Her quote is a bit odd. Like no musician ever did or said anything political! We'll have to ask Bono or the REM boys about that.

It's also sort of like the reaction in India to the captain of their national football team refusing to take part in the torch relay because he is a Buddhist with Tibetan friends and he thinks it is a good protest to not take part in the festivities. The other athletes who are not dropping out criticize him and make the argument that the Olympics should be about sports not politics. Just like the Chinese are using the Olympics just to showcase sports, and not as a political event I suppose.

The current Tibetan crisis, the Olympics question, and now this video.

She's a WITCH!

But a good one.

Now there is ANOTHER ONE!

I predict lots of sales. The sun will also rise tomorrow morning.

Bjork will be invited back.

With our on-going oppressive, murderous subjegation of Iraq, we are lucky even to be invited to the Olympics. Other nations might properly boycott the Olympics because we are there. We may be more objectionable than the Chinese government. Do not criticize this singer for dodging political questions.

Mongolia has a history of more-or-less following Tibetan Buddhism that predates the modern Chinese state. So the cultural connection is real, though in her particular case may not be driving anything.

It was in fact Tibetan spiritual advisement to aggressive Mongol groups that the Chinese used to justify their early incursions into Tibet... or, something like that anyway. Melvyn Goldstein's has a lot of interesting details along those lines.

But yeah, it could have something to do with Orientalism too, I guess...

Sorry, Goldstein's book is The Snow Lion and the Dragon. Don't know what happened there.

and not about whether a Chinese woman can sing in Tibetan.

Do the Chinese have an historical claim on Tibet? Certainly no more of one than the Brits have on Ireland. Yes, there were periods when Tibet was administered from Peking. Unlike Britain and Ireland, though, there were also times when the Mongols (closely related to the Tibetans) were running China. The claim is questionable at best.

The real problem seems to be the fact that traditionally Tibet is a Theocracy, run by the head priest of the Buddhists of the country, and that runs contrary to the Marxist teachings of Mao. So, the Chinese develop a yearning for "democracy" for Tibet, meaning a system of elections administered by the Communist party of China. The entire world knows exactly how free the Chinese elections have been.

So, what it boils down to, is do the Tibetans have the right to choose to be governed by the High Priest? Is there religous coercion involved? Would the world see it in the same way if the Chinese were attempting to bring down the head Imam of Iran? Just because we in the West have a fairly positive view of the Dalai Lama, he's seen as the "rightful ruler", but is that justified?

So we come to the real point, self-determination. Are we for it or against it? What happens when a Khomeini is truly the people's choice for the leadership of their country? Do they have the right to choose what we see as a repressive government?

The music is just more Chinese propaganda. Meaningless, intended to justify in their own eyes the course they've determined on. "Hey, look how broadminded we are! Look at us, we're fighting a repressive theocratic government in the name of power moving to the "people"!" But what remains is a land grab by Peking, and the suppression of a beloved government.

Logically we of the West have to come to some sort of consistent attitude towards this type of political maneuver, we can't continue to argue that Tibetan theocracy is wonderful and deserving of continuation while the Iranian theocracy, engaged in very similar activities, is repressive and to be condemned. That course just fuels the self-justification of Peking, and the rage of Iran. We can't have it both ways.

The Dalai Lama's role in this uprising seems to be minor, and in fact is irrelevant. It's been 50 years since he fled Tibet. The West has to look beyond the cult of personality built around him, and come to terms with what self-determination really means, and how important it is, and what we should do and should not do in the name of allowing nations to determine their own fate.

I just wonder how many of these Tibet freedom lovers know how little of it existed - and would exist - in the Lamaocracy. When the Tibetan monks and friends claimed independence in 1911, not one country in the world recognized it. Only after the Chinese Communist revolution did Tibet become a cause celebre of the West, and the resistance became well financed, trained and encouraged by the CIA.

There is a FASCINATING behind-the-scenes series of events taking place here. On one hand, there is the MONOLITHIC DESPOTIC government of Communist China sitting like a TITANIC COLOSSUS ready to crush ANY and ALL DISSENT or CRITICISM of ITS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS! On the other hand, we have the ETHEREAL FAIRY-LIKE and TANTRIC VOLUPTUOUS Sa Ding Ding who outwardly PROFESSES her allegiance to China as one of its loyal citizens, BUT WHO CAN TELL WHAT WILL HAPPEN? Remember, it is wise to SPRING SURPRISES UPON the EVIL EMPIRE when such things are LEAST EXPECTED, and Communist China MAY FIND THEIR FORTUNE COOKIE HAS CRUMBLED and THEIR DIRTY LAUNDRY LAUNDERED BEFORE THE WATCHFUL EYES OF THE WORLD STAGE!!!!!

and others who got all worked up by the "spiritualness", "peacefulness" of Tibet. Aren't these more fitting samples of Orientalism?

Oh, only about 90 percent of the population would have to be serfs and slaves to support those people that tibet fans views as spiritual, enlightened and possessing a rare and fine culture.

"I'll take one of those yellow hats in size 10"

You gotta problem with that?

Get back to work, wageslave!

/aum ah hum vajra guru padme sidhi hum