My post is discussing the Tibetan culture and the differing views on what constitutes significant importance for the international community to intervene.
The Tibetan people attach a great deal of spiritual significance to the lakes in the country. Yamdrok Tso is a lake in Tibet which the Tibetan people believe holds the life force of the Tibetan nation. This lake has already been significantly damaged by a hydroelectric station that has been built and will eventually dry up this lake completely.
At another location, a lake called Megoe Tso, the Tibetan people have put together a petition in order to try and protect their resource however the concerns were overruled after an investigative team reported that the planned dam would boost local incomes and failed to detail social and environmental impacts of the project.
These projects demonstrate a top down totalitarian approach by the Chinese , which appears to disregard the welfare of Tibetan people, their environment and their cultural and religious convictions.
The international community did not intervene when it was deemed that Tibet was part of China and a great deal of the Tibetan people were killed. The international continues to keep out of Chinese affiars when it comes to dealing with these culturally sensitive issues. At what level do you think that the international community should involve itself if the protection of culture?
An example where culturally significant protection is put in place is in Iraq where there are a great deal of archealogical artifacts that are deemed of significant importance to the international community and there has even been agreements by US airforces to avoid bombing specific areas to protect these sites of cultural importance. The international community is taking clear action here to protect items of cultural importance as they are deemed important to the wider international community.
A train line has been built in to Tibet and a great deal of immigrants from other parts of China are now living within the country. If everything that a culture define them selves in regards to is destroyed what is left of that culture. Surely a culture as significant as the Tibetan is of international significance?
Noone can stand in the way of progress or believe that just because a society modernises a culture is lost but if a culture is so diluted completed against the wishes of that culture surely this should be signifcant to the international community?
Sustainability and the commons 
October 25, 2011 at 12:11 pm |
Culture is the state of being cultivated; refinement, a type of civilisation; also the attitudes and values which inform a society. The culture resources of the Tibetan community, should not be damaged, because a hydroelectric station wants to be build. There must be mutual agreement between the community/leaders values and the organisation developers in the building of any project in a community for example the building of a dam system in the Tibet community. http://www.dharma-haven/tibetan/preservi
As a development adviser, l will not only want to develop a place but also want to intergrate the positive traditional culture values of the community. We must not forget that culture must not be neglected, because it is how we do things we do. In addition, the international community should not neglect any cry displayed from any community in this world, for the survival of that society values/environment. http://www.sustainability/seedlogos.html
According to UN definition of culture, is the systems of symbols and meaning, that even their creators contest, that lack fixed boundaries, that are constantly in flux, and that interact and compete with one another. We should also but in mind that nothing good comes into reality, without an agreement within two or more agencies.