I really appreciate this creative project. I feel trapped in between the symbolic nature of the Olympics (of community and achievement) and the tyranny and overlooked injustice in China. It's scary how powerful China. I'm ethnically Chinese and I know some true stories that are just horrific. The fact that the country is still communist, controlling and corrupt is not what truly scares me. It's the fact that China doesn't really get any crap about it and if you asked the majority of Americans they would know nothing.
-Chinese American

Did they let one of their domain names expire? amnesty.com appears to be parked by a squatter, but it's on the image.

Let's get this out of the way:
Guantanamo Bay.

Larger link should probably be to http://www.boingboing.net/images/x_2008/AIswimming.jpg

there are at least 1,000 Tibetans missing, being held incommunicado. I strongly fear there will be a "foiled terrorist attack" against the olympic travesty - and some of the bodies will appear.

Interesting...
Although the "ad" shows the website as "www.amnesty.com", the amnesty website is actually amnesty.org.
Is the image, perhaps, a fake? Maybe some talented media student made it...

W'r tlkng bt dnncng cts whr dntts r dltd frm th rcrds t mk t sm lk ndsrbl ppl nvr vn xstd. BB wldn't knw nythng bt tht rght?

Nothing about it on the Amnesty website- I doubt this is endorsed by Amnesty Intl.

Really compelling design, though. I'd be interested in seeing others from the series.

@#6 Satan, that sort of silly melodrama has no place in this post. If you have something specific and thoughtful to say, you know there's another thread for that. But to answer your question, let's see: torture, forced detention, extrajudicial execution, denial of due process, imprisonment without trial, beatings -- yeah, that's *exactly* like a blog editor taking down some posts she made herself about Hello Kitty dildos, and a bunch of drama queens having a fit about it a year later.

Seriously, your comment is offensive.

@ #1, #5, #7, thanks for the heads up -- the source for this item is someone who reliably sends us interesting material that checks out as valid; perhaps this was a stealth campaign or from another source. I'm checking in to it and will update the post.

Sms lk ths mght trn t t b clvr mck d by crtv phtgrphr nrltd t . f tht's th cs, ds t mn ts vldty shfts frm th sbstnc t mr trdmrk nfrngmnt f n nthrzd s f th lg nd nm?

#8 - "bnch f drm qns" - fnny bcs th rgnl tk-dwn smd lk th ct f n sch prsn. Jst syn'.

@Satan, I'm not going to be baited into an unpleasant exchange here. If you have something thoughtful to say about this, by all means do so. Otherwise, take it to the appropriate thread, or another site.

#6 wsn't ffnsv. Mght hv ht nrv, bt t wsn't ffnsv.

@#12, You are entitled to your opinion, but I find it offensive. The subject matter at hand involves something specific and real; saying that a blogger taking down some of her own work is like torturing or "disappearing" thousands of human beings is offensive to me, and it's also offensive to people who are the victims of such human rights abuses.

This sort of polemic amounts to trolling, no different than invoking Godwin's law. I'd like us to keep the quality of this thread more civil and respectful.

After seeing Ethan Zuckerman's post on the disconnect and misunderstanding we have with Chinese nationals on the Tibet issue, I can see how staged photography like this is very offensive to them and only serves to deepen the divide. I'm actually glad it doesn't seem to be coming from Amnesty International, because I'd be disappointed in them - we need to foster understanding and make careful use of facts (Chinese perceive of a biased and uninformed representation of Tibet, which this picture only reinforces).

http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/06/28/china-bias-misunderstanding/

Satan @6, that was just plain obscene. No, not obscene--it's too petty for that. Trollish.

I saw a thematic nexus between two threads and merely pointed it out. This is my explanation of how I thought my post here was not out of place - because I saw themes in one issue reminding me of another.

Just one idea about this story echoing another story, all piggybacked and gleaned from this very website as its source. How is this an invalid idea to voice?

Not sure how you rightly get to throw the ad hominems and then call me the offensive one.

If AI didn't make them, they should still find a way to use them. These are potent.

Also, I have to agree with #2. I want to add more, but lets keep this about China and/or AI.

#16, see #8, then I'll see you downstairs.

Actually, a quick glance through this page leaves me wondering why Satan is allowed to comment here at all.

The post implies there is more than one ad. Am I missing a link to the others?

After some looking I would be surprised if this is from AI since they don't seem to have it anywhere on their site or if they do they hid it well which is weird for an ad campaign. Also checking other sites that include more detailed info about the people supposedly involved lead to dead ends. The website of the ad agency supposedly responsible (TBWA\PARIS) did not have the ad or at least I couldnt find it. Also the supposed photographer does not have the image on his site:

http://www.marcgouby.com/

Although he did some work for AI(see the third page of his commissioned work) this is noticeable absent.

Lastly I have seen this attributed to at least two different agency on behalf of AI so I think this is a clever hoax. My own $3.05

I have no idea what is going on with the Satan-thread, but I don't think it's relevant.

I'm more interested in that no one questions exactly why this visual image is so provocative, AI or no. I think it is disturbing that it is staged photography. It clearly exploits existing xenophobic representations and sentiments about China. I think MADPRIME was correct to draw the connection between the recent CNN pictures that labeled violent Nepalese police as Chinese police and how closely it grates on Chinese sensitivities on this topic.

Not that I believe there aren't human rights violations there, but if you truly want to aid the situation in China, consider building relationships with the citizens there rather than alienating them.

@Tsarwonderful, @MADPRIME, good food for thought, guys. Ethan's essay about Rebecca's work at Global Voices, and how to bridge those communication gaps -- really good stuff.

I've asked AI to comment on the ads; I'm pretty confident they're a stealth-campaign by other folks. Compelling ideas either way.

For fairness sake, there's a long history of the Tibetan monks acting as ruthlessly as any feudal system dictatorship over the peasant class. It is isn't clear to me that the portrayal of the Chinese in this propaganda image of a classic villain is supposed to convey anything other than "let's hate the Chinese."

Another question that has not been answered is whether "freeing Tibet" means a return of political and land ownership rights to the autocratic monks or a movement toward democratic rule of an independent Tibetan republic. Neither of which is for anyone but the Chinese or Tibetans to dictate by accord or force in any foreseeable future.

Here is a link that has both a side bar where you can see the other parts of the series (I have only seen the two others Archery and Weight Lifting on all the sites with these) plus supposed info on where it came from:

http://creativity-online.com/work/view?seed=9ab08353

Here is another link to the campaign
http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/amnesty_international_weight_lifting?size=_original

@#26, @#27, thanks guys I've updated post!

HarshLanguage, you don't get to announce that Satan's comments weren't offensive when it was already evident that quite a few people were offended by them.

I have never seen the "hit a nerve" trope used as anything but a cheap shot. And if there was a nerve hit, it's the one that twangles when reports of grave human rights abuses are misappropriated by a person who wants to artificially extend a prior argument by pretending that those abuses are comparable to some venial error committed by an opponent.

Satan, your various remarks here on Boing Boing have been tolerated precisely because Xeni didn't consider herself your opponent. She undertook to listen to readers' legitimate complaints, and yours were among them.

Your performance in this thread has been something else again. I know you're going to call me a fascist, or something similar, which frankly doesn't interest me; but the truth is, I wish you well in spite of yourself. I've already talked one prominent liberal blogger out of writing an entry whose sole purpose was to make fun of your remarks here.

If you're only here to pursue your personal (and as far as I can tell groundless) quarrel with Xeni and Boing Boing, you won't be here for long. If you get kicked out, it'll be entirely on account of your bad manners.

That's the deal as it stands. What you do about it is your decision.

S... d w gt t tlk bt th dvrts nw?

@Satan

You said:
Another question that has not been answered is whether "freeing Tibet" means a return of political and land ownership rights to the autocratic monks or a movement toward democratic rule of an independent Tibetan republic. Neither of which is for anyone but the Chinese or Tibetans to dictate by accord or force in any foreseeable future.

Answered by who? It's been clearly discussed time and time again. People working for a "Free Tibet" wish to have autonomous rule over the region in a Democratic manner. No one is calling for a return to autocratic monk rule.

When you say such things, it's clear that you haven't even bothered to read anything on the issue beyond slogans. It makes you look foolish.

Read this Tibet.com whitepaper and note the following:
"The guidelines for Tibet's future polity also stated:

Future Tibet shall be a peace-loving nation, adhering to the principle of ahimsa (non-violence). It shall have a democratic system of government committed to preserving a clean, healthy and beautiful environment. Tibet shall be a completely demilitarised nation.

The Tibetan struggle is, thus, not for the resurrection of the traditional system as the Chinese claim."

It's pretty clear that you're misinformed. If you'd like to cite sources on anything you're saying, I'm curious to see you backup your statements with facts. I'm guessing that you cannot do so.

My first reaction was "this is cool." because
because I've heard pleanty of stories of abuse in China, and it's good to get the word out, but on the other hand I have to agree that this bothers me if this is staged (which it looks like it is). Awareness of actual events of abuse is one thing, and might do harm than good.

Though the Tibetan people have my sympathy, I feel I shouold remind that there are other minority groups in China that are being mistreated than just Tibetans.

yes, I expect some dead Uighurs to show up as well, framed for "terrorism".

I'm not clear here; do some think this photo is candid? Trust me, it is a dramatic staging of typical Chinese government torture of inconvenient minorities and occupied nations. It is not supposed to be "real". Real photos would be too sickening anyway.

wow. Some powerful imagery in that photo.

picture worth a thousand words and all that.

Interesting. The logo is that of Amnesty's International Secretariat (based in London), not AI France (the ads seem to come from TBWA\Paris). Amnesty.com has not been owned by Amnesty International. It used to be owned by an anti-graffiti spray paint named Amnesty, but now seems to be held by a squatting company. The images seem awfully edgy for the International Secretariat to actually run. A concept pitch by TBWA seems most likely.

I wouldn't read too much into the mis-appropriated URL. Some ad agencies often create work for award purposes. The one credited is one of the most awarded agencies in the world. It is very likely that this piece was created as a portfolio piece, and never (or not yet approved by AI) - and then got leaked out.

Thy wrn't "lkd," thy wn n wrd. S hr: http://64.233.167.104/srch?q=cch:Dfvk54pHKwJ:www.cnnslns.cm/wnnrs/prss/wn_4_11_07038.htm

If AI didn't make them, they should still find a way to use them. These are potent.

If the source is a lie, so is the potency. The faked credit suggests the maker knew that more people see the lie than the correction.

Since ioerror suggests a link, I'll offer the best I know, written by someone who harshly criticizes both China and the Dalai Lama faction: Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth.

As for the source of these photos, there might be a hint in Democratic Imperialism": Tibet, China, and the National Endowment for Democracy.

If the source is a lie, so is the potency.

Granted Will, you have some well informed opinions about China and Tibet, but on this matter of what art means, I totally disagree.

I got the artists whole message before I even realized there were words down in the corner. Whoever they are, their agenda is anti-torture, and I support that no matter who is doing it to whom.

Mdhatter, if this was about torture, there would be images of Americans torturing Iraqis and Israelis torturing Palestinians and Saudis torturing just about anyone who threatened to upset the status quo. The message of this one is simple: Chinese communists are evil. To figure out who's behind it, all you have to do is ask who that message helps.

I always get a sneaking feeling that perhaps images like these as well as those of the masked and deprived Guantanamo Bay prisoner Jose Padilla are a warning to the general population. Like the constant debate of torture in the mainstream press, the point is to terrorize the general public into a more manageable state of fear. I find hope in this though, for anybody that resorts to such tactics is afraid of the inherent power of the group they seek to control.

Right up front I'll admit this is a bit off-topic.

That said, has any other option of comment obfuscation been explored other than disemvowelling? Perhaps making the font in the comment lighter? It really breaks up the conversation (no matter how relevant it is to the actual blog post).

! lk #40 ND #41! Nc wrk gys.

Chinese communists - as they practice in China today - are evil.

"For Parenti, democracy has two basic dimensions, the procedural and the substantive, both of which are equally important. Procedural democracy consists of the basic political forms: free speech and assembly, the right to dissent, accountability of officeholders, the right to vote in regular and honest elections, etc. Substantive democracy consists of egalitarian socio-economic outputs that advance the well-being of the populace, protect the environment, and curb the abuses and often untrammeled powers of great wealth. Parenti quotes the German sociologist Max Weber who remarked almost a century earlier that it remains to be seen whether democracy and freedom can exist under the dominion of a highly developed capitalism.[8]

Parenti concludes that “there is no one grand, secret, power elite governing this country, but numerous coteries of corporate and governmental elites that communicate and coordinate across various policy realms. Behind their special interests are the common overall interests of the moneyed class,” which is not to say that differences never arise among these elites"

part one:

His Holiness the Dalai Lama's Vision for a Future Free Tibet

The following is the official translation of The Guidelines For Future Tibet's Polity And Basic Features of Its Constitution, which His Holiness the Dalai Lama issued on 26 February 1992. In this, His Holiness makes important suggestions for future Tibet's democracy. He categorically declares that he will not hold official position in the government of future Tibet since he thinks that he will be "in a better position to serve the people as an individual outside the government".

Introduction

Although it is difficult to predict the future, all human beings who wish to achieve happiness and avoid suffering must plan for future. As a result of the Chinese occupation, Tibetans in Tibet are deprived of their basic human rights; this tragic situation cannot be permitted to continue for long.

Tibet has a recorded history of over 2,000 years, and according to archaeological findings, a civilization dating back to over 4,000 years. In terms of geographical features of the country, as well as in terms of race, culture, language, dress and customs, Tibet is a distinct nation.

Under Tibet's Kings and the Dalai Lamas, we had a political system that was firmly rooted in our spiritual values. As a result, peace and happiness prevailed in Tibet.

However, by the middle of this century, Chinese occupation forces marched into Tibet through its eastern border regions of Kham and Amdo. Soon after, the Chinese intensified their military repression in Tibet, driving our political situation to a crisis point. In the face of this, I had no alternative, but to comply to my people's request to assume full responsibility as the head of state of Tibet, although I was then only 16.

In the hope of winning peace and happiness for my people, I tried for years to establish an amicable relationship with the powerful and authoritarian Chinese officials. Also, I set out to reform the unsavory aspects of our social system. With the view to introducing democracy, I constituted a committee consisting some 50 members. On the recommendation of the committee, some social welfare reforms were implemented, but my efforts towards introducing further reforms failed as the Chinese had by then converted Tibet into their colony.

As soon as the Chinese army had gained full control of Tibet, they shed their initial semblance of discipline and politeness to become ever more demanding and repressive. Brutal forces were used to suppress the Tibetan resistance, first in Kham and Amdo, and finally in the whole of Tibet by March 1959.

As a result, I was compelled to seek refuge in India in order to continue our struggle for the cause of Tibet. Among my initiatives in exile were to see to it that the Tibetan refugees, who were arriving in India in thousands, were given proper education and rehabilitation facilities. I also set out to continue my earlier plans to democratise Tibetan society.

People's Deputies (the Tibetan legislative body), was introduced in India. Since then we have had eleven such Assemblies. In 1961, I promulgated a constitution for future, free Tibet, based on the principles of modern democracy. In general, this Constitution received overwhelming support from the Tibetans. The Tibetans, however, strongly opposed one provision, which stipulated that if circumstances demanded, the power of the Dalai Lama could be taken away according to the Constitution. Therefore, this provision had to be revised.

In 1963, an even more comprehensive draft constitution was announced. In an attempt to democratise the exile Tibetan Administration, the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies was entrusted with the authority to abolish the traditional bipolar system of appointing monk and lay officials to each position. The Assembly also annulled all the hereditary titles and prerogatives granted to small groups of people under the old system. In its place, new guidelines were introduced by which government officials would be appointed in a democratic fashion.

The 1963 draft constitution also authorised a Council of Regents to assume the powers of the Dalai Lama under specific circumstances if that was seen to be in the highest interest of the nation. In deference to the wishes of the people, as I stated earlier, and circumstances prevailing at that time, the constitution gave the ultimate authority of the government to the Dalai Lama. Naturally, I was not satisfied with this clause. I felt that this constitution fell far short of my aim for a genuine democracy.

Therefore, in my speech of the March 10 Anniversary in 1969, I declared that when the Tibetans regained their right to rule themselves, the people must decide for themselves as to what kind of system of government they wanted. I also stated that it was not certain whether the system of government with the Dalai Lama as the supreme head would continue or not.

About three decades have passed since the draft constitution of 1963 was promulgated. During those years, the world has changed dramatically and people throughout the world have begun to value democratic rights more than ever before. They have realised that democracy is the foundation for the free expression of human thoughts and potentials. Therefore, Tibet also must change when it becomes free.

With regard to the question of Tibet, although it is an international issue, the Chinese leadership has failed to respond positively to my overtures of 1987 and 1988. This is unfortunate, because I undertook these two initiatives as sincere and timely efforts to find a peaceful solution to the issue of Tibet.

The issue of Tibet is not merely a question of the survival of a people with their own distinct history and culture, it also has direct bearing on the fate of this world and Asian peace, and particularly upon the relationship between the world's two most populous nations: India and China. At stake is also the serious question of human rights, as enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the world body's efforts to put an end to the era of colonialism and expansionism. Even the Chinese people themselves are opposed to the present Chinese system of governance and are demanding changes.

#13 wrote:

"#6 wsn't ffnsv. Mght hv ht nrv, bt t wsn't ffnsv."

Wow. Glad to see Teresa's still after the blockheads and idiot commenters. Letting comments like that slip by without disemvoweling them would really turn BB discussion into an inhospitable hell hole.

@45 .. Michael Parenti never met a Communist dictatorship he didn't love. This is the man who accused Noam Chomsky of being a capitalist tool because Chomsky signed on to petitions criticizing human rights abuses in the USSR. Parenti is the Pat Buchanan of the extreme Left.

I just recently learned a very interesting fact about human rights in china that is not often reported in the US(by the news media, blogs, or human rights orgs).

China actually has affirmative action policies for its ethnic minorities. These include reserving a number of top posts to be filled by minorities and relaxing the one-child policy. Ethnic minorities are typically allowed two children in urban areas and three to four in rural areas.

This may not absolve them of responsibility for their behavior, but it indicates that they are aware of these issues and consider them important. I think the Chinese government and social issues in China are far more subtle and complex than the two-dimensional portrayal we often see in the US.

Takuan @45, the repression that the Dalai Lama refers to was freeing the serfs. The slaveowners raised a revolt when that happened. The revolt failed, the slaveowners and the Dalai Lama fled, and we are where we are today. Like the Batistans who fled Cuba, the Dalai Lama's faction does not want to restore the horror that existed before they left. They simply want to romanticize the past and regain as much wealth as they can from the land that their families once ruled brutally.

You will probably also disagree with the facts I found researching Five impossible points in the Dalai Lama’s Peace Plan.

Brian @46, you should read Parenti before you criticize him. He has very harsh words for the Chinese in his essay. You may wish to ignore his research by slandering his philosophy, but the facts that he found stay facts. You should point out errors of fact and errors of interpretation, of course. But those who say they don't like his philosophy so they don't need to read him are choosing to accept a very limited view of the world.

And lest anyone think I'm being a binarian on Tibet, there are a number of positions that someone could take, beginning with:

1. The conservative capitalist approach of the Central Intelligence Agency and the tools that it funds, the National Endowment for Democracy, Reporters Without Borders, Students for a Free Tibet, and other conservative organizations with noble names.

2. The PRC desire for one China ruled by one party.

3. Tibetans like those in the Kadampa Tradition who object to the Dalai Lama's attempt to subject all Tibetans to his faction's rule.

4. International critics of both the CIA and the PRC like Parenti.

Zosima @47, you're quite right. The Atlantic Monthly has an excellent article about the complexities of the issue: Tibet Through Chinese Eyes.

Will Shetterly @49 Thanks, that article was really interesting. I started working in a job about a year ago where at least half of my coworkers are Chinese. Its definitely changed a lot of my opinions about China.

For example, I learned that while they are not allowed to openly criticize the government in China, there is a huge industry of political jokes. People criticize by brutally satirizing the government and party officials. They don't hide this behavior at all, in fact, it is encouraged.

When I heard about this I asked why the government doesn't prevent people from doing this, my friend responded, "How could they?", as if it would be impossible to stop this. That seemed odd to me, because I figured it would be just as difficult as preventing politically critical speech. Certainly, in the US, it would be just about as difficult to stop politically critical speech as politically critical humor.

It made me realize how a lot of these issues are not so clear cut, that culture and history play a huge part in what a government can and cannot do, in determining what a culture considers to be acceptable modes of political speech.

Its really an eye-opening experience. To many of my coworkers, many of the common American opinions on China are ignorant, arrogant, even racist. In retrospect, I think that since both sides of the political spectrum are aligned in their dislike of China, people in America end up speaking very uncritically.

The more I think about it these days, though, the more I think we've just got two superpowers clashing, and propagandizing their respective populations in whatever way is culturally apropos to support their goals. It is hard to figure out where we can find truth with such sources of information.

Will; your mind is made up.

It's annoying that this stuff always comes up but since it has, here goes... Will & Others: for a counterpoint to Parenti's "flawed history of Tibet," check out Joshua Schrei's rigorous dissection here:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/20/18487287.php?printable=true

An excerpt:

In his descriptions of old Tibet, Parenti predominantly draws on the work of four historians - Anna Louise Strong, A. Tom Grunfeld, and Roma and Stuart Gelder. The fact that all of these historians had a romantic predilection towards Maoism and drew mostly on Chinese government statistics should surely be cause for concern as far as their legitimacy as source material. One certainly wouldn't trust the Indonesian government's party line on Aceh or East Timor. Or, for that matter, the U.S. government's continued assertion that the Iraqi people welcome the current American occupation. Such manipulations of public sentiment, in which an occupation is presented as 'the will of the people,' are – as a rule – only employed to further the agenda of the occupier.

For the most part, Parenti and the handful of historians who have adopted the view of old Tibet as a despotic feudal theocracy have had little if no contact with actual Tibetans either in or outside Tibet. Therefore, they have no real way of gauging the sentiments of the Tibetan people. Neither Parenti, Strong, Grunfeld, nor the Gelders speak Tibetan - or Chinese for that matter- so the body of historical literature on the Tibet issue that is available to them is extremely limited. Tom Grunfeld never went to Tibet until after his book was published. Anna Louise Strong – a diehard Marxist – was given a tightly monitored Chinese government tour of Lhasa and then went on to proclaim that "a million Tibetan serfs have stood up! They are burying the old serfdom and building a new tomorrow!" One might say that one doesn't need to go to Paris to know the Eiffel tower exists. However, before dismissing an entire culture's history as despotically repressive it is perhaps worth speaking to a few of its representatives.

Instead, Grunfeld repeatedly draws on the writings of a handful of British colonial explorers, who - as explorers often do - wrote down every piece of suspicious folklore and hearsay as fact. Grunfeld's source material for his depictions of Tibetans as cannibals, barbarians, and superstitious fanatics is no more credible than are the testimonials of early European explorers to Africa who spun yarns of three-headed natives. None of these depictions are corroborated by traditional Tibetan, Chinese, or Indian histories, which of course were not available to Grunfeld because of his lack of interest in learning the local language.

Grunfeld also makes extensive use of the writings of Sir Charles Bell, who he quotes regularly and with no apparent regard for context. Bell's stance was actually that Tibetans had been brutalized by the Chinese army and that Tibet was an independent nation of far greater 'character' than its neighbor. This seems to elude Grunfeld, who chops up Bell's sentences in order to isolate the worst and most sensational aspects of Tibetan society and present them as fact. Grunfeld also makes cultural blunders that would make freshmen history students squirm. As award-winning author Jamyang Norbu points out in his brilliant essay The Acme of Obscenity, Grunfeld even mistranslates the Tibetan word for 'Tibet'!

Parenti does little better in his treatment of history, erroneously stating that the first Dalai Lama was installed by 'the Chinese army'. One would presume that a Yale Ph.D. would know the difference between Chinese and Mongols. But apparently, in the Parenti-Grunfeld-Strong school of history, one word is as good as another and a Chinese is as good as a Mongol, as long as the point gets across.

With such evisceration of history as common practice it quickly becomes obvious that none these historians' writings on Tibet exist to illuminate true Tibetan history. In fact, neither Grunfeld, nor Strong, nor Parenti seem remotely interested in the specifics of the culture they're discussing.

And the conclusion:

There is one statement in Parenti's thesis that summarizes how completely disconnected he is from any kind of Tibetan reality. In his thesis, he states that old Tibet was a society that was 'damaging to the human spirit.' Any person who has spent any time with the Tibetan people would laugh at the irony. Being with Tibetans of all walks of life, inside and outside of Tibet, one is always struck by the incredible, contagious spirit of Tibetan culture. From the Khampa drinking songs to the picnics that are the preferred activity of all Tibetans, Tibetan society is known for its passion and exuberance. This spirit is something that grows directly from the culture that Parenti is so intent on debasing. This spirit is what the Chinese government has tried so desperately to crush – making the singing of freedom songs illegal and prohibiting traditional Tibetan festivals. The struggle against totalitarianism is precisely a struggle for spirit, and I'm willing to wager that a populist like Mr. Parenti would find far more joy drinking chang and singing songs with a party of exiled Tibetans than he ever would at a Chinese cadre meeting; sadly, he won't ever get to find out. He's chosen his bedfellows, and more power to him. In the end it is the Tibetan people who will be the arbiters of their own fate. By the time that fate is decided Parenti will be long gone, onto some other issue, and Tibetans will be no worse off because of it.

When are we giving back the United States to the Native Americans? We tortured them, committed genocide, stole their country and are now occupying it.

Takuan @51, my mind wasn't made up a year or so ago when I started researching this. I don't think it's entirely made up yet--I simply know where I stand based on what I've found so far. Much of the evidence against the claims of your group come from sources like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which is hardly a leftist source, but is still an excellent source for things that were known then.

Coldmtn @52, I could take the approach some people take to Parenti and dismiss a rightwinger like Joshua Schrei because of his ideology, but I don't. I dismiss Schrei because he offers little information. He merely says that the people who don't agree with the Dalai Lama's factions are opponents of that faction and therefore can't be trusted. But he doesn't actually offer evidence to counter anything that people like Parenti have found. When Schrei makes quibbles about whether you should say "Chinese" or "Mongol" when speaking of the Chinese empire under Mongol rulers, he's just being desperate.

I put together two lists of information about Tibet for people, based on their bias. For those who take the CIA/NED side, I recommend The Dalai Lama: a FAQ for conservatives. None of the sources there are further left than The Atlantic Monthly. When Time magazine and the Washington Monthly contradict your claims, you can't say that they're commie sympathizers.

Coldmtn @52 I'm not sure when would be a more appropriate time to discuss this than when we're looking at a faked pictures of alleged human rights abuses in China/Tibet.

Although personally, I'm not really concerned with who was right or wrong historically. The history of Tibet is long and checkered. Both the United States and China clearly have a strong interest in who controls Tibet and have spread a lot of (mis)information on the issue. I could imagine the interpretations could go either way, depending on personal bias.

I'm more interested in how things should change in the future and how we should be behaving now.

With respect to current behavior:
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I'm not sure Americans have the moral authority to protest China during the Olympics; Or at least, we have just as much right to protest China as to protest ourselves.

What is so great about Tibet that they deserve our support more than all the other nations that suffer imperial administration? Or what is so awful about China that they deserve more ire than anyone else?

With respect to the future of Tibet:
Would the people of Tibet be better off without China? Or should China just administer Tibet differently? Should the Dalai Lama be put back in power? Or should we have a democratic state? Who will take responsibility for creating this democratic state? Who will fund it?

Will, can you please explain why you're so sure this conflict is about freeing slaves, and so sure the Civil War wasn't?

Oh, look. We have an infestation of concern trolls.

We can't possibly ever object to any human rights abuses because we've committed them ourselves.

Tibet can't be restored to Tibetan rule because the Tibetans aren't completely perfect in every way.

Pay no attention to the international news. Read this obscure and biased position paper that I've linked in every Tibet thread in the history of BB comments.

These ads were created for Amnesty International France, but were judged too agressive after the earthquake in China. Thus they were not approved and the website adress was never corrected. They are available on the web because they competed for the "Lions de Cannes" and won the third price (Lion de bronze). You can find more details in French on the news paper Le Figaro website in an article entitled Human rights: The campaign you will never see

Will, can you please explain why you're so sure this conflict is about freeing slaves, and so sure the Civil War wasn't?

Antinous, is that it, or is it:

The Lamas pretty much screwed up Tibet when they had control of the country and had many of the same human rights violations that they are damning China for now? Why would anyone want to give them back the country?

perhaps you should finally actually read what is said by the Tibet Government in Exile and actually look at what the Chinese government is really doing to people. I do not understand why so many are attracted to the Tibet liberation issue when they obviously have no intent to study and understand the situation. It is as if they are here solely to be provocatively repetitive. In light of this apparent fact I am forced to dismiss them as either fools or worse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7461126.stm

Chinese communists - as they practice in China today - are evil.

That sounds like something George W. Bush would say.

And why do the Tibetan apologists constantly ignore the facts about the Lamas? And also completely distort the facts about the torture?

Should we dismiss them as fanboys or fools?

troll on, my boy - just not with me.

Moon,

I'm not proposing giving Tibet to the Lamas. At this point, I'm fairly sure that the Tibetans have an infrastructure capable of forming an interim civilian government until elections can be held. The only people who ever talk about giving Tibet to the Lamas are the PRC and their supporters.

Antinuous, selective criticism is dishonest. We want you to criticize everyone who tortures, and not just go with the CIA's favorite targets.

Teresa, in both cases, the primary reason was to end secession; freeing the slaves was secondary. So New England's merchant princes crushed the plantation lords, and China's communists overthrew Tibet's theocrats.

But if you prefer to think that freeing the slaves was the primary reason in both cases, that's fine by me. I despise the heads of slave states, whether they're Jefferson Davis or the Dalai Lama--and in both cases, I think they became better people after their side lost.

Moon @64: Why do you feel you have to dismiss them at all?

Chinese communists - as they practice in China today

The only communists left in China are the peasants and factory workers. The government may be totalitarian but it is definitely not communist. If Mao were alive, the entire Central Committee would be publicly executed.

But the Dalai Lama intends on riding back into town like the returning hero, right? I don't that is going to lend itself to much of a democracy. The US has this really bad habit of backing people who will say ANYTHING to get funding and get their country back and then turn out to be worse than the supposed "evil" empire they wanted to replace. Maybe it's time to keep talking with China and convince them that it's not in anybody's best interest to torture and leave the nation-building to the history books. China has done some good things in Tibet.

Takuan, I just repeated what said in reverse. So you must be damning yourself as a troll, as well.

@Antinous

I'm not sure that resorting to name calling and sarcasm is any more productive than reasoning, but I suppose people will adopt whatever rhetorical strategy they consider most effective.

Clearly everyone has a bias, though. But in an attempt to avoid said bias, I think we can agree that the situation is more complex than Tibet=Good and China=Bad or Tibet=Bad and China=Good.

In response to your sarcasm, I'd like to understand why you are so certain that you are correct and why people who are more hesitant to agree are "trolls"? I want to know, Why would it be better to have Tibetan rule? Why people are so concerned with human rights violations on the other side of the planet? Violations on which we clearly have information of mixed quality. Violations that we have virtually no power to stop.

I'm also concerned that there has clearly been at least some propagandizing on both sides. I'm suspicious that the purposes of the movement to restore the Dalai Lama are reportedly colinear with the purposes of the C.I.A.(an organization that could care less about human rights). The last thing I'd want is to replace one tyrant with another. We've had pretty bad luck with that.

I guess I'm also suspicious of talk about building democracies around the world. IMHO, that generally ends up being a codeword "switching teams". Don't think its naive to imagine that we could have a democratic nation of strategic interest, with no military, yet somehow protected from the nastiness of the geopolitical struggles going on in this world?

Will,

You are a chronic troll and timewaster. Anyone can click on your name and see your comment history.

Antinuous and Takuan, if you'd care to tell me where I went wrong in Five impossible points in the Dalai Lama’s Peace Plan, I would be happy to follow your links.

For the record, I think the whopper on your side is the attempt to seize Kham and Amdo for the Dalai Lama. As the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica noted, historically, those territories have been administered by China since its Mongol emperor gave the Dalai Lama his title and made him his administrator of a much smaller part of Tibet.

Correction:
"Don't think" = "Don't you think?"

Why do you feel you have to dismiss them at all?

I don't, Nelson. That a response to Takuan's similar post:

perhaps you should finally actually read what is said by the Tibet Government in Exile and actually look at what the Chinese government is really doing to people. I do not understand why so many are attracted to the Tibet liberation issue when they obviously have no intent to study and understand the situation. It is as if they are here solely to be provocatively repetitive. In light of this apparent fact I am forced to dismiss them as either fools or worse.

Zosima,

BB readers are all familiar with the rash of concern trolls who appear in Tibet threads. You're not fooling anyone. For the technical term...

Antinuous, even a chronic troll and timewaster can have the truth on his side. If I'm a troll, please ban me or disemvowell me, as you wish.

Antinuous, you speak of BB readers as a single group. Do you really want to drive away the readers who don't take the CIA line on Tibet?

Will Shetterly, I can't see how you've been a troll. I can see how post things that upset people to because they don't have a ready response, but that isn't trolling.

Antinous, you're letting Will get under your skin.

Will, I've got no quarrel with your arguments about Tibet, but your argument about the ad -- that it must have been commissioned by NED or some similar group because it addresses only China -- is nonsense. Art (and advertising is a form of art) doesn't work that way.

Visual advertising in particular (and its close relative, the editorial cartoon) is based around simple, compelling images. Jamming Israel, Saudi Arabia, Guantanamo Bay, and every other example of torture in the world into that ad would have diluted its impact.

Furthermore, I don't know if you realize this, but China is hosting the Summer Olympics this year. We're all hearing more about China this year, not because of a CIA plot, but because there's a big international spotlight focussed on the country. That's why the ad references the Olympics.

Avram, every propagandist knows the power of an image. In this case, many countries that torture will be at the Olympics, but is there anything suggesting the scope of this problem? If the series was simply about torture, each picture would depict a different torturer.

Zosima, laughing is definitely the proper response.

As an aside, anyone who'd demonize the Dalai Lama over the Chinese government obviously hasn't been paying any attention whatsoever as to what the Chinese government has been up to for the past whole bunch of years.

Its no good at all.

Will said - if this was about torture, there would be images of Americans torturing Iraqis and Israelis torturing Palestinians and Saudis torturing just about anyone who threatened to upset the status quo.

In front of a diving platform? C'mon guy, your agenda is showing, and it's blocking the view of your intelligence.

Talia, it really is possible for both sides to be wrong. Seriously, read Parenti's "Friendly Feudalism." It'll only take five or ten minutes of your time. Few of the Dalai Lama's critics are blind to China's abuses.

Mdhatter, do you really think the US doesn't engage in waterboarding? Or they didn't consult with the Israelis about effective torture techniques? Both of those are very easy to find on the internet. Amnesty International has impressive lists of the countries that torture. There's a reason they're not just Amnesty China.

In this case, many countrie