii is a territory that we acquired after an illegal coup overthrew the legal ruler of that entirely separate country; and Alaska was bought by the US, sold by a Russophone tsarist regime that never once thought that it needed to consult with people who lived there already what they wanted to do with the land, and were conveyed to another country as chattel.

Even now we are living in a city that was famously bought for $24 but from people who had no apparent right to sell it.

This is about old empires and bloody hands all around. And any American who talks simplistically about actions that mostly result in the ratification of old empires should probably abandon their citizenship of this country, because clearly the phrase "with the consent of the governed" means nothing to them.

Hell, seize their passport and kick 'em the hell out the border.

Politicising the Olympics? When were they ever NOT political? Pure competition is always the agenda for dominant powers, because that always serves their agenda, which is not sullying their pure event with nasty little issues raised by nasty little people who want things like a say about the government of the hegemonistic regime that pleads old imperialist designs in the name of a people that it doesn't let get in its way when it comes to seizing property and denying them right. Tibet and Tianammen?

Better choice than to talk about the purity of sport and lack of a political agenda? Admit that you are just ignorant of the politics, as so much time has passed. Otherwise I am left wondering why racial integration and political rights was allowed to get in the way of golf tournaments and other such events. And if it was not to be allowed to interfere with that, why ever was there a rational for allowing those same concerns to interfere with important matters like the proper functioning of municipal bus systems in Montgomery, Alabama?

Media coverage distortion by most Western media

I have been in Tibet and China, as well as many parts of the world. I have talked extensively to both Tibetans and Chinese over the years. I believe that most Western media are being too biased in favor of Dalai Lama in general.

– Most Western media tends to report frequently false or extremely biased information from Dalai Lama's groups, as if such false or biased information are the only truth. For example, most Western media do not show the pain and suffering of the Chinese victims and victim's families resulted from Dalai Lama group's violence.

– most Western media ignores the fact that Dalai Lama (together with Panchen Lama) both agreed to to reunify with China round the time of 1950 and Dalai Lama himself was member of the Chinese government at the top level between 1950-1959 before he left China in 1959

– Consider if similar situation is happening in New York - i.e. if a violent "protester" burn our stores in Mahanttan (similar to the way Dalai Lama's people burn Chinese stores and kill Chinese people in Tibet), our NYPD police probably would arrest such violent "protestors" in similar way as Chinese police enforced law and order during the recent riots in Tibet. Morally, Dalai Lama should compensate all the victim's families since his organization used false propaganda to promote inter-racial hatred in Tibet and around the world.

I realize that in the big scheme of important issues, athletic competition may not be the top of the list. The problem is that if Bruce M. Foster runs the olympics, the games never happen because all political wrongs must be corrected first. First we cure every thing that is wrong with every political system and society, then we can go outside and play. A large majority, if not all countries are (or have in the past) committed significant wrongs against people. Attending the olympics does not defend bad behavior, it merely puts aside difference to allow people to compete at the highest level for the world to see.

See, the thing is DP, is that you're talking about an ideal that has never been a reality. And to criticize one group as "politicizing" it by boycotting it while not acknowledging the political agendas of those who host it and those who defiantly attend it to show their friendship to the country being boycotted, is either naive or disengenuous.

The problem is in practice. Since every country has committed wrongs against people and engages in bad behavior and since there are different sides to every story, how can we ever have a country pure enough to host? Can the US host an olympics? can the UK? which country can host the olympics? should we make a list of "good" countries and only allow them to host? I realize that China wishes to use the olympics to support its political agenda but every host country does so. Let the protestors do their thing and promote awareness of bad situations. Just because the games are not perfect does not mean that we shouldn't compete.

No, the games could happen in a limited number of set locations, maybe only two, and the atheletes compete, but all of that national stuff, that puffery and nonsense, that is as much about graft and corruption (bribes and payouts to IOC members,etc, being part of the public record) goes away.

And in the scheme of things, I would have no problem if the Olympics went away. What real value do they serve to anyone? I question the moral values or the ethics to some lesser or greater degree of anyone who would who would have a serious problem. Or else their knowledge of history.

And to compare what would happen if there were riots in NYC, well, that's just flat out dissembling in the name of a political agenda. What would happen if people had rioted in East Timor after the Indonesian military regime had invaded as they did and brutally suppressed the right of self-government? Now there's a comparison. Trouble is that some here apparently would support just that sort of thing. At least fess up to the fact. Cowardice was never a virtue.

When it comes to the regime in China, what is to be expected of a political elite that lives by means of a legacy of a clique that grabbed power in the name of the people, crushed for thirty years those same people, killed millions of its own people and lives with that blood on its hands, and even now uses the political techniques of the Maoist clique to obscure facts with half truths, lies and outright propoganda? The Great Helmsman's ship was and is still a slave vessel.

I heard that Tibet before 1950 was a feudal slavery society as well; poor people there (of course not the elite monks like Dalai Lama) were said to be amputated, arms and legs could be cut for even minor crimes. I did not live during that time to witness these, but many films, photos, and meusium seems to support this claim.

During my visit to Tibet, I was free to talk about any subject with Tibetan Lamas (elite monks) there, as well as common (poor) Tibetan people. Although I do see that some elite monks may support Dalai Lama, the average Tibetans (decendents of previous slaves) do not seem to agree with Dalai at all. Most Tibetans I talked to in Tibet seem to indicate that lives Tibet are much better now than Dalai's time.

I really wished to have some faith in Dalai Lama's propaganda, but it is simply inconsistent with what I saw during my trip to Tibet and China, even recently.

I am going to assume from the reference to the "propogranda" certain things. And procede from there.

Being a more primitive society gives someone the rights to invade a country? I am looking forward to the universalisation of this maxim.

It's results will be interesting. Thus were the colonialist invasions of countless lands justified. Assumptions of superiority much? After all, one could quite reasonably think that in point of fact that China was an equally primitive country after all.

Let's all of bring progress through the Cross and The Sword, er, oops, the Hammer and Sickle and The Sword more often.

What's primitive and feudal? A society where party functionaries dictate life and public policy? Sounds pretty feudal to me. Where sheer stupidity and rampant gutlessness account for the deaths of something like 80 million people, the latest figure attributed to Mao? That's primitve, right? Or did the Great Leap Forward justify the squalor that people were reduced to?

Of course, the real reason that Tibetans were primitive was that they had never been Han, thus had always been savages, and later they failed to learn the Lessons from the Red Book, and even now don't want to learn those lessons.

I must say one thing: It's good to see that there are so many neo-colonialists out there, so many who believe that might makes right; so many who believe that because their group does it, it must be right; so many who believe that the big guy does deserve to do what he wants; thus rationalising violence because it brings improvements that you have adjudged to be beneficial. It is so, well, god-like of you as a group.

I think I can be pretty safe in thinking that there are many "right thinking" people in Brian Lehrer's audience. And it's good to see that so high a percentage of them have gotten over their fuzzy thinking that lead them to think that boycotting a bus system in Montgomery Alabama was such a good thing to do, since it so heartlessly interfered with the proper functioning of a system that brought benefits to so many; that intervening in Bosnia-Herzegovina was just a mistake, as it stopped the Serbians from bringing civilisation, aka, Serbian religion and politic and an awareness of how much better Serbs are, to those poor benighted Bosnians, the legatees of those poor confused Serbs and Croations who betrayed their brethern and adopted Islam.

I know that you will show such an enlighted attitude should the day ever come round that it is your turn to be so judged. Or put to the sword.

But, my dears, what is your belief when it comes to slavery and its legacy in the US? Shall we start talking "tribal societies" now?

Dalai Lama proposed ethnic cleansing in 1987

Recently, Dalai Lama personally accuses Chinese "cultural genocide", because some Han Chinese went to Tibet to help building new Tibet infrastructure, and perhaps establshed modern schools that may might be a substitute for Dalai's monasteries. Dalai could be afraid that Tibetans, if educated in modern schools, may be less likely to be loyal to Dalai's organization; therefore Dalai sees that not only the modern schools, but also the entire presence of Chinese in Tibet at all, is a threat to his semi-political and semi-religous dynasty. The last thing Dalai would want to hear is probably separation of church and state.

No wonder back on Sep 21, 1987, Dalai declared that all Han Chinese (even if they have permanently settled in Tibet for long time) must leave (or even be expelled from) Tibet. Perhaps one can consider Dalai Lama himself, by expelling settled Chinese, is trying to conduct ethnic cleansing himself, even though Dalai Lama accuses others of "cultural genocide".

So how long are the professional virgins in this audience going to be shocked by the notion that the beneficiaries of an invasion, who owe their position in life should maybe go home? Wow, now there's a shocking suggestion? And the racism? Gee, did the Han hegemonists settle Hungarians in Lhasa? Or were they Polynesians? A massive contingent of Irish nationals suddenly show up for the offers of land to settle on? Somehow I don't think so. If they did, I haven't heard about it.

So the ethnic cleansing would have been based on an ethnic invasion. And whose fault is that? God, you are just so dishonest. Do you talk to your mother with that mouth?

And do remember Tianammen Square when trying to square the circle on semi-religious dynasties. After Mao how many free and fair elections have there been? Whose dynasty is being privileged here? How many political parties are there in China that are allowed to compete for power? Hell, they can't even stand the notion of a Christian church not under their control.

Fess up now. You're just being soft on yet another totalitarian state. You've got allies in history. Hitler had the CP up until the Hitler-Stalin Pact collapsed.

Much as I remember in the debate on Iraq I never did hear much about how Iraq was a facist state, I now hear the same running yellow dog commentary on the Han hegemonist. The blood on their hands, well, that's just the lubrication for the forces of progress.

Fess up now, your bias is showing.

This is perhaps more difficult part of the issue - the so-called "soverignty" of Tibet

Historically, Tibet has been semi-formal part of China since Mongolian time (around yr 1300 AD). Since that time, Chinese emperors always had the final power to appoint the post of Dalai Lama, even though Chinese emperors typically respected Tibetan tradition of incarnation of Dalai Lama in selecting who to be appointed. Tibet's relative autonomy (Dalai calls "independence") occurred during only the short period around 1911-1950 (I did not check the exact dates), but that short autonomy period was not recognized formally by any Chinese government in history. That said, though, Tibet was never fully integrated into Han Chinese culture as you said, therefore we see the distinct culture of Tibet. However, China did have the formal soverignty of Tibet since 1300 AD, except perhaps this short period of 1911-1950.

Second, both Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama together signed the reunification pact with China in 1950 without presence of any Chinese troops physically in Lhasa.

Third, Dalai Lama was a senior official of Chinese government during 1950-1959. He had many meetings with Mao, and I do not believe such meetings were under any gun either. So was Panchen Lama. The difference is, Panchen Lama devoted to China all his life and stayed with his promises, but Dalai seemed to have changed his oath later in life.

Hence, historically Tibet was, at least formally and nominally, part of China, although Tibet generally had plenty of administrative autonomy.

You can see similar situation, for example, Quebec vs Canada, Northern Ireland vs UK. For more messy situation, look into Bosnia/Yugoslavia, Iraq, Russia.

The US was lucky enough to solve all these issues with our civil war, also at cost of millions of lives, under fancy name of liberating slaves. Of course, the American Indians need not be mentioned - since they were presumably barbaric.

I have to return to some earlier comments. I did so love the posting about Tibet being a feudal society. The absolute moral relativism of the post was amusing. It having been 1950 at the time, most of China was a feudal society, wherein the feudal lords were replaced by cadres. Of course, you could travel through most of Russian Siberia now, and find primitive peoples, living in a feudal state with not much progress made in the almost a hundred years since the Glorious Revolution. I will welcome the military crusade to bring civilisation by the New Model Army of the Forces of Right-Thinking from the People's Republic of Williamsburg at a future date.

And the idea that the Panchen Lama and the Dalai Lama signed an agreement without the presence of Chinese troops. And there was implicitly no pressure. Gee, let's go down to your bank. We'll make sure that it's an isolated branch, and it'll happen while the rest of the city is dealing with some major emergency. I'll stand next to you, maybe I have a weapon, maybe I don't, but I'll be waiting for you to sign over all of your assets to me. I'll have armed guards standing across the street, but not in the bank. Waiting for you to attempt to leave without having signed over all of your assets to me. Let's see you exercise free will then.

As I've said, it's amazing to read all of these postings that live in some cloud cuckoo land. Good to see so many have embraced the Neo-Colonialist Outlook.

And as a final thought on this stream...

I invite you all to visit all of the parts of Poland and Germany that were historically part of the other land. I commend some of you for your outlook on history and for your strict adherence to the principles evidenced in events surrounding the Sudetenland, the invitation of the Soviet forces into Czechoslovakia in 1968, and other events in history. And invite you to take a tour of Darfur and then from there go to the south of Sudan.

It is far easier to condemn others than to look at ourselves in the mirror - just take a look at how American Indians have been treated ...

I do think that Dalai Lama has been much better treated than the American Indians.

Dalai was treated with

- a chance to sign a reunification pact without any guns near him

- one of the highest government office post in China

- freedom to leave China, which he used to set up an opposing "government-in-exile" in return

- even today, a chance for welcome-back-to-China if he abandons his Tibet independence activities and recognizes Tibet is integral part of China again

None of these were given to any American Indians.

Condemn others rather than look into the mirror? Bollocks. Solipsism as the last refuge of the defender of the totalitarian state? When dear solipsists was the last time you didn't report a crime just because you haven't been entirely honest? What a load of totalitarian symp wimp bollocks. Grow a pair, why don't you? And do try not to invade some smaller, less well defended country and steal one there. It's a habit you guys defend so readily.

Gee, freedom to leave the cage? Wow. God, you are such a closet case. If Tibet was part of China, why the agreement? Why the need to recognise the supposed integral state of Tibet?

And by the by, the Tibetans have done better than the Jews under Hitler, too. The Armenians under the Turk. The Kurds under Saddam Hussein. Suprised you missed those specious analogies. What? Wasn't there a riot in Hawaii you could prattle on about? Is there a dictatorship that you don't defend?

Oh, and I'm part Native American and knew more about the history of those people by the age of five than you do even now. So that's just not a place you want to go. You are not up to the task. Can you say "Two wrongs don't provide an excuse for a military invasion and fifty years of Han hegemonistic overreaching"?

We do not support any totalitarian state. But that becomes somewhat different topic than whether or not Tibet has been historically a part of China, or how Tibetans might have been been treated (or discriminated, if applicable) in China.

The political structure of China today is definitely not democratic. That is entirely different topic. I sense that the Chinese political structure is your underlying dislike of China. That is fine. Although this would be off the topic, I do suggest that you go visit China, perhaps attend the Olympics, see it yourself that China today might not be necessarily as horrible as you imagined.

I myself have traveled to many different cultures and civilization sites (including Maya, Inca, Egypt, Greece, Rome, India...) around the world, spanning almost all continents. Unfortunately, I have not yet seen Eastern Europe, the Artic and Anti-Arctic, and did not have enough study into North American Indians (you are right on this part). If everyone can see different cultures other peoples do, there will be much less misunderstanding, bias... and we could all have fewer conflicts.

Regarding Dalai Lama's organization -

If Dalai is genuinely interested to construct a better China (including democracy) and a better Tibet within China framework, I would be happy to support.

The problem with Dalai Lama's organization is that their propaganda seem to deceive them entire world with false or extremely biased facts, false accusations, and these propaganda promote inter-racial hatred in Tibet, India, (probably the entire) Western media, and around the world, while disguising Dalai's organization as good guys or victims...

Although we do not support totalitarian states, we should be relatively factual and fair in our news media. You probably cannot understand what I mean until looking deep into the matter.

[Note from BL Show: Enough. Please do not use this board to carry on name-calling arguments that are in no way on topic to the discussion that took place on the air. Enough. Thank you.]

Funniest thing about this totalitarian wimp symp drivel is that if someone suggested that Germany should not be allowed to keep parts of Poland, Russia, and the then Republic of Czechoslovakia because they were something called "historically part of" Germany, had German populations, how much the Germans who had populated those areas under Nazi rule should go home, well, no one would have batted an eyelash.

Fact is that Germany wasn't. Exactly what are the differences between Hitler and Mao, beyond that Mao was responsible for more deaths by a factor of five or six? Oh, right, Hitler's picture isn't still on the walls in German government buildings.

Mike: Personal attacks between audience here is definitely off the topics. I am no longer interested in this conversation, not because of "failing" anything, but because of your inappropriate personal character here. I will not read any further response from you. Sorry.

Actually, I meant to say that previous message to "Bruce" not Mike (my error)

To all Dalai Lama's supporters here (other than "Bruce M. Foster": I did not mean to attack Dalai Lama personally. I meant to criticize the acts of the Dalai Lama's organization. Personal reference to Dalai Lama was made here merely because Dalai Lama heads that organization, and Dalai travels everywhere to promote false hate propaganda that incites inter-racial hatred. If Dalai and his organization abandons such activities, all people in that region should live better.

Regarding Mr. "Bruce M. Foster" - We have neither common manner nor common language to discuss anything. Hope he can cool down later in his life so that he can live more happily than he is currently. (I did not mean a personal attack here. Otherwise, I withdraw this statement.)

Having come here due to a Google Search this time, let's just say that I leave the act of "cooling down" to the types that suck up to power and swallow, that bend a knee to hegemonists and butchers all over the globe. They have no stones, no anything, not even a spine. So what do their opinions matter? Hitler, Stalin, Mao? What difference to them. It's all relative now ain't it? Objects of veneration, the self-appointment leader of the Church of the Yellow Dog Coward.

When others have grown a pair, when others have some spine, well, my need for cooling down will be obviated. Cowards after all are always cool customers. It's the fear sweat that keeps them so.

And I do have to say that the stink of cowardice is about this dicussion. For any who think that I am a bit extreme, I would suggest that they go back and look through the posts and consider that a substitution of Tibetan for Jew, and National Socialism for China might be an instructive effort. A roleplaying game.

Is that extreme yes, but it is extreme apparently to maintain that cowardice is not ever a virtue.

History is no defense either. Fact is that historically, China is a part of Mongolia, if one selectively edits one's history. And history is always editable.

In 1949, the list of "primitive" cultures was a lot longer than it is now. Feudal societies by some claim included Russian and China. Rationalisations for imperialist claims in history are easily made. And we are all guilty of something. Apparently that allows for us to all be turned into victims. So your turn might be next.

And while some claim that due to history, the US and its citizens have no standing to criticise, but one can quite easily claim that it is that is due to that history that we have an obligation to criticise.

To say nothing? Cowardice will find a reason to do that. Cowards are always looking for a place to hide. History is just an infinitely portable place for them to hide. Infinitely malleable. And thus always serviceable to their purposes.

And in the realm of gilding the lily, having been "attacked" with the implication of racism, as if my problem is with the Chinese as a racial group and not as a nation state, I've got to say that the coward hiding amongst the group of "reasonable people" that doesn't include me is neither novel or particularly effective. Funny thing is that intellectual cowards can always find that there is a place to hide. A mob is the usual place. Personally, I don't need to hide. My name is out there, where all can see it, "Jim". When your scrotal sack starts to climb skyward, do remember that you have never been up to the job of defining the rules of a debate. Cowards never are.