that's twice the dalai has been mentioned
in a pretty favorable light
for allowing the chinese to invade/occupy tibet
without any real fight,
as if it was just his to give away.
i wonder if all tibetans agree.
i agree with you hippie, the D.L. probably didnt have any legal sovereignity over tibet, since the fact of tibet being a free nation is arguable. but why i say he lost a country is because he knew a lot worse things would happen if he chose to rebel against china than to just leave and wait it out (after all he comes back when he dies anyway). well, the tibet did rebel and it failed and so what i was alluding to about him losing his 'control' over tibet was that at what price are such notions such as nations and temples worth anyway? is it worth thousands of lives and the destruction of so much heritage in order to gain a better life?
ok history lesson/correction. so it was the british who pretty much ruled india and china for a while. then revolution happened and india and china became independent of great britain. china became the republic of china which sought to incorporate the lands (tibet, taiwan, etc) that they felt was theirs before britain came along? but confusion to whether tibet was ever a real independent nation is still debatable. and for a while the dalai lama ruled in peace if not only under de facto style independence. so when china invaded (or walked in and said we own you) it (chinese rule) in some ways did make tibet better, but being a communist nation, its not hard to see what they would do with a nation stuck in a 1650 style society; modernize, mine, populate, educate, cultivate ... then the americans had to come along and fund one of their "play" wars against the communists. the tibet rebels could've almost had it and they ruled a semi-independent territory in chinese ruled tibet but once funding from the US stopped Lhasa was taken, the D.L. exiled, and this time the chinese would have tibet for good, in any way they wanted it... and so goes the destruction of tibetan culture...