I am assuming you are of a "western" or Judeo-Christian background. Therefore, your comments are right. However, you are mirroring your own belief system on individuals that have a different view of life. To the Buddhists and many Eastern cultures, suicide is not selfish, rather it is selfless. Giving one's life for a greater purpose is the ultimate manifestation of love. Suicide bombings run along the same line of thinking but to our western minds this act is extremely unthinkable and is obviously not something that occurs often in the U.S. society.

Pointless, maybe. But giving your life for another--or in this case one's belief and the beliefs of others--is a central tenet among western religions.

First of all, nobody is encouraging people to kill themselves in Tibet. Just like the Foxcon suicides in Guangzhou, it is a combination of terrible circumstance and a lack of ability to change those circumstances which drive people to self-destruction. These deaths are not a conspiracy, they are a symptom of hopeless oppression.

Secondly these deaths are not religious acts. Tibetans to not kill themselves for religious purposes, such acts go beyond any religious preoccupation. These deaths reflect day-to-day social conditions in which a Tibetan identity is slowly and irrevocably being subsumed into the mainland Chinese culture.

Thirdly, nobody is arguing about "pure Hans". This is an irrelevant point. When we talk about Han culture we are not speaking about bloodlines, we are speak about the dominant social force in China.

Fourth when we talk about "sinocism" we are actually talking about a form of colonialism. Western nations, namely Britan, Spain, France, Portugal and America have atrocious histories of social oppression and cultural destruction which they inflicted on colonial prospects, China included (during the Opium wars). This does not means that it is okay for China to continue to do the same thing to Tibet, Xinjiang and Mongolia.

Lastly, on your point about education, Tibet did not want to be part of China in the first place, so your argument that sinocism is the only way to "gain equal footing" is ridiculous. Equality is as much about respecting the autonomy and freedom of others as it is about having the same oppertunities.

The problem is that you can't win people over by bullying them into submission. Tibetans are killing themselves because they feel it's the only way the can exit the mess in Tibet without sacrificing their dignity and self-worth. I certainly do not advocate suicide. But Tibetans have no physical freedom, no political voice (the Tibetan government is CCP) and their culture is being slowly razed by a much more powerful social body: mainland China, against their will.

Let's paint the situation properly before we start yelling at Tibet to "buck up take it on the chin".

Having spent over five years living and working in China, it continues to amaze me how the media in both the US and China, and nearly all publications both small and large, distort the facts. I don't know the plight of the Tibetans or the Han Chinese, because I haven't been there or talked to the people involved. But I have been living and working in the Eastern region of China for years and have yet to find accurate reporting beyond exaggerations and propaganda.

Because two wrongs don't make a right.

Which makes me wonder why China so badly needs this theoretical "national unity". For the vast majority of its long history, the Chinese did not subscribe to Western ideas like nationalism and national boundaries. As long as you sent snacks to the emperor once a year, they didn't force you to speak Mandarin or salute the flag (I don't even think they had flags).

If all Tibetans and Uighurs do is cause trouble, why is it worthwhile to hold on to these regions with force? It's certainly with force because if Tibet or Xinjiang had a referendum tomorrow, China would be short two provinces.

Further, if all Beijing wants is the land and resources (this is probably true) and would prefer the minorities vanish, then why are they so adamant about Tibetans not leaving for Nepal or India? When Uighurs make it out of the country for whatever reason, why is Beijing so crazy about having them repatriated?

It's almost like stealing the land isn't enough, they've got to make the people suffer as well. Someone needs to write up a propaganda poster that says: "Act like a Han or die, but you sure as hell can't leave."

China has had invasions repeatedly from its border areas, particularly from the north and the west. In the most significant cases, the Turkish, Mongol and Manchu invasions, the Chinese were strong enough as a culture to integrate them through intermarriage. These were not religiously committed invaders. They simply wanted the wealth that the Chinese had. The invaders, being fewer, were happy to adopt Chinese customs in exchange for access to the wealth of China. Such integration has not been the case in the Muslim province nor the Tibetan, neither of which were influenced by Confucianism nor by other aspects of Chinese culture. The Chinese government holds onto these areas, I imagine, for the same reason that other countries hold onto troublesome provinces as long as they can: they buffer the "heartland", and they may contain mineral wealth. Also, they do not want to grant success to popular uprisings and thereby to encourage more.

Truth, I don't disagree with your words..."its laughable to ask the Tibetans to shut up and live with it."

However, the events you reference to support your claim that self-immolation in Tibet will possibly serve to change the state of affairs there are, imho, off point and unfounded. First, in re Vietnam, the US was deeply involved in that conflict and its population was daily asked whether or not the effort was worthwhile, whether or not it resonated or was congruent with who and what Americans were supposed to be. In the end, Americans chose that univolment was preferred to involvement.

Neither the US nor any other western country is genuinely involved in Tibet, and we're not going to be b/c its not in our national interest to twist the tigers tail. All talk along the lines of what the US should do is just that, rhetoric shared between media and or dissident opportunists trying to gain publicity for their causes. Unfortantely, since, in the US for example, we are not involved, while Americans will pander verbally to progressive audiences nothing genuine will happen. So, all you will see is the odd "free Tibet" bumper sticker in the Episcopal Church parking lot, on the car driven by the girl with the birkenstocks who spent a summer or two abroad.

In re the Arab spring, in Tunisia there was a government that was deeply divided with an organized resistance and a willing mob. China's sway over Tibet is dominant. The precursors to revolutionary success are not in place and will not be in place until 1/4 of the Chinese population, itself, is willing to take to the streets against the government. That ain't happening anytime soon.

The theme of the article that created this dialogue is "how many..." My answer is, every Tibetan could do this on one day and the Chinese would not care. In fact, they would invite it. Furthermore, no one with any ability to project their power beyond their own national borders will/would go to war with China on behalf of Tibet.

In the end, don't burn yourself, find another way so that you can live and continue to resist, to effect change, because it will take decades for the Chinese to change their perspective.

Or, possibly in your case, continue to encourage others to burn themselves to death while you don't.

Talking ridiculously about other comments, makes you the most ridiculous, if you have a point there is a proper way to discuss it. This is a public forum and your comments and ideas are no better than the comments before or after you.

Marty,
What is non-violent about killing oneself? I don't think neither Buddhism nor Gandhi would consider the act as such.

Show me the recording where the Dalai Lama says anything about supporting self-immolations. Then go get your paycheck from Zhongnanhai, you've served your country well.

To andao: As reported in the media, Dalai Lama did praise the courage of those who immolated themselves. That implies that any future immolation will also be praised by him. That implies he encourages those who devote their belief on him to immolate themselves.

1) Talking about something means you support it? What kind of logic is this? The DL not once said anything about supporting self-immolations. There is no evidence to back this claim.

2) The Chinese government is fervently atheist. Why are they suddenly experts on Tibetan Buddhism, when it is their stated goal to neutralize all religion?

3) It IS Han nationalism. The Mongol Khans honored Tibetan Buddhism and Han/Manchu emperors treated the lamas as equals or superiors. Now the Han government treats them like criminals subject to constant search and seizure, and forces them to hang silly photos of Chinese leaders in their monasteries. It's a complete role reversal.

4) It is exactly the same as Western colonialism. If it's not, give the Tibetans a vote to see whether or not they want to stay within China. Of course they won't do this, because Tibet would easily vote for independence.

5) Average Tibetans do not want to be part of China. If this was the case, China could hold a referendum tomorrow, pro-China vote would win, and the West would be embarrassed for a million years. Instead, there is violence, cutting of phone lines and internet, and restriction of foreigners entering Tibet. Yeah, that doesn't look suspicious.

Tibetans have no political or economic voice. How many Tibetans sit on the Politburo? How many Tibetans own even remotely successful companies? Hell, even the party boss for Tibet is always a Han because they are afraid of Tibetan leaders wanting more rights.

It's supposed to be an "Autonomous Region," but nothing is autonomous about it. That, coupled with the overwhelming belief by Han Chinese that they are innocent of any wrongdoing means the violence will sadly continue. Just keep blaming it on the mythological Dalai Clique and the problems will magically fix themselves.

So you take what I wrote and then replace the "is" with "is not" and "does" with does not". What kind of facile attempt to disagree is that? At least put my own words in quotation marks so to clarify who is thinking what. This is not an argument you are making but a jumble of words.

I understand that you probably work for the CCP in some capacity, given your non-rational, narrow-minded view on the situation in Tibet, but advocation for Chinese policy need not be reduced to mere wordplay. If you are not willing to engage the points of contention being raised here and just want to function as a propagandist, at least excplicitly state as much.

Transparency is the only way to ever resolve culturally sensitive issues. Your own lack of transparency mirrors that of the government policies you are blindly advocating.

I lived in China for a time and I am fully aware of the effects that information control has on ordinary people. I youtubed "tibet" and the only hits that came up were videos about how the West wants to take Tibet away from China, and how the Dalai Lama demands flesh sacrifices from his followers (I kid you not).

It is not surprising then that the general Chinese consensus on the issue of Tibetan independence and occupation is warped, as your own views are. But China has a great capacity for good. I look forward to the day when ordinary Chinese citizens are able to freely engage in open, multi-perspectival discussion.

1) As reported in the media, Dalai praises the courage of those immolated. That means he encourages them to do so and he will praise those who will immolate themselves in the future. That means he supports immoltion. I hope you understand.
2) The Chinese government is fervently atheist but they allow religious practices within the confine of the law. I hope uou understand.
3) It IS Han patriotism. HAN includes all Chinese living within the Chinese border, all minorities, Tibetans,Mongals Uighers, etc. Your divisive use of the word Han to create chaos in China will be treated according to the law. The China treated Dalai Lama well by not directly entering Tibet without his agreement and honored him well when he went to Beijing. Any Tibetans who want to be criminals will be treated as criminals.
4) It is absurd to say that any citiizens in any nation is allowed to vote for themselves to be independent from that nation. You cannot vote to be independnet within the country you live in. I hope you understand.
5) MostTibetans do want to be part of China. No individual or small grouip of people has the right to decide at the expense of the whole. Your referendum is not allowed in America, Ireland, Scotland, France. India, etc. I hope you understand..

Tibetans have political and economic voice within the Chinese framework. Not everyone is qualified to sit in the Politburo. There are over fifty Chinese minorities. It is not possible that each of them can sit in the Politburo. I hope you understaqnd! Tibetans do own successful companies. China is a developing nation, so Tibetans are a developing minority. The party boss for Tibet is always a Chinese because Tibetans are not communist or experienced enough. You can also ask the same questions for the Native American Indians in America. China treats the Tibetans a lot better than America treats the Native Americans. I hope you understand !

Dalai Lama claims no independence for Tibet but nothing is "No independence" about it.

I replace the "is" with "is not" and "does" with does not" just to disagree with your untrue and conclusive statement. Accusing me of this and that instead of debating indicate that you are suppressing my freedom of speech and you are running out of rationale and becoming irrational!
Ordinary Chinese citizens are able to freely engage in open, multi-perspectival discussion as long as it is within the law just like in any "FREE" country.