Tibet, China, quote from Kundun

throughthepastdarkly · May 26, 2011

During a dream/vision sequence in the movie Kundun a Chinese general tells the Dalai Lama of China, pre-Mao, followed by China's rationale for the then-underway invasion of Tibet:

"Trade began.... but there was nothing that we, the Chinese, wanted from the West. So they gave us something to want. Opium. We craved opium. They tried to use it to destroy us, the imperialists. We are here to rescue you from the imperialists, or they'll do the same thing to you."

Most of this is accepted as general truth in light of the Opium Wars. However, most of us will dismiss this final line, rescuing Tibet from the imperialists, as stark propaganda. I'd like to know if anyone can make the argument that China justifiably feared a heavily Western-influenced Tibet at its doorstop in which case it was necessary to beat the 'imperialists' to the punch... or whether it was nothing more than a resource grab as Tibet held little interest for Western commerce.

A second issue, could this use of 'imperialists' not only meant Europeans, but the Japanese also, given that he's narrating this in the 1950's?

Wenge · May 26, 2011

There is no justification for the Chinese brutal invasion of Tibet. The British had already pulled out of India and had no influence in the area at the time of the invasion.

mingming · May 26, 2011

Wenge said:
There is no justification for the Chinese brutal invasion of Tibet. The British had already pulled out of India and had no influence in the area at the time of the invasion.

There is also no justification for America's brutal expansion onto Indian lands.

Wenge · May 26, 2011

mingming said:
There is also no justification for America's brutal expansion onto Indian lands.

That is a worn out and irrelevant argument. The United States and its people have acknowledged what you have said many times and have done much to rectify the situation. I have never known the China of the past sixty years to admit to even one of their mistakes.

mingming · May 26, 2011

Wenge said:
That is a worn out and irrelevant argument. The United States and its people have acknowledged what you have said many times and have done much to rectify the situation. I have never known the China of the past sixty years to admit to even one of their mistakes.

You're practicing double standard. Its ok for America to invade lands in the name of "Manifest Destiny" but its not ok for China to reclaim a piece of land that had been part of China under the Qing Dynasty? Before you bother telling me that the Qing is not part of China, I will redirect you to here and here.

I remember talking about this before. Tibetans are much more economically well off than Indians. If America really wants to rectify the situation, then we wouldn't have reservation poverty.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_poverty]Reservation poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

And lets not forget the wonderful democracy that spawned in Afghanistan and Iraq following America's "brutal" invasion.

Wenge · May 26, 2011

mingming said:
You're practicing double standard. Its ok for America to invade lands in the name of "Manifest Destiny" but its not ok for China to reclaim a piece of land that had been part of China under the Qing Dynasty? Before you bother telling me that the Qing is not part of China, I will redirect you to here and here.

I remember talking about this before. Tibetans are much more economically well off than Indians. If America really wants to rectify the situation, then we wouldn't have reservation poverty.

Reservation poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And lets not forget the wonderful democracy that spawned in Afghanistan and Iraq following America's "brutal" invasion.

Just don't forget that you belong to that democracy.

mingming · May 26, 2011

Wenge said:
Just don't forget that you belong to that democracy.

That makes no sense. I don't live in Afghanistan or Iraq. What exactly is your point?

Wenge · May 26, 2011

mingming said:
That makes no sense. I don't live in Afghanistan or Iraq. What exactly is your point?

My point is that you and I are as guilty as the soldiers you accuse for any wrong doing they may have committed. We belong to that democracy. You by choice. Me by the grace of God.

mingming · May 26, 2011

Wenge said:
My point is that you and I are as guilty as the soldiers you accuse for any wrong doing they may have committed. We belong to that democracy. You by choice. Me by the grace of God.

There is no guilt in studying and debating history and I certainly am not accusing any soldiers. And I highly doubt you belong to the "democracy" of Afghanistan and Iraq, because their democracy is NOTHING like ours.

Wenge · May 26, 2011

mingming said:
There is no guilt in studying and debating history and I certainly am not accusing any soldiers. And I highly doubt you belong to the "democracy" of Afghanistan and Iraq, because their democracy is NOTHING like ours.

Afghanistan and Iraq have nothing to do with my statement. My statement was predicated on your statement that the U.S. led a brutal invasion of the two countries.

Wenge · May 26, 2011

mingming said: And lets not forget the wonderful democracy that spawned in Afghanistan and Iraq following America's "brutal" invasion.

Okay I totally screwed that one. My eyes rolled across that statement and I missed the context completely.

mingming · May 26, 2011

Deleted.........

Wenge · May 26, 2011

mingming said:
Deleted.........

Well I'm trying to quote you here but it says your post has been deleted. In your opinion, Why did they U.S. invade Iraq?

mingming · May 26, 2011

Wenge said:
Well I'm trying to quote you here but it says your post has been deleted. In your opinion, Why did they U.S. invade Iraq?

I deleted it because I didn't want this discussion to go off topic and I will keep my response short. We can only speculate on why Bush invaded Iraq. My guess is that it because of oil and special interest groups, namely weapons manufacturers who stands to benefit from the war.

HackneyedScribe · May 26, 2011

I'd like to know if anyone can make the argument that China justifiably feared a heavily Western-influenced Tibet at its doorstop in which case it was necessary to beat the 'imperialists' to the punch... or whether it was nothing more than a resource grab as Tibet held little interest for Western commerce.

Present Tibet is very "western-influenced" anyway, so the communists probably didn't take Tibet for that. Nor does Tibet have many resources. The economy centers on tourism. Recently the government found mineral deposits in Tibet, but I doubt Mao knew that. Tibet is symbolic, if anything. Tibet was one of the first places that broke away from Qing rule, the process starting when the British entered in 1904.

Btw, Kundun is just the western version of "Red River Valley". If the movie is designed to make you take a certain side, then I wouldn't put much stock in it academically.

throughthepastdarkly · May 28, 2011

HackneyedScribe said:
Present Tibet is very "western-influenced" anyway, so the communists probably didn't take Tibet for that. Nor does Tibet have many resources. The economy centers on tourism. Recently the government found mineral deposits in Tibet, but I doubt Mao knew that. Tibet is symbolic, if anything. Tibet was one of the first places that broke away from Qing rule, the process starting when the British entered in 1904.

Btw, Kundun is just the western version of "Red River Valley". If the movie is designed to make you take a certain side, then I wouldn't put much stock in it academically.

Western-influenced as a result of globalization in general of recent decades?

Sorry, didn't catch the Red River Valley reference. IMDB only gives me a 1936 Gene Autrey flick. Is that what you meant?

HackneyedScribe · May 28, 2011

Western-influenced as a result of globalization in general of recent decades?

Yes.

Sorry, didn't catch the Red River Valley reference. IMDB only gives me a 1936 Gene Autrey flick. Is that what you meant?

Red River Valley is a Chinese propaganda film about the British invasion of Tibet. In terms of bias it's around the same grade as Kundun or Seven Years in Tibet. However, the British tactics employed at the Battle of Guru was portrayed fairly accurately (from the Tibetan perspective, of course).

Wadjet Horus · Jun 13, 2011

throughthepastdarkly said:
During a dream/vision sequence in the movie Kundun a Chinese general tells the Dalai Lama of China, pre-Mao, followed by China's rationale for the then-underway invasion of Tibet:

"Trade began.... but there was nothing that we, the Chinese, wanted from the West. So they gave us something to want. Opium. We craved opium. They tried to use it to destroy us, the imperialists. We are here to rescue you from the imperialists, or they'll do the same thing to you."

Most of this is accepted as general truth in light of the Opium Wars. However, most of us will dismiss this final line, rescuing Tibet from the imperialists, as stark propaganda. I'd like to know if anyone can make the argument that China justifiably feared a heavily Western-influenced Tibet at its doorstop in which case it was necessary to beat the 'imperialists' to the punch... or whether it was nothing more than a resource grab as Tibet held little interest for Western commerce.

A second issue, could this use of 'imperialists' not only meant Europeans, but the Japanese also, given that he's narrating this in the 1950's?

The west would corrupt Tibet to no recognition. China and Tibet is inseparable by culture and religion. The west has nothing to do with Tibet except sending ... tourists to spread drug and AIDS there. The western colonial hypocrites are greater danger to Tibetans than chinese people.

Do India treat their insurgents better? Nagalim mongoloid tribes in northern India have been massacred many times because they fought for independence. Where is your voice for peace and love then?

Wadjet Horus · Jun 13, 2011

Wenge said:
There is no justification for the Chinese brutal invasion of Tibet. The British had already pulled out of India and had no influence in the area at the time of the invasion.

Tibet is not like India, it is not an indo-european culture. India is too underdeveloped to be of any interest for colonists, but Tibet has rich religious heritage and resources and strategic potential. It is why the hypocrites want more of Tibet than India.

HackneyedScribe · Jun 13, 2011

The west would corrupt Tibet to no recognition. China and Tibet is inseparable by culture and religion. The west has nothing to do with Tibet except sending ... tourists to spread drug and AIDS there. The western colonial hypocrites are greater danger to Tibetans than chinese people.

I think you should calm down with this anti-west thing. The Tibetan economy is making a killing on tourism, so hating "outsiders" wouldn't be doing Tibet any favors.

Search

Search

Tibet, China, quote from Kundun

throughthepastdarkly

Wenge

mingming

Wenge

mingming

Wenge

mingming

Wenge

mingming

Wenge

Wenge

mingming

Wenge

mingming

HackneyedScribe

throughthepastdarkly

HackneyedScribe

Wadjet Horus

Wadjet Horus

HackneyedScribe

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions