Some interesting historical parallels between Australia vis Britain and China vis Tibet - which for the most part are a complete waste of time. Why do people make such bizarre comparisons? Reminds me of Dylan Thomas' answer to his Cambridge Don "Thomas, what do you think of Comparative Literature? to which Thomas answered, "Compared to what?"

This is a historical 'might is right' essay and is so flawed it's almost hard to know where to start. Why didn't China expand further? US army at height of power. Nuclear attack and obliteration.

You don't need to be a 'bleeding heart liberal' to recognise and fight against invasion and cultural obliteration. I'm a bleeding heart conservative and not only is the Tibetan cause just but it's about time we started sanctioning China. People's Liberation Army - my arse. They're a weapon of the state.

The land that became Australia, occupied by stone-age people for 50,000 years, could hardly be called a nation, and certainly cannot be compared with Tibet.

As for the rest of the article, the author said it: “…the rest of the world couldn’t give a toss."

I agree with Cheryl this story is a load of nonsence and I am Liberal Wet. Indigenous society as a human construct was not perfect, it had many flaws, but despite all of what has happened it still remains different to the european culture and has not been destroyed as the author claims.

As for never being warriors what crap, my people fought the British in the north for fifty years sucessfully and I am a direct decent of one of the chiefs who led that campaign and he was born into the warrior class.

Look I couldn't give a toss about Tibet, and as for those pesky protester's who came here to escape the communists, we accepted them and they repaid us by breaking our laws and destroying property. I think we should hand them over to the Chinese Government imediatly. Its none of our business and we should keep it that way.

Yes, there are some flaws in Graeme's comparison, but the facts surrounding Tibet's relationship with China cannot be dismissed simply as a "might makes right stance". There is much more that could have been added in order to do justice to the complexity of the relationship. The respective functions of the Dalai Lama and the Bainqen Lama, and their relationship with China, could fill a book.

China is a lop-sided multicultural phenomenon with 95% Han, and some 50 or so other national minorities making up the rest. In a further comparison with Australia, it could be said that some of these minorities live in vast, remote (from urban centres) territories. The difference is that we are an island continent, whilst some of the major ethnic regions of China are shared through common borders with China's neighbours.

We use the word "Chinese" when we commonly mean "Han". For the Chinese, the equivalent term to "Chinese" simply means "person of the Middle Kingdom" and could equally apply to a Bai, Mongol, Naxi or Tibetan minority inhabitant of China, as well as to the Han.

It follows from this that if the argument based on the existence of a separate culture and language that is used by Westerners to advance claims for Tibetan separatism held true, then it should equally apply to Bai, Naxi Uighurs and so on, and then we may as well give up any hope of growing into social maturity through multiculturalism and revert to the primitive purity of total ethnic separation.

There is a flaw in Graeme's reportage of the nature and rationale of monks.
Buddhism is not a religion with a heirarchical structure; rather it is a way of life, an attitude to one's existence. There is no "ruling" group, unlike many of the religions with dogma and a graded seniority structure.
In Buddhism, thought, action and behaviour is the sole responsibility of the individual, hence it is not unusual in Buddhist nations to find a desire amongst people to foster in any way possible the monks who are the teachers and guides of the "lay" folk.
To endorse Mao's perception that "Tibet was run by a lot of very rich monks, in very rich monasteries who lived off the sweat and labour of the peasants" is like saying that a football club is run by a small group of rich greedy people who live off the efforts of the underling membership to maximise the economic and social benefits of the game.

Buddhists support their monks because it is a natural thing to do; a way of helping their monks to be able to continue helping and teaching them spiritually.
Living in harmony does not mean surrendering your values, your nation and your culture merely to appease others.

Yindin post

I agree and I apologise if my meaning was not clear. I am fully aware and acknowlege that within Australia there was definately a warrior class and that there was resistance to the British invasion.

I meant that there was no invasion of other countries