on Tibet, its rights, on his release are saying a lot.
One argument I heard again recently and that is a minority school of thought is not much what he thinks the annexation Maoist more a liberation than a conquest.
The protection of Tibetan culture is seen as the defense of a feudal world , anti-modern that keeps a people in poverty and backwardness. The conclusion is that with the hunger there is no form of freedom.
This has always been the reasoning of those settlers who want to impose by force their civilization. By the English in Central America, the extermination of Native Americans in the name of our progress, history is littered with so many episodes. With this reasoning
Gandhi would fail and India did not have its independence and its current prospects.
The Chinese government has made a million and 200,000 people, tortured, imprisoned, wiped out all kinds of rights.
When he went to the Tibetan government in exile Chinese repression was tough, monks and nuns in any way humiliated, forced to have sex, children are forced to shoot their parents, ancient books and documents, precious testimony of their traditions, burned to heat the soldiers.
The Tibetan system was a theocracy , but it was a peace based on nonviolence , reincarnation, on the principle of karma, devoted to prayer, the monks lived differently from the peasants who worked the land, but in Tibet there were no comfort to anyone.
that of the monks, especially was not a closed caste and did not impose anything by force.
In any case I would say that the principle of self-determination must be defended .
Compare our democracy with such different systems is not logical. Today, then, our history, the serious problems of our system of government, should make us observe these experiences are so different, with a look more open and flexible
Tibet has the right to seek its independence and our solidarity is important.
will then decide how to govern their choice.
0 comments:
Post a Comment