Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Tibet

In reflection of my accusation of the immorality of taking sides without understanding the situation (See Free Tibet?!), I must also review the Palestine-Israel commotion of late 2008/early 2009. When studying the situation, it may seem that taking a side, even if one understands the situation, is not always the best choice.

There is a growing sympathy, and rightfully so, for the Gaza-Palestinians. As of now, over 1,000 people have been killed, including numerous children. Far Fewer on the side of Israel haven been killed by Hamas rockets. The battle is lopsided in terms of power and morality, or so it seems. Hamas troops do use civilian holds as hiding places and safe keeps, but this is not the only issue at hand. Due to the ill-sentiment of the state and existence of Israel by a large portion of the Muslim Middle East, Israel apparently believes that whenever they are attacked they must show massive force to keep other possible enemies at bay. But even this is not the main issue.

How can someone pick sides when each side is in the wrong. As the saying goes — two wrongs don’t make a right. The quote may be overused, but it is a good virtue to live by.

Israel should take shame in its mutilation of Gaza. But the Palestinians should also take shame, in hte failure to call out the wrong from within. Hamas may not be a direct threat to the Palestinian people, and has even been known to be helpful to the people, but the existence of this entity creates threats for others and by doing so brings malice to Palestine. They seem to think it is okay for Hamas to exist as long as Hamas is no threat to them, and that Hamas helps them have a “better standard of living.” However, is it really okay to rely on such an entity? Is it really okay to  even simply be fine that such an entity exists? I can understand how the people of the region can pick their side in this issue, especially when their families, homes, and livlihood are threatned. However, for someone without a stake in the region, taking sides should nto be so simple as who killed more. How is it we can find support for the mass murder? How is it that we can find support for people who accept the support of an entity and the cost of others? When both sides are blatantly wrong, choosing a side is ignorant. Palestine and Israel need to just put away their weapons. For the people of this region the issue does dwelve deeper, but this particular conflict is foolish.

Our choice of what is more important and what is less important should not be determined by where we live. The issues of the world have no relativity to our own location. In determining what we believe to be more important, we should first know the truth of the situation. The education we have in school, and the education of reading is not necessarily enough. Take for instance the issue of Tibetan independence, a growing cause amongst people of the United States. Do we as people of the U.S. actually know enough to claim our belief as correct and moral?

It is apparent that the people of Tibet do not have a standard of living equal to the core of China, but we who have no true experience with the culture and the location can be easily deceived. We are presented in media with the Dalai Lama as a pure, religious leader representative of his people. However, further reading into the background of the Dalai Lama creates fuzz around the former perception. Chosen at birth, raised in high regard of the people, can he truly be the “good” person we are presented with in the United States media. Expelled by the “evil” communists of the People’s Republic of China, he is given the benefit of the doubt and a look into history can show he may not deserve such benefit. Then again, what right does China have to claim the land of Tibet? Perhaps, the land, already distinct and semi-autonomous should be given true independence. Yet, who are we, as Americans to say we know the answer.

The United States stole the southern region of the nation from Mexico. There is no outcry amongst the people to return this land to Mexico. Of course, the people of Texas do not have their rights and beliefs limited in the same fashion as the people of Tibet. At one time, it was so. The Latino people of the southern region of the United States have struggled with equality…continue to do so. In Mexico, of importance in such an argument, drug trade, crime, and kidnappings are far more rampant than in the United States. The state of Texas, for example, does suffer from drug smuggling, but the quality of life is far from Mexico, causing numerous immigrants to flea illegally across the border. Would we relinquish Texas to allow Mexico a better economy? If the Mexicans and people of Mexian descent in Texas, Arizon, New Mexico, and California were treated very poorly, perhaps they too would call for independence.

With this outlook—maybe China should just extend the same care for Tibet as it does for the core of the Middle Kingdom. We must consider the other consequences of Tibetan Independence. If they were to acquire a fully independent state, they would need to have a fully functioning government, economy, and other national systems. It could certainy be done. There is also the question of the Han majority who live in Tibet. Is it possible that any possible treachery could be reversed? Why is there no call of indepence for the other four so-called autonomous regions of China? The consequences can be higher than freedom, for Tibet and China.  How is it we can hold ourselves to be of higher morality than any other? Especially when we are unwilling to seek out the truth. I do not yet know the truth. I do have my suspicions as to what the truth of the situation may be, but I am not willing to call out for justice on the premise of a whim.