Tibet
I've intended to specify my pet peeves and concerns over the 'Free Tibet' movement for some time now (most of which stem from my general wariness of popular causes). And what better day than today. Usually, I choose not to go into it, hiding behind some vague notion of loyalty to Beeb, but that's not really the reason I abstain from partaking in the frenzy of the 'Free Tibet' movement. So in no particular order here are my primary qualms: emotion coupled with ignorance, theocracy, and general counterproductiveness.

Firstly, I don't believe many westerners should truly feel as indignant as they do about this issue. Surely they have the right to passionately defend their personal values which they see as being compromised in this situation. But it is this added emotion which inhibits them from viewing the situation pragmatically, and understanding the consequences of their agitation. Feeling must be tempered and put into perspective by reason or else your cause is lost before it begins.

Couple this with the overwhelmingly one-sided perspective we receive on this issue from the western media, and you've got yourself a lot of ignorantly indignant young people, looking for some excuse to recreate 60s-style protests (coupled with the older, nostalgic type), running around ignoring the fact that the time for protest has passed. Newsflash: history, especially from this region of the world, is NOT OBJECTIVE. In part, the reason I abstain from supporting (or acting against -- although I doubt I would in any case) the Tibet movement, is that I have yet to read an satisfyingly objective account of the history of Tibetan-Chinese relations. Tibetans are just as capable of engaging in propaganda as the PRC. I have a hard time buying their overly simplistic view that they were, in fact, an independent COUNTRY prior to a "Chinese invasion" in 1950. (I'll give them that they may have considered themselves as such during a 30-40 year period at the beginning of the 20th century). This is why I always appreciate hearing what Nick has to say on this subject. Despite the fact that many of his views are rooted in a Dadaist impulse to provocation, he is actually extremely knowledgeable about both China's claims to this region, and the history of this region. He has spent his entire life studying Mao (rewriting the same paper over and over again during the last 4 years of his life). If you can get Nick out of his defending-communism-for-the-sake-of-defending-communism line of thought, you can actually learn a lot about this issue and understand it's not exactly cut-and-dry. I really appreciate Nick's willingness to argue China's side, simply because it is an argument rarely heard in the western world (especially among liberal college students). I don't understand why anyone would support Tibet without hearing both perspectives, however biased each may be, first. Moreover, it does not cast a movement in a good light when it refuses to even acknowledge via refutation its opponent's claims.

So here is all I'm willing to admit as fact in this issue: whether or not Tibet has ever existed as an independent country (clearly we've heard the Tibetan's side, but I've heard the 12th century figure thrown around by more people than just Chinese citizens and Nick), Tibet certainly constitutes a nation (a group of people with ethnic, language, and religious ties). This alone does not necessitate independence (just as it is not enough for Catalonians or Basque people or Quebecois, to give you a few similar western examples -- in each case, a nation denied not only independence, but the usage of their language and practice of their customs during certain periods of history. In each case, we regard those who argue for independence as a fringe group, and those who agitate violently for it as terrorists -- see ETA). Not only is it not feasible, it would cause more unrest and hardship for the nation than it would alleviate.

Here's what I do support: granting a greater degree of autonomy to the Tibetan autonomous region (as has been granted to Catalonia or Basque country or Quebec), allowing them to practice their language and (sometimes theocratically medieval) customs, all the while remaining under Chinese control (which has not been entirely negative, although oppressive). China must recognize the NATION of Tibet, but this remains unlikely to happen while they continue to fear that they will lose control if they do so. (Picture China as a frightened animal protecting its bounty. I do. The best course of action is not to make out directly for taking its bounty away, or else it will get even more defensive and less likely to consider granting any access at all to it.)

What needs to happen is China needs to feel secure enough in its control to allow Tibetans greater autonomy. This is unlikely to happen if violence or even protests continue -- we must be pragmatic. The Dalai Lama supports autonomy, we must push through that route, rather than continued agitation, which clearly only provokes China into becoming ever more defensive and oppressive in its rule of Tibet. This is what I mean by the 'Free Tibet' movement acting counterproductively. It succeeds in causing more hardship to Tibetans. A new approach must be found.

I think the general thought process is that if enough westerners express their outrage over the offenses of the PRC in Tibet, that their governments will do something. This is not true. We are all currently so indebted to China that the governments cannot even CONSIDER engaging China on this issue, except very feebly. If you don't want the US economy to descend into feudal chaos itself, you better be VERY very nice to the Chinese.

Frankly, pragmatically, the best you can do for Tibet is again try to convince the Chinese to consider autonomy. Which they won't do if they perceive there is the possibility of losing Tibet entirely. So be careful with the way in which you use violent protests.

Here are things I wish people (or at least westerners) within the 'Free Tibet' movement would admit:
that China's claim to Tibet extends centuries beyond 1950. that since 1950 China has helped modernize Tibet (not least significantly, ending a period of essential slavery). that the complexities of the situation arise not only from China's stubbornness, but the sizable proportion of the population of this region that is now ethnically Chinese. (Time for another analogy. I hate argument by analogy just as much as the rest of you, particularly faulty, overly simplistic, and cringing analogy, but here it comes. This is the same reason it is no longer feasible to act for a complete annihilation of Israel -- while I do not believe it should have existed in that region in the first place, the fact is, it has existed there for so many years (the same amount of time that China has been 'occupying' Tibet in the 20th century), that pragmatically you cannot just ask it to withdraw all its people and leave the region to the Palestinians. Of course this same argument can be made reversing the roles of the Palestinians and Israelis, so I don't expect this to CONVINCE anyone, just possibly illustrate my point to myself.) It's a problem, and you can't really ask people who have been living there for 2 generations to get up and go either. (This is KINDA why we need to act now on that whole Israeli settlements issue).

Finally what I mean about a theocratically medieval society. This is a tough situation when you have a choice between atheocracy and theocracy. Either case does not exactly allow for CHOICE. But I firmly believe the world could do well without another theocracy. Essentially what he said:
I do not want to make it out to seem like I expect that the only reason people are agitating for Tibetan Freedom are because they haven't done enough research (I'm not as callous as certain conspiracy theorists -- I'm looking at you 9/11 truthers.) The principle of self-determination is deeply ingrained in the democratic West, particularly in American history. But complete, immediate independence is not always the best course of action for a nation, particularly in the modern world. I just hope those involved are at least aware of these compounding issues.

This is why I abstain from giving my support to this movement (even when I have to awkwardly stand aside when visiting moho while Jean fills out one of those pointless internet petitions, and I get asked twice to sign my name as well -- sigh, the DIFFICULTIES of MY protest -- I AM KIDDING.) I refuse to give credence to a movement powered by those willing to jump on the bandwagon without understanding any of the complexities of their cause du jour. Not that every movement doesn't have its blind followers, but in this case, it's not only unfortunate, it may be doing more to hurt the cause than to help it.

Finally to top things off, those bandwagon-jumpers could be doing much more good by joining in a cause that HASN'T yet garnered enough attention. Everyone is aware of the Tibet issue. Fewer people are aware of the treatment of Palestinians in Israel (for example). PARTICULARLY in America, where any bad word against Israel basically amounts to hate speech. For politicians, it's the kiss of death. We could use a large scale liberal hippie whatever "Free Palestine" protest. Rather than beating a dead horse in such a way that China becomes more and more oppressive as a response.

Now I personally don't think you are WRONG to protest in the name of freedom. Far from it. Just as I hope you don't perceive me as wrong for abstaining, not because I don't agree that freedom is always preferable to oppression, but because I believe in this case it is not pragmatically possible. Not that anyone pays attention to what college students say or do in either case. Those dirty hippies.

(Oh ps, if you disagree, I WELCOME it, but PLEASE don't respond emotionally. That is the one vice I cannot tolerate. I mean if you're gonna argue emotionally, you might as well believe in god.)