Interesting look (from 1999) at the Dalai Lama:
Whatever feet of clay Gandhi, King, and Mandela might have had in real life, these three icons were or are genuine integrationists. In this respect, the Dalai Lama has hardly anything in common with any of them. The Dalai Lama is, if anything, closer to militant separatist oriented religious/political figures such as the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan, or the Jewish Defense League’s Rabbi Meir Kahane. The omnipresent Al Sharpton is the epitome of this kind of opportunistic agent provocateur. He is what African-American libertarians refer to as an “ethnic grievance pimp.” The omnipresent Dalai Lama, always in the right place for a photo-op, is a Tibetan Al Sharpton. He merely affects a “kinder, gentler” persona and boasts slicker PR. After all, he has Hollywood’s glitterati doing his image-making for him, gratis.
Damn, that’s harsh.
Sphere: Related Content
16 Comments
Harsh indeed, and full of unsubstantiated accusations of racism against the Dalai Lama. Said Mr. Chu:
Well, I clicked the link to the Dalai Lama’s homepage and spent ten minutes browsing around the different sections. I was unable to find any statement as described by Chu. The problem with including links as sources is that people like me actually click to verify them.
Harsh? More like moronic. While I do not like the fawning press the Dali Lama receives in the West, that article you linked to reads more like Chinese propaganda.
The man has a religious and political mandate both, from a country that never had a chance to develop modern, Western political institutions. Arguing that Tibet is not using modern, democratic values to defend itself from the Chinese communist party is pretty misguided.
If he would like to make a case that the Dali Lama is self-aggrandizing, fine, make it. If he would like to argue that the Dali Lama would like an independent Tibet to hold anti-democratic and unfree values, fine, show me the quotes. But that article (Robert linked to) sounded like yet another Internet crank. (If you read his other articles at “Strait Scoop”, you get a lot more of the same).
Several years ago (1999? 2000?), I was watching Larry King Live. It was a “bringing in the New Year special” with the Dalai Lama and a couple prominent American Preachers. It was the Dalai Lamas turn, and it went like this:
Larry: Mr. Dalai Llama, as the world leader of Islam, what does the New Year mean for you?
Lama (after a tense four second satellite delay): renders a very confused look on his face, he’s not a native English speaker, but he, obviously not sure he heard this correctly answers: Well I think the New Year is important to all religions etc, etc…
Larry (knowing this wasn’t the answer he was expecting form a world prominent Muslim): No, I mean you, YOU, Mr. Dalai Lama, as The World Leader of Islam, what does the New Year mean for you?
Lama (after a four second delay and his suspicion being confirmed, proceeds to go ape-shit on Larry King Live): Noooooooo! …….. NoooOOOoooOOOooo! I am NOT the leader of ISLAM! insert your own indignified explanation here; continues to say a few things you wouldn’t expect the Dalai Llama to say.
Larry (with out missing a beat): Yeah, well, anyway… continues with his normal ignorant banter
Me: picks jaw up off the floor, laughs incessantly.
I’ve searched a lot to the transcripts to this episode. I’ve found a couple articles that mention this, but none due it justice. I found a CNN site linking to the transcript but it was too old at the point and the link failed (I’d pay money for it if I could). Anyway it shows Larry to be the idiot he is, and it also showed the Dalai Lama to be, well, quite the normal human being, fits of rage and all.
This should be it, but the link on the page is dead.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA.....12.31.html
Neither Kahane nor Sharpton were/are separatists. Kahane wanted the Arabs out of Israel, but he had no beef with them if they left nor a beef with anyone else for that matter. I am not aware of Sharpton ever calling for separation and it would surprise me if he has. Playing the race card and being a separatist are two very different things. Knowing you were wrong on two out of three, what real evidence do you have on the Dalai Lama?
The Dalai Lama is a good man that has my full appreciation and respect. Only the worst sort of Chinese-inspired propaganda would stoop to criticizing the fellow.
All freedom-loving Koreans should understand and support this man and his cause, considering the oppression suffered by Koreans during the occupation of Korea by the Japanese.
Bevin Chu isn’t worth blogging about. (I say this as someone with longstanding doubts about Tibetan independence). His amateur psychoanalysis and rabid insults of people who oppose his political position pretty much show him up for what he is:
http://www.antiwar.com/chu/c091099.html
Ho ho ho….slamming the Dalai Lama, huh?
Somebody’s gettin’ reborn as an intestinal worm in a North Korean stomach!
Well, Tibet was not the ideal peaceful heaven that the Dalai Lama would have you believe it was before Chinese occupation. In fact, there were Tibetans that WELCOMED the Chinese invasion because before, they were slaves.
In fact, “few Tibetans would welcome a return of the corrupt aristocratic clans that fled with him in 1959 and that comprise the bulk of his advisers. Many Tibetan farmers, for example, have no interest in surrendering the land they gained during China’s land reform to the clans. Tibet’s former slaves say they, too, don’t want their former masters to return to power.” John Pomfret, “Tibet Caught in China’s Web,” Washington Post, 23 July 1999.
Also see:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
Elzoog — Agreed. Which is why I am not a fan of the media lovefest Tibet and the Dali Lama often receive. On the other hand, back when the Chinese moved into Tibet, much more of the world was poor, undemocratic and not into free markets. How would an independent Tibet have evolved (or should I say reincarnated)? No idea. But that does not necessarily mean Chinese communist rule is better than an independent Tibet, nor does it necessarily mean the Dali Lama is a despot.
Friends don’t let friends link to antiwar.com
Actually I was just thinking something like this the other day. I carry a picture of the Dalai Lama around on my teacher’s notebook which carries a quote of his. “With forgiveness there is peace” or something like that… but what monarch-in-exile wouldn’t like their colonizing country to back off and re-instate their pre-colonial despotism…? Even if they are supposed to be a re-incarnation of the Thirteenth Buddha?
Interesting quote you gave EricL, it is however a 110% accurate assessment of the origin of the Taidu mentality.
On a positive note, at least nobody is giving any semblance of credibility to Chu.
The irony of all his ‘one humanity’ talk is that Chu’s profile points out he’s ethnic Chinese from Taiwan… not just another American joe.
“Interesting quote you gave EricL, it is however a 110% accurate assessment of the origin of the Taidu mentality.”
I can’t attest to the accuracy of the thinking of independence leaders in Taiwan, but I do believe that there are few in Taiwan who want to be reunited with the commie mainland. Do business with it, yes, but reunited, no effing way.
> supposed to be a re-incarnation of the Thirteenth Buddha?
Uhmmm, he is said by his followers to be the 13th re-incarnation of the Bodhisattva of Compassion, i do believe. Which is something i myself do not believe is true, although i am a Buddhist — following the Seon tradition, i don’t particularly believe in reincarnation or that it’s possible that any human being is a bodhisattva or otherwise “divine”, except in the theoretical sense that we are all actually “Buddha” [awakened] but just don’t realize it, asleep in our delusions… if that makes any sense…
However, along with R. Elgin i have higher respect for the current Dalai Lama than for almost any other human being — that respect just coming from what i have heard and read that he has spoken or written. Correct me if i’m wrong, but i do believe he has acknowledged most of the evil and injustices of the former Tibetan feudal system, and has zero interest in restoring the former society.
Having become sophisticated about modern social values, he advocates quite an up-to-date reformed system, with all modern human-rights considerations, for the future Tibet if Tibetans are allowed to regain control of it. He does not plan to assume any dictatorial powers, may not even serve as a governmental leader at all, even if the Tibetans insist that he should. He is outspokenly opposed to the economic and environmental devastation the Chinese have wrought and continue to impose upon Tibet, and opposes giving incentives to Chinese to move there — but would permit those already settled to remain.
He’s offering quite a good and reasonable compromise to the Chinese government, that would keep to that as a part of China but permit it an appropriate high level of autonomy — but the dictators of Beijing will not even talk to him, are just waiting for him to die…