Talk:Serfdom in Tibet controversy

Incorrect characterization of Marx's "opiate of the masses"
In the Competing versions of Tibetan history section, the text says, "Marx condemned religion as 'the opiate of the masses'".

This is a common but incorrect interpretation of Marx's view, and this is clear if you read the quote in context over at the Opium of the people article. At the time this quote was made, the negative value judgments we have today were not attached to opium. Marx's point was not that religion was evil in and of itself, but rather that it was an attempt to adorn the chains of oppression. His point in wanting to abolish religion was not to simply force people to view their chains in the harsh light of day, but rather to encourage them to do something about their oppression instead of contenting themselves with the significantly reduced state of merely being distracted from it.

From the article Marxism_and_religion:
 * According to Howard Zinn, Marx "saw religion, not just negatively as 'the opium of the people,' but positively as the 'sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions.'

This article should not repeat and reinforce this common misinterpretation.

Bias and Propaganda
I am now watching this page in order to determine whether it is displaying Chinese propaganda. There seems to be some sort of edit war being fought over this article. The majority of the article seems to be pure Chinese propaganda. However, there is a comment in the introduction of the article which indicates that the legitimacy of the claims made in this article is under dispute. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This comment has schizophrenic vibes to it. Are you on any kind of medication? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.73.98 (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No independent research?
"It is difficult to find academic consensus on the nature of society in Tibetan history. Sources on the history of Tibet are available from both pro-Chinese and pro-Tibetan writers."

The article currently implies that all the Tibet literature should be framed as "pro-Chinese" or "pro-Tibetan", essentially denying the existence of independent reliable sources. I think this wording should be removed (it is unreferenced anyway). There are many independent sources, some of them cited in the article, and there is no support for framing them as "pro-Chinese" or "pro-Tibetan". --MarioGom (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

John Powers is not a neutral source
so much of this article is based on the book by John Powers without any indication being made that he's a Tibetan Buddhist who supports Tibetan independence, making him an incredibly biased source. He definitely shouldn't be portrayed as some neutral overseer in the debate just because he wrote a book about the "controversy".

2607:FEA8:AA03:9600:9400:5363:718E:24B1 (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I've just checked. John Powers is a scholar on "Buddhism Studies", not history. Using him as a sole source for controversial facts on history does seem dubious.Stix1776 (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Debate and meta-debate
There is both a debate and a meta-debate about serfdom in Tibet. The first debate is about whether the Tibetan society prior to 1950s can be described as featuring serf-like characteristics. The meta-debate is about whether this is relevant for other questions - notably whether China’s takeover of Tibet in the 1950s can be justified with promoting social progress. At least two-thirds of the article is about the second question – different from what the title suggests. I propose switching the order and labeling the meta-debate clearly as such. I am not knowledgeable enough about the topic to carry out this change myself, however. Henry Kaspar (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)