This certainly isn't unbiased commentary (obvious tells are the way easily-established facts such as the Tibetan government in exile having a democratic constitution are qualified with the 'reportedly' weasel word, whereas the author's assumptions about lamas motivations are to be understood as unvarnished fact, the frequent use of the 'reactionary' label and the way more emphasis is given to the Dalai Lama granting an audience to a Republican senator than the Cultural Revolution!). But I don't think the author is wrong to say 1950s Tibet was an impoverished and unequal feudal society.

I also met quite a few Tibetan exiles in India. Those who had fled by spending their life savings to be guided across the Himalayan border had tales to tell of running out of food on the journey and eating snow, but no specific details of persecutions in China: they came because the Lama was in India. (I also met a Tibetan who arrived via a visa for overseas study who fully intended to return). But the risk of being shot was still a real one.

Their stories of escape are harrowing and tragic.

You need to actually visit Tibet to see how brutal the occupation actually is.

Once there were these drunk Chinese soldiers who stole this old Tibetans tractor and were doing broodies in the center of town.

That was wild I wish I had it on video (though if I had would I be here today?).

Compared to the mass enslavement of Africans and genocide of indigenous people in the west, this sounds pretty tame. Modern Tibet is certainly flourishing.

Perhaps the people who fled were the ones guilty of crimes mentioned in the article?

Please don't take HN threads further into ideological or nationalistic flamewar. Nothing about this leads anywhere good.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Africans were not enslaved by westerners, but by other African ethnicities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa#West_Africa

I don't know where to begin with comments like this... It's like a teenager wrote it.

> Perhaps the people who fled were the ones guilty of crimes mentioned in the article?

Yup. Lets trust the red terror system of justice

(do note: I have a quote from Russia, so, there is an important caveat there. Still...)

Martin Latsis, chief of the Ukrainian Cheka, stated in the newspaper Red Terror:

    We are not fighting against single individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror.

Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. It's as tedious and repetitive as it is grandiose. Internet comments can't support meaningful discussion about such topics.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm not sure, I _think_ it's still a thing in China. But since the percentage of incarcerated population is lower, it affects fewer people.

Forced labor is a form of slavery; it is yet to be abolished in America, and that is our collective shame as Americans.

Is it considered wrong to force prisoners to perform labor in China?

Thing is, "Psychologist and writer Colin Goldner[78] alleges that although human rights abuses carried out by the People's Liberation Army, especially during the Cultural Revolution, cannot be justified, the pronouncements of Tibetan exiles cannot be trusted, because "These are, if not totally invented out of thin air, as a rule hopelessly exaggerated and/or refer to no longer actual happenings." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Tibet#Verifiab...).

We could know more with the cooperation of China in the TAR, but they won’t let foreign observers in. Later in the same Wikipedia article:

> American sinologist Allen Carlson is of the opinion that it is nearly impossible, without substantial field research in Tibet, to verify the numerous allegations of violations advanced by China critics. He does, however, state, "my analysis of Beijing’s policies and practices has left me with the impression that the Chinese leadership has no reservations about using whatever means necessary to secure Chinese rule over Tibet."

> According to Amnesty International "The Chinese authorities have turned down as “inconvenient” requests for visits to the TAR by several UN human rights experts."

That's very true. But this means we shouldn't blindly trust either of the sides.

Does it?

Only one side is forbidding people to look at things for themselves. It seems better epistemological practice to suspect this side more

Indeed. But we still shouldn't blindly trust the other.

We’re believing the victims of forced relocation and genocide at the hands of China.

I’m open to your sources, since you’re so convinced of your side being the one deserving of trust.

Please do not use HN for nationalistic flamewar. This comment is a noticeable step into the flamewar style, which is exactly the wrong direction take here, regardless of how right you are or feel on an important topic.

Stepping into snark is also a very bad sign. If you find yourself typing things like "since you're so convinced" into comment boxes, please step away from HN until it subsides.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I would ask you to read my partner’s comments again. They are self-replying and mixing up comment replies between different comment chains. Their comments are not germane to the discussion. It feels like the entire thread is being trolled. I don’t feel bad for trying to debate in good faith.

I posted moderation replies to the other user also. It takes two to keep these things going.

> I’m open to your sources, since you’re so convinced of your side being the one deserving of trust.

This is cheap. To say "we shouldn't blindly trust this side" doesn't mean "we should blindly trust that side" at all. It just means we shouldn't blindly trust this side. It may well be that we shouldn't trust either side, because both have reasons to lie.

Both sides could also be right. I do not have a stance, I am just saying what the Tibetan stance is. Why shouldn’t we believe that narrative? There could be good reasons either way, but I haven’t really seen any good sources in this thread. Perhaps you have some to share? I admit this is not my area of study.

> Both sides could also be right.

When both sides claim opposing things, that's pretty unlikely. My point is that to jump from "don't just blindly trust A" to claiming the person meant to say "blindly trust B" is a cheap shot. It's "so you're saying [insert something they absolutely didn't say]" and it's a meme mocking the person that does it for a reason.

Already linked the source few comments above; if you read it there are quite a few more links.

The problem with victim's accounts is twofold. First, there are many accounts, and what gets quoted are folks telling the stories of terror, not the ones who fled for eg religious reasons.

Second, when it comes to China, there's a metric ton of fake news everywhere you look. You look into a story about communist government destroying a church, and later it turns out the church was actually a church-owned commercial building raised without a permit. You read about concentration camps, and only after going through few hundreds pages you realize they are more like western juvenile detention centers. And so on, and so on.

Thus, we shouldn't blindly trust either of sides; there's way too much politically-motivated misreporting involved.

I’m not blindly trusting; I don’t trust you at all because you are not arguing in good faith. You still never provided sources. One or two Wikipedia articles exist about every wrongheaded belief; why should I believe them if you don’t have anything more convincing, even if it’s just more convincing to you?

Regarding the sources you did provide, the articles you cited themselves are ambiguous about the factual, provable nature of your claims. More sources are required to make any kind of argument. Please pick a couple more sources, even ones from the Wikipedia article, or I’ll continue seeing your comments as not in good faith. If you can’t point at sources, I can’t just take your word for it. Neither one of us likely was present for these events, and anecdotes don’t get us anywhere we haven’t already been in this discussion.

I have provided sources, you hadn't. I do give a benefit of the doubt to both parties, you don't. I don't blindly trust any of the sides, while you do. That's pretty evident when you read through the comments above.

You are the one making affirmative claims. I am asking for evidence of your claims. You provided one Wikipedia page. I looked at it closely, and found it inconclusive. It did not reach a definitive conclusion as to your claims. I humbly ask that you link to sources either in the Wikipedia article, or another article, or ideally first and second party sources specifically which you find convincing. Simply saying an argument was made poorly or was made well by someone else somewhere else does nothing for our discussion here on HN.

In short, sources or why bother?

You might want to read your own comments then. What I'm saying is we shouldn't blindly trust either of two sides. You disagree.

I’m not advocating for either side. I’m presenting the Tibetan side as one groups’ position. I’m not a member of that group, nor do I argue on their behalf.

You are the interlocutor making claims that need proof; namely you take a stance and then demand others justify their own stance if it differs from your own.

I’ve asked repeatedly for you to link just one primary source for your claims. We’re all still waiting?

Plural you? :-D

In any case - cool, if you are not advocating one side’s position as absolute and unquestionable truth, then the sources I’ve provided give the plural you pretty good idea how it looks like from the other side, as well as views in between. All is well then.

Because you wouldn't read them anyway. If you were interested in sources, they were one click away. The fact that you didn't even try proves your intentions.

You never provided any sources. Wikipedia is a reference encyclopedia; it is not a primary source of any kind. Each article on Wikipedia cites its sources at the bottom of the article. Why don't you select a proper primary source, possibly even one cited from Wikipedia, and argue for it. Otherwise, you're only convincing yourself. You are arguing with positions I never made, using sources you never cited. I'm okay leaving things here if you are.