The Dalai Lama’s brother Gyalo Thondup is accused of many a crime, of which betraying and/by living in China.

But apart from the murder of Gung Thang Tsultrim, also that of five prominent Khampa (East Tibetan) fighters.

See this a this link http://www.chushigangdruk.org/history/history12.htm

One should know that linking the Dalai lama, a Nobel peace Prize Laureate, directly to crime, not only through jhis brother, but through many other close links within his associates, this is not only the most popular man in the world, by one recent poll, that is dragged down from a high position.

But also it is what he represents which is the nominal head of world Buddhism.

Buddhism is thus dragged down into the mud. But also the final nail is put in the coffin of Tibetan culture’s already very tattered heritage.

A horse remedy in fact, cleaning out by virtuous scouring for evil in it.

But that alone can cure of the disease of violence and immoral sin.

But it is necessary and worth the while, because what is saved in fine is the world’s highest culture Tibetan Tantric Buddhism even if Buddhism is finally discarded and only some modern forms of it such as the Kalachakra that’s not really entirely Buddhist, in fact, are preserved.

Indeed, it must be seen that no other culture can dispute the claim of Tibetan Tantric Budhdism to possess the skillful means of meditative methods of Tantra and Mantra to attain one-life Nirvana. In this, it is the world’s highest culture and this cannot be disputed. Other cultures be they Islam, Christianity or Modern Science can only provide this life’s help, but not rapid, this-life Nirvana, being devoid of these skillful just-mentionned methods of self-realizing.

So fanatical cult-modern Progressists, Scientists, Muslims or Christians can all rail that they are the way and so on, but they cannot in any case back up any proof that they possess these unique-to-Tibetan Tantric Buddhism methods.

One cannot be a serious intellectual unless one can back up one’s assertions.

Geir (Gerhardt) Smith.

There’s no point in wondering or debating whether Tibetans were better off before the chinese invasion because that’s not really an issue for the Tibetans.

The Tibetans are suffering badly under the dictatorship of the CCP, in many ways and they want autonomy, since total independence is clearly out of the question.

Tibet cannot afford to wait for China to become a democracy first - simply because China will never swap communism for democracy. Never in a million years.

Democracy would undoubtedly provoke a ‘rebellion from the masses’ and this is something which the CCP will never allow.

It is far more convenient for the CCP to keep their citizens ‘comatosed’ - at least that way they are able to control the chinese people.

Of course it’s wrong, it’s a form of abuse, it’s oppression, but there’s just no way that the CCP would willingly give up its power and control, and move towards democracy, even though it would be better for the chinese people, in many ways.

So…. you can forget about Tibet ever becoming a democracy.

The best that Tibetans can have, is a degree of autonomy. It is the only way they have a chance of survival. It is the only way they can still hold on to their culture and their religious beliefs.

If we all just turned our backs on the Tibetans, their race will undoubtedly be wiped out in years to come. Of course, China would love the rest of the world to turn our backs on Tibet. The CCP has even condemned western governments for agreeing to meet with the Dalai Lama. Fortunately, the CCP cannot control other governments!!

Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to debate with chinese people about Tibet because they are not open to debate - they say they are, but in actual fact they are not.

If you criticise their government, or ’side’ with the Tibetan issue, they resort to using bad language. They don’t take criticism very well….

I have still to get a straight answer from any chinese person on this ‘blog’ about Tibet. For example, I have asked many times this question: “If the Tibetans lives were much improved since the chinese occupation of Tibet, why are the Tibetans asking for independence / degree of autonomy?”

The answers I’ve received are evasive, to say the least. For some reason, they cannot answer this question directly.

You have stated previously that “Tibetans do not look different from Hans. I even find anthropopogist study to proof u wrong”.

To anybody who is NOT chinese, it is very obvious to see that Tibetans do NOT look like Hans chinese. The Hans chinese typically have a rounded face and a pale complexion, whereas the Tibetans have prominent cheek-bones and look tanned.

ANTHROPOLOGISTS ON TIBETAN ORIGINS:

Modern anthropologists generally consider Tibetans to be descendants of the Mongoloid people, although specific historical details remain disputed.

According to one historian, archaeological data confirms that humans from the Mongoloid race resided in North Asia during the Paleolithic area. During the Paleolithic, another group of people with slightly different biological characteristics apart from the Mongoloids lived in current South China.

While some scientists classify these people as part of a different phenotype altogether, others maintain that these people were in fact Southern Mongoloids.

Historians and anthropologists believe that the ancestors of Tibetans migrated to present-day Tibet from the northeast (China) and the southeast (Assam and Burma).

Differences in migration patterns could explain the diversity of biological characteristics among Tibetans. The majority of the people in the U-Tsang region of Tibet are short of stature, round-headed, and high-cheek-boned–therefore slightly different from those of the other two regions. The people of Dotod and Domed are tall, long-headed, and long-limbed.

You wrote that the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama did not like each other - WRONG!

There was a rift between their two immediate predecessors, not between the present Dalai Lama and Panchen lama.

In 1950, two possible candidates had been discovered in Tibet itself, and the chinese themselves put forward a candidate in the territory they ruled.

Naturally, the Tibetan government and the monastic leaders wanted to carry out the traditional tests, but that was impossible at the time, and gradually the Panchen Lama came to be accepted as the true reincarnation. He was then already 11 or 12 years old.

The whole of his education and training was subject to chinese influence. And the chinese had certainly made use of him for their own political ends, knowing that he was too young to protest.

For example, when the communist government conquered china, a telegram of congratulations to them was sent and published in the Panchen Lama’s name, although he was only 10 years old at the time and had not yet been accepted as the reincarnation; and no doubt many people were deceived into thinking that this telegram came from official Tibetan circles.

The Dalai Lama had this to say about the Panchen Lama: “He first came to see me in 1953, in Lhasa, when he was 14 years old. Of course, he was brought by chinese officials.

He was formally presented to me in the traditional ceremonial way, as my junior not only in age, but also in position.

I could see at that very first meeting that the chinese were not happy with our ancient customs. They would have liked to see the Panchen Lama seated on the same level as myself. So that first meeting was constrained and not very successful.

At the end of his visit to Lhasa, his chinese escort prevented the customary formal leave-taking, but he came to say goodbye to me privately at the Norbulingka.

I suggested that as we were both young, we should forget about the differences of our predecessors and make a fresh start, and he agreed.

The chinese were trying to do in our generation exactly what they had failed to do in the last; and this time, it has certainly been an advantage to them to have a Tibetan religious leader in whose name they can make their proclamations.

But the Panchen Lama cannot be personally blamed. No boy who grew up under such concentrated, constant alien influence could possibly retain his free will. And in spite of this influence, I do not believe he will ever quite abandon our religion in favour of communism”.

Your comments Yugung??

The Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama did not like each other.
That ’s why in the 17 point agreement, point 5 and 6 were refering to Panchen Lama and his status in Tibet.

In essence, it said the status of the Panchen Lama should be restored to the Qing dynasty status. When the Qing Emperor conferred the title of Panchen Erdeni it was meant to have equal rank with the Dalai Lama.

MY COMMENT:

If you knew anything about Tibetan history, you would know that the Panchen Lama is the SECOND highest ranking Lama AFTER the Dalai Lama in the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism (the sect which controlled western Tibet from the 16th century until the Seventeen Point Agreement).

At no time, has any Panchen Lama held EQUAL status to any Dalai Lama - NEVER.

THE CURRENT PANCHEN LAMA:
Who is the true present (11th) incarnation of the Panchen Lama is a matter of controversy: the PRC asserts it is Qoigyijabu, while the Tibetan Government in Exile maintains it is Gedhun Choekyi Nyima;

Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was arrested by the Chinese government in 1995 and has not been seen in public for many years since. He is the world’s YOUNGEST POLITICAL PRISONER.

The recognition of Panchen Lamas has always been a matter involving the Dalai Lama. The 10th Panchen Lama himself declared that “according to Tibetan tradition, the confirmation of either the Dalai or Panchen must be mutually recognized.”

The involvement of China in this affair is seen by the world as a political ploy to try to gain control over the recognition of the next Dalai Lama - and to strengthen their hold over the future of Tibet and its governance.

The Panchen Lama bears part of the responsibility for finding the incarnation of the Dalai Lama and vice versa.

Furthermore, the search for the late Panchen Lama’s reincarnation, or any reincarnation, is a TIBETAN AND NOT A CHINESE matter.

In the case of the Panchen Lama, the procedures traditionally involve a final selection process by the Dalai Lama. This has been the tradition since the Fifth Dalai lama recognized his teacher as the Panchen Lama of Tashilhunpo Monastery in Shigatse.

The current Dalai Lama named Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the 11th reincarnation of the Panchen Lama on May 14, 1995 but the government of the PRC quickly named another child, Gyancain Norbu.

Shortly afterwards, Gedhun and his entire family vanished. The circumstances surrounding his disappearance and continued absence have led his supporters as well as the western media to refer to him as “THE WORLD’S YOUNGEST POLITICAL PRISONER”.

Chinese authorities state that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima has been taken into protective custody, but there is no reference to what, or whom he must be protected from.

(1) EDUCATION

As Chen Kuiyuan candidly proclaimed at the Fifth Regional Meeting on Education, the paramount goal of CCP educational policy in Tibet is to secure the ‘loyalty’ of Tibetan children to the ‘great motherland and the great socialist cause.’

In other words, the primary objective of school in Tibet is not to educate but to indoctrinate. This approach violates China’s international legal obligation to direct education toward the child’s development and well-being, not the state’s political interests.

The CCP’s manipulation of education to ensure its political control in Tibet is not a new development. According to TIN, educational policy throughout China since the PRC’s founding has vacillated between two broad philosophies in some tension with one another: the so-called ‘quantity’ and ‘quality’ theories.

The quantity theory emphasizes mass ideological education. Mao and other hard-line communists promoted this philosophy in an effort to mould China’s youth into a model socialist society.

The quality theory, by contrast, advocates directing resources toward the academic and technological training of a select educational elite, in an effort to accelerate China’s economic development. This theory prevailed in the early 1950s and reemerged in the more liberal era associated with Deng Xiaoping.

But the perceived link between the quality theory’s devaluation of ideological indoctrination and the political protests that erupted in Lhasa in 1987 caused hard-liners in the CCP to reassert the quantity theory in Tibet and to advocate a reversion to mass political indoctrination as a tool of social control.

This trend, as Chen Kuiyuan’s express endorsement of ideological education reveals, persists today.

The content of education in Tibetan schools thus tends to reveal the state’s underlying goal of fostering political loyalty among Tibetan children.

China subordinates the academic and personal development of Tibet’s children to the objective of ensuring their ideological and social conformity. The language and curriculum policies in Tibetan schools provide evidence of this trend.

In general, Tibetan children reported that they learned in the Chinese language and about Chinese culture, history and politics.

Tibetan history and culture, by contrast, received at best a few token references.

For the most part, children said that their school teachers and staff ignored, denigrated, prohibited and at times punished references to Tibetan culture, particularly its religious traditions.

At the same time, the quality theory apparently continues to exert some influence on education in Tibet.

Secondary education, particularly higher education (college or professional school), remains the exclusive province of an elite selected by board exams. These tests are administered mostly in Chinese.

Tibetans - even those who excel in the state-run primary schools - therefore remain at a disadvantage.

While Tibetan may remain the medium of instruction in a few Tibetan primary schools, only by mastering Chinese can Tibetan children hope to secure access to a higher education.

Even then, the discriminatory effects of guangxi and bribery often prevent bright Tibetan students from attending the higher quality secondary schools attended by their Chinese peers.

Together, these factors operate to exclude most Tibetan children from attaining the academic achievement and professional training they need to improve their social and economic status.

Furthermore, the denigration of Tibet’s language, history, culture and religion reinforces in the minds of Tibetan children a pervasive sense of cultural inferiority.

China’s educational policies fail to promote Tibetan children’s development and well-being.

On the contrary, as the ICJ concluded in 1997, ‘rather than instilling in Tibetan children respect for their own cultural identity, language and values, as required under the [CRC], education in Tibet serves to ideologically indoctrinate Tibetan children.

It is also designed to convey a sense of inferiority of their own culture, religion and language in comparison to the dominant Chinese culture and values.’ Our research suggests that today, three years later, this conclusion continues to capture the effect of China’s system of education on Tibetan children.

Local authorities recognize the connection between the Tibetan language and the Tibetan people’s consciousness of a distinct national identity.

As a result, Tibetan, which theoretically remains the official language of the TAR, is marginalized.

Several Tibetan children reported that they learned in their own language from grades one through three, but thereafter all instruction shifted to Chinese.

Only Tibetan language class itself, from which Chinese children were exempted, continued to be taught in Tibetan.

Many Tibetan children found learning in Chinese both alienating and an impediment to their understanding. Many drop out because they are frustrated with being ‘forced to study Chinese.’

Many students are told that ‘if you fail in Tibetan, it doesn’t really matter, but you must do well in Chinese.’

The reason for this is readily apparent. After the first three grades, most tests - and all state board exams - are administered in Chinese only.

Furthermore, advanced Chinese language skills appear to be a prerequisite for most good jobs in Tibet. Tibetan children expressed a strong desire to learn written and spoken Tibetan. But primary schools in Tibet have effectively relegated it to the status of a second language.

(B) Political and Ideological Curriculum

For many Tibetan children, Chinese primary school education is overtly political.

While the three most common subjects taught in primary school - Chinese, Tibetan and mathematics - appear ‘neutral’ politically, others, such as history and social studies, frequently aim to inculcate loyalty to the state or indoctrinate Tibetan children in the PRC’s version of socialism.

Several students reported being forced to pledge allegiance to the Chinese government.

International law emphasizes, however, that children, no less than adults, must be permitted to exercise the right to freedom of speech. National pledges must be voluntary.

Yet several students reported that they risked humiliation, beatings and even expulsion if they refused to swear loyalty to China.

In 1996, said one boy from Amdo, ‘[we] were made to pledge that we like China and that Tibet is a part of China. The Chinese willingly make the pledge, but if the Tibetans don’t, they will be beaten.’

At most schools, children reported, teachers respected and celebrated Chinese holidays. By contrast, they ignored, discouraged and even banned celebration of Tibetan festivals (such as Losar, the Tibetan New Year) at schools.

Some children told us that teachers forced them to sing Chinese national songs, often as a daily routine.

‘The worst time,’ recalled one girl from central Tibet, ‘was when we were forced to sing a song for Mao Zedong even if we refused.’

Some Tibetan parents apparently choose to keep their children at home because they do not want them exposed to the ideological indoctrination that characterizes Chinese primary schools.

Government housing is transforming Tibet’s once stunning landscape.

“Our house will cost 100,000 yuan (£6,500), and the government is paying half,” said a woman in a village near the town of Gyantse. Then she indicated the Chinese flag flying above it. “But we have to fly the flag, or they will come and take the money back. Inside, we have to put up a poster of Mao.”

Another resident had the propaganda posters in her living room, one showing President Hu Jintao, the other a trinity of former leaders, Chairman Mao, Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin. On top was a photograph of the Dalai Lama.

“The Chinese officials gave me these posters,” she said, reciting the four names. “They come and inspect the house to make sure they are there – of course, I hide the Dalai Lama picture before they arrive.”

What do you have to say about this, Yugung? The woman is a liar?

Yes, this ‘thread’ is about Tibet - but it is about China’s involvement in Tibet, as you know.

Su Zheilang is not the only one who stated he wished he could tell the truth - the article mentions teachers as well - at one of China’s best schools, no less.

How can you say China is a normal country, and then go on to say that “some teachers want to add certain topics…. but not everyone gets his wish….” ????

You also wrote: ” In writting a text book one must consider the fact that students will have to take exams based on what he learned. Controversial topics should be left out”.

Why should controversial topics be left out? If an event happened, then it happened -end of story. If it’s controversial, then it makes for good class debate.

You can’t try and change history after the event - either by distorting the facts or by simply ignoring that certain events happened.

As Ma Jian (author of Beijing Coma) stated: “If a country is denied access to their own history, they have a distorted view….”

It’s no wonder that people like you, Jason, and Chen get angry and tell me that I am distorting the truth, when the fact is that we in the West know more about China’s history than you do. Mao, for example, is viewed as a ‘great leader’ - yeah, right !!

You also asked if UK middle school student learn about massacre in Iraq following Anglo-USA invasion?

I don’t know, I left school 20 years ago and I don’t have any children. But I will certainly enquire about the school curriculum on history, and get back to you.

What I can say, is that any student interested in world news, has access to it, whether that be on the internet, radio or TV.

yugung:
This thread is about Tibet.
Any historian worth his salt will know that Tibet is part of China. This applies to Su Zheilang. Of course he will not say China invaded Tibet. Using him to support ur argument that Tibet was invaded is a waste of time.

China is a normal country. Some teachers want to add certain topics into the text book.That is normal, but not everybody get his wish. In writting a text book one must consider the fact that students will have to take exams based on what he learned. Controversial topics should be left out.

Does UK middle school student learn about massacre in Iraq following Anglo-USA invasion?