Erza Mukatora
Eng 1010
Steve Hall
09/18/2013
Response paper
On December 10, 1989 the Dalai Lama of Tibet received the Nobel Prize for Peace. He
gave an acceptance speech in Oslo, Norway at the University Aula. In his speech he emphasized
the need for freedom and peace in the world. He also outlined his ideas for the future of Tibet.
He said he followed the tradition of non-violent action for change that was founded by Mahatma
Gandhi. According to the Dalai Lama, “All human beings want freedom and the right to
determine their own destiny as individuals and as people”(Dalai Lama 1). He told about some
struggles that Tibetans had faced during the forty years of occupation by China. He reminded his
listeners that freedom should only be obtained through non-violent means. His main argument
was that we as human beings have a universal responsibility for ‘‘ . . .cultivating human
goodness and bringing happiness to all human beings” (1).
I agree that all human beings should be allowed to live in peace, have freedom from
oppression, and be able to determine their own destiny. I can also relate to the suffering of the
Tibetan people. I came to the United States in 2007 as a refugee of Burundi in Africa. Since
1993 there has extreme ethnic violence between the Tutsi and the Hutu, the two main classes of
people in Burundi. Originally the Tutsi were herdsman and the Hutu were mostly farmers. There
were thousands of deaths on each side. Some 800,000 people fled the country (Gascoigne, 2).
My family left Burundi in January 1994 when I was a baby. Life in refugee camp in Tanzania
was not easy because the refugees even fought each other. I understand the need to live in peace
and freedom from my own personal experience.
I indorse the Dalai Lama’s theory of achieving peace in a non-violent manner, but
this way is not always possible. An article, “Tibet Before and After Invasion” on the website
Friends of Tibet states: “Today, political prisoners are being routinely attacked and nuns being
raped at Chinese prisons. There is no freedom; even the Dalai Lama’s photographs are banned.
In spite of the Dalai Lama’s insistence that the struggle remain non-violent and free of hatred,
Tibetans are still being imprisoned, tortured, and degraded on a large scale by their Chinese
leaders.’’ Although I agree up to a point with the Dalai Lama’s theory, I believe that, in some
cases, a violent response may be necessary to end the suffering of common people. I don’t
advocate terrorism, though. I feel that people need to make a unified effort as a group to push for
change. In his book, The Nature of Democracy, Freedom, and Revolution, Herbert Aptheker tells
how the American colonists petitioned and pled with the British king and Parliament many times
for freedom from unfair taxation but were continually ignored. The author states, “ The
revolutionists turned to force as a last resort and as an act of resistance to the prior-offered force
by reaction” (Aptheker, 2). I also agree that force should only be used as a last resort in order to
achieve freedom.
I disagree with the Dalai Lama’s view that, “all religions pursue the same goals, that of
cultivating human goodness and bringing happiness to all human beings.” Many religions may fit
into this mold, but I believe there are some religions that pursue power, wealth, or domination.
In an article, “Does Religion Promote Violence?” by Derek Flood, the author maintains that
“Some types of religion can definitely foster and give legitimacy to violence and hate. Religion
that seeks to demonize and scapegoat the other can. Religion that is characterized by threat and
fear can” (Flood, 1). We all need to ask ourselves if our religion actively promotes peace. If not,
then it is not the kind of religion that the Dalai Lama is referring to.
In closing, the Dalai Lama’s acceptance speech was a powerful entreaty for peace and
human rights. I applaud his great efforts to achieve peace in his country of Tibet. I reaffirm my
own desire human beings to have freedom and right to determine their own destinies.
Unfortunately, we live in imperfect world where some religions are corrupt and non-violent
means do not always achieve peace. The only way to achieve greater peace is through greater
tolerance to people who are different than us. Even if we have different beliefs, we still have the
same human rights to have peace and happiness.
Works Cited
Aptheker, Herbert. The Nature of Democracy, Freedom, and Revolution. The International
Endowment for Democracy. n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.
Flood, Derek, “Does Religion Promote Violence?” Huffington Post. 6 Sept. 2013. Web. 23 Sept.
2013.
Gascoigne, Bamber. “History of Burundi.” History World. From 2001, ongoing. Web. 20 Sept.
2013.
Lama, Dalai. “Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech.” The Office of His Holiness. 10 Dec.
1989. Web. 16 Sept. 2013.
“Tibet: Before and After the Invasion.” Friends of Tibet (INDIA). Internet Archive. n.d. Web.
18 Sept. 2013.