Is it really though? Does this generation get to decide that all generations following it should live under a theocratic dictatorship? I'm not sure that's a whole lot better than Chinese control. Anyone who thinks the old Tibetan monarchy/aristocrat system was a good form of government should really read up on it and not just assume it was paradise for the Tibetan people. They still had serfs and slaves.

There are many kinds of "theocracy". The islamic republic of Pakistan is significantly better than Saudi Arabia. Or would your rather have them both as "rightful Chinese territory"?

Sure, but are you at all familiar with the history of pre-CCP Tibet? Their "theocracy" was likely worse than Saudi Arabias, both in terms of the sorts of punishments they inflicted upon their populace (routine gouging of the eyes, chopping of the limbs, and then hanging up for display) as well as the autocratic (serf-like) structure built up.

Are you sure you want to do comparison? As late as 1863, captured leaders of the Taiping Rebellion were sentenced to death by slicing flesh off the body until they died.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Dakai

This is whataboutism. No relevance to the issue at hand whatsoever.

I'm saying that it's silly to argue that Tibetans don't deserve their own government because ancient Tibetans were horrible people, when the current alternative is Tibetans being ruled by China with its own horrible ancestors.

Ancient people were horrible everywhere. It's not really an argument for anything.

The Tibetans deserve a government that represents them, but not the Dalai Lama led one (although I don't agree with a principle of "every ethnic group governs themselves" or something like that. I don't think it is wrong or colonialist to be part of a supranational, pluralistic state - but China is obviously authoritarian).

These aren't "ancient Tibetans"... this is quite literally the Tibetian government directly prior to the Chinese takeover, ie. within current people's lifetime. There are direct, credible witnesses to what Tibet under the current Dalai Lama's government was like. The current Dalai Lama was picked by people who tortured their citizens and gouged out their eyes for trying to organize away from serfdom. The current Dalai Lama oversaw a feudal system where these sorts of punishments continued to be carried out.

Tashi Tsering's autobiography details the extensive whippings and sexual assault he experienced working in the current Dalai Lama's dance troupe, prior to the Chinese takeover.

This is not "ancient" history.

If I view people as animals, I just wish them stay the same for generations, so my kids can visit them, their exotic cultures. Don't have my stupid modern life style, stay pure, stay different. I feel that's how people see this world. In many tourists places, people have to pretend to be the same as old time, wear exotic clothes, do something stupid shit in village for tourists to see. That's how this world is, becoming a big zoo.

.... says the person comparing Tibet to Saudi Arabia.

What? It was the person I was replying to making comparisons with Saudi Arabia, I was merely responding.

> but are you at all familiar with the history of pre-CCP Tibet? Their "theocracy" was likely worse than Saudi Arabias

Yes, now read one comment up where Saudi Arabia is mentioned as a comparison with other theocracies, such as Tibet.

Tibet was much more closer to SA (rigidly authoritarian, brutal punishments) than Pakistan (democratic election of leaders, less chopping off of people's limbs)

Could you please point me to an independent source which can confirm what you wrote, as in not Chinese/CCP propaganda to justify their invasion and occupation of Tibet.

Also, looks like the Tibetan's are suffering exactly the kind of treatment as you wrote under the CCP.

Probably not the tone you're looking for, but definitely independent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYEOSCIOnrs

I am more familiar with the history of pre British India. Thankfully the British "civilized" my country. Surely China will do the same to Tibet.

The excuses people make for colonialism remain the same as centuries pass by.

the history between china and tibet isn't the history between britain and india.

It is exactly the same. It is colonialism right down to the justifications

The history of Pakistan based terrorism in india suggests otherwise.

Saudi Arabia funds conservative schools of Islam all over the world , however they have yet to involve themselves in the kind of state sponsored terrorism Pakistan does.

For people outside these countries i would say Saudi is definitely better

Putin threatened SA for supporting Chechens

Religious based government is bad all the way around. It leads to persecution of other religions and even sects of the same religion (Sunni vs Shia). It's a bad thing to have at the core of your government. This used to be a 1st principal in the USA but the lines are becoming blurred by alt-right ideology that is seeping into and starting to control the republican party. I really hope it has peaked and is on the down swing because there are finally some GOP people pushing back against a Trumpist coup in 2024.

What are we going to do when Tibetans are ravaged by a theocratic government? Air drop some freedom and democracy. And maybe a few flag emojis on twitter.

What is wrong with a theocratic government if the people want it and it suits their way of life, especially if it is a peaceful spiritual way of life and makes people happy. Last I checked Bhutan, which is also Buddhist, was doing well.

Also, I hope you're not saying that the way of the China/CCP is better than how Tibetans were before Chinese invasion. I don't think they were ever ravaged, unless you're referring to the Chinese propaganda to show them as the savior. And, if they were such a savior why are people killing themselves?

Moreover, I'm assuming you're on a similar crusade against the Pope and other theocratic governments, of other religions, in the world.

Bhutan government has done some brutal things to Nepalis in the 90's. Catholic church was much worse when it had actual power. State propaganda can be overwhelming to weak minds but a little history lesson can cure it.

To be clear I'm not for CCP or any autocracy. I'm against theocracy.

I wonder why you think Tibet would become a theocracy if it were independent. I don't think the current Dalai Lama would support that. Many places were not democratic before falling under foreign rule, but became democratic afterwards.

You described some example of Theocracy's that performed brutal acts against those that were perceived as "others". USA is responsible for many deaths and is constantly invading countries. Since using examples of bad things a government type has done is enough to say that the type of government is bad, democracy in turn must be bad. /s

Any form of government once formed is hard to change. How many governments do you see regularly changing from democracy to communism to theocracy to etc... Theocracy is a perfect valid form of governance.

Religion's just like governments have multiple sides to them. Which side the rulers decided to focus on changes which actions are performed.

Yes but unlike say a democracy, you can't vote the theocracy out. You can't be treated fairly if you are not of the official religion. You become an outsider, never to be treated like a full citizen, because of who you are.

Imagine if instead of religion it was skin color, or gender, or hell even height - only people over 2 meters could be in government. Can we whitewash those too? Are they as legitimate as Theocracy? Why not?

What's wrong with theocracy? Really?

How about that you can't change it very easily once you have it? Or that it's based on authority, mostly of a small set of people? Or that religious issues have caused the slaughter of millions of people?

Are you really abandoning liberal democracy because you happen to have found a religion you like?

> Are you really abandoning liberal democracy because you happen to have found a religion you like?

I've not found a religion I like :)

I'd said what's wrong with theocracy if that is what the people want, for example vote for. So, in effect it's a democratically chosen theocracy. Is that not democracy after all?

In other words, if Tibet were to become independent and the people chose Dalai Lama to be the head of the state, would it be a theocracy or a democracy or a theocratic democracy?

But, I get your point.

Still, I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves debating future Tibetan government while it is being butchered under the CCP. We safely can punt this debate for later.

Depends.

Is there some sort of founding document that enshrines the right to vote and replace leaders with a regular cadence, regardless of the desires of that leader? If so, then regardless of who they vote for, it's a democracy.

If instead a person is appointed to lead, who will use their religion to decide state matters, and there is no way to remove them except for them to choose to replace themselves, then it's a theocracy.

"Theocratic democracies" are unstable and don't last. There is no way for them to last. Either it allows those who are not of the same faith as the leaders to influence policy and have their voices heard and becomes a democracy, or it doesn't, in which case it is a theocracy, and a form of autocracy or oligarchy (just, one that claims divine authority instead of purely material authority).

Sure, if we just redefine "theocracy" to mean "democracy" then it isn't too bad at all!

Was Nazi Germany democratic because Hitler was elected? I doubt it. Once you preclude being able to remove the leader, which seems to be the case de facto or de jure (I don't know) you stop being a democracy.

Russia is another one of those countries that had some kind of election in the past but going forward you can't really see them being fair elections.

Of course people are free to elect eg the Christian democrats as often as they like, so long as they can choose otherwise. Japan and Mexico IIRC had people electing the same party for decades.

They force others to believe as they do and likely any nonbelievers are either jailed or become rejected by society at large as untouchables. That seems as bad as most dictatorships, barring outright torture and indiscriminate execution for going against the state.

We can put a wager on it suddenly being Catholics again, and then we can continue being lazy.