Whenever the subject of Tibetan independence from China comes up, my father almost invariably says that if Americans think that China should free Tibet, then the U.S. should free Hawaii.  The first time I ever heard him say it, I laughed.  "But Dad," I said, "Hawaiians don't want to be independent from the U.S."  I very soon found out that statement was not necessarily true.

Yesterday evening marked the first night of Passover or Pesach.  It's kind of a blessing when my UU church's annual observance of Pesach actually takes place at the right time.  (All Souls does a wonderful Seder dinner but it plays a little loose with the rules... which is very UU.)

First there was the post on Making Chutney, talking about the feudal and oppressive governance in pre-communist occupied Tibet.  I was very happy to see a UU presenting the other perspective and recognizing an "anti-Chinese" sentiment in the Western response.

Today was Emancipation Day, a DC holiday.  It is the anniversary of the day Lincoln freed the slaves within the District, nine months before he freed all slaves within the U.S. via the famous Emancipation Proclamation.  It's interesting that we celebrate an event that is widely seen as motivated by political expediency.  Emancipation of the slaves within DC was not based on the moral conviction that slavery is wrong, but rather in the hopes that freed DC slaves would fight for the Union side.

All this talk of perpetually peaceful Tibetan monks standing nobly in the face of the evil Chinese reminds me of a related pet peeve I have with respect to how many (not all) Westerners approach things Asian.

Really, it's more on race and class in the U.S.

A friend of mine, commenting on my "Love Letter to My Ancestors' Country," says he can't help but feel that China's claim on Tibet is still part of "political hegemony, after military take-over."  Ultimately, I agree.   My beef is when Americans decry the "invasion" by China of Tibet in 1950 and they don't know the history of the region.  There is also a part of me that feels Tibet is part of China because that is how I was raised, and part of me that thinks Tibetan independence would weaken both China and Tibet (j

My brother and I spent the afternoon running errands, some of which took us to Colma, which is a little ways south of San Francisco and what I call the city of the dead.  When land became too valuable on the peninsula, almost all of the graves were dug up and its residents transfered to Colma.  Coma is, I think, the only city in the country where the dead outnumber the living.

As we drove along El Camino Real, we saw a Jewish cemetery, and an Italian cemetery, and a Chinese cemetery... 

The confluence of an email from the A/PIC listserve and a conversation with Taquiena have me thinking about this topic again.

Someone on the A/PIC listserve writes to ask "Why are UUs so white?" (especially given that we promote racial equality) and invites our responses.

Whenever I evaluate a person's actions, particularly a politician's, I look at two considerations: 1) ethics - was it the morally right thing to do? and 2) logic - was it rational? These are not the same thing. One might commit a completely unethical act that nonetheless is logically expedient - helps advance your cause. Ultimately I would argue that unethical acts are not expedient in the long run, but still, I can understand why sometimes people choose the short-term gain.

With Mrs. Clinton's campaign these days, her choices seem neither ethical nor logical.