boycotting china

having watched this get more and more ridiculous over time, i have finally made up my mind that i am no longer willing to buy products from a country who can treat its people as i am seeing china treat its people.

the argument of whether or not tibetans are ‘it’s people’ is rather ancillary at this point and i choose not to engage it because it doing so distracts from the reason that i am joining this boycott and now proudly display its logo and link on my front page:

if, as china claims, tibet ‘belongs’ to them, then there is all the more reason that how they are treating them is a disgrace and truly pitiful thing.

one would think by now that the need to put the boot on someone’s neck over their freedom of practice and beliefs, particularly when those beliefs are a major part of one’s cultural and historical backbone, would be a little less attractive. this is such a very sad and shameful thing to witness.

mind you, i am well aware that similar things have been known to happen in my country. but for the most part, we do not have our government arresting us or exiling us or otherwise harassing us for such things. certainly not to the degree one is seeing within the boundaries of china.

i freely admit a portion of my concern exists because i happen to be buddhist. but the majority of it springs from a sincere belief that you just do not make things better by force. force is and has always been the last resort of those who lack a willingness (or at times, ability) to manage things in less violent ways.

it seems very obvious to me that china is frightened of losing control. it also seems to me that they might have learned by now, what with their rich and diverse history, that this manner of rigidity simply does not last and never truly succeeds.

were i able to speak directly to those making the calls and decisions in relation to this, what i would say to them is very simple and likely would be recognized, as it comes from one of their own most respected and rightfully lauded tacticians:

Now an army may be likened to water, for just as flowing water avoids the heights and hastens to the lowlands, so an army avoids strength and strikes weakness.

And as water shapes its flow in accordance with the ground, so an army manages its victory in accordance with the situation of the enemy.

And as water has no constant form, there are in war no constant conditions.

Thus, one able to gain the victory by modifying his tactics in accordance with the enemy situation may be said to be divine.

Of the five elements, none is always predominant; of the four seasons, none lasts forever; of the says, some are long and some short, and he moon waxes and wanes.

tibet is not the enemy of china. the beliefs and ways of tibet are not the enemy of china. but even if they were both of these things, one does not win to wage war on beliefs and ways and this is why the continuing efforts of china in relation to tibet are foolish and doomed to ultimate failure.

the only way china can truly win in relation to tibet is either to destroy them utterly and forever wear the shame of being willing to destroy that which cannot be controlled, or to embrace them utterly and make friends of enemies and a stronger china from the wisdom of the doing.

in the meantime, this “no one” here in this great consumer nation carefully aims and spits into the ocean and says, very quietly and very simple, ‘i will no longer give even one penny to support a country foolish enough to divide its own people or to be willing to kill them to keep from having to accept their right to think and believe and live as they will so long as it harms no other.’

i encourage any who find themselves to feel the same to join me in placing the graphic and link in my right column upon their home page.

i encourage any who find themselves to feel the same to join me in asking their friends and family to consider the matter and, should they find themselves in agreement, to do the same.

ultimately, this is a question not of nationalism, sovereignty, or political control. ultimately, this is a very simple question of where the lines should be drawn in relation to a human’s right to live in peace and without the weight of having to endure tyranny and violence for what they hold valuable and meaningful in their minds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *