Pocketbook References for Tibet
Filed under:-mini-posts, Analysis, Letters, culture, politics, religion | Tags:China, featured, tibet
Add comments
I don’t mean to drag the conversation on, but I do want to point people to two relatively short readings that could prove helpful to future discussions on Tibet.
The first is a summary of a UCLA talk on whether it is fair to characterize Tibet as undergoing cultural genocide. It is a fascinating read….
The second is a Foreign Affairs article written by Prof. Melvyn Goldstein some 10 years ago.
Prof. Melvyn Goldstein is one of the most respected scholars from the West on Tibet. He has been known to be sympathetic to the Dalai Lama, and I strongly disagree with his suggestion of ethnic segregation as a solution forward. But I personally think Prof. Goldstein does provide a good-faith (though Western-centric) analysis of the issues behind Tibet - and many of his insights into the conflict hold as true today as 10 years ago.
Enjoy…
There are currently 6 comments highlighted: 14883, 14886, 14887, 14937, 15332, 15522.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:11 am
@Admin
I’d also like to suggest a heated discussion thread on PBS site, started by the articulate M. A. Jones: M.A.Jones: The Tibet Issue.
PBS has closed the thread already so you can’t participate in the discussion anymore, but it can still make an excellent reading material.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Some here complain that many of us bloggers have never (or at least recently ) sit foot in Tibet.
For a couple of acclaimed documentaries made by people from the West, please see here and here.
P.S. I understand Skylight had some issues with these films, but I was not able to reach him by email in response to his concerns. If Skylight still has issues, I invite Skylight to articulate what the problems are here.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:08 am
@wukong
Thanks, added to the reading list.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:14 am
I think we are still stopping at the level of what foreigners think about China. I always think that’s a deep flaw of Chinese mentality. I guess even this blog of well educated and well travelled can’t avoid it.
Since there have been a number of threads of discussion about the tibetan issue and many comments offered in this blog. Why can’t we summarize a realistic view, or pro-China view if you will, of Tibet commented here, instead of going back 10 years or looking some Westerner’s view? I’m sorry if I sound a bit harsh. But this mentality has to stop somewhere and sometime. Trust yourself and your own eyes, instead of someelse’s.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:17 am
This time I agree with Netizen K.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:39 am
@Netizen K - Have you been to Tibet? Tell us your own impression.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
@Netizen K
Agreed. This is very helpful “self-criticism” within this community. I wrack it up to my lack of creativity and originality…
I like what Oli wrote earlier in the Tibet: A Way Forward thread (copied below) as a current summary. If someone (including Oli) is up to coming up with a coherent and more comprehensive articulation of the Chinese perspective now, please submit a letter, and perhaps we can publish it as a sticky post - or perhaps even an official statement on Tibet for the board?
If the time is not yet ripe for such a coherent articulation, perhaps we just need more discussions to arrive at one… and all the posts and the below will do for now…
Thanks,
Allen
Comment #179 from Oli in the Tibet: A Way Forward Thread
September 5th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I know The Trapped! also has had many good things to say. I also invite any Tibetan living in China to please submit a post. I know I personally have slighted 3/14 as the work of a few monks. I meant it genuinely, but I didn’t mean it as a be-all and end-all to cap real grudges ethnic Tibetans (as full PRC citizens) may have against the current political system.
September 5th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I think Oli’s piece is a very good framework. Most of the points in it worth further discussion, but that is what the framework is for.
I had a brief exchange with BXBQ a couple of weeks ago, and had come to the scenario (I hesitate to call it a “conclusion”) that Tibetan culture is so intertwined with Tibetan Buddhism that a secular version of Tibetan culture could be hollow. Furthermore, the Dalai Lama’s political rule through “theocracy” is so central to religion that a secular version of a fully autonomous Tibet will commit the feared “cultural genocide” anyway.
The word “theocracy” and the phrase “cultural genocide” are so laden with contemporary political baggage from other conflicts and ideologies they prevent sober discussions from taking place whenever they were used. The Tibetan “theocracy” recalls Taliban style Islamic fundamentalist rule, while “cultural genocide” reminds people of the Holocaust and Rwanda massacre. Of course, we use them precisely for the purpose of hitching a ride on some existing western discourses and to gain western sympathies, and hence fall neatly into the traps that Netizen K was decrying.
September 5th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
@wuming,
Yes, yes…
This is the very purpose (or one of the main purposes) this site was created - to move beyond the mountain of rhetoric-driven arguments to more substantive discourse in the dialog between the East and West.
It is an awfully big mountain… and we need everyone to help!
September 5th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
The giver of the UCLA talk Barry Sautman actually has a much fuller and more detailed analysis of the “cultural genocide” issue, titled “Tibet and the (mis)representation of cultural genocide”. It’s a chapter of a book edited by Sautman himself, named “Cultural Genocide and Asian State peripheries”, Gordonsville, VA, Usa: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
Just in case if anyone is interested. As Sautman himself claimed, his research is intended to be based on as solid basis as possible. If you dispute the argument, then you have to dispute the data first, and give your own version of verifiable data and let everyone have the opportunity to check it. That’s the spirit.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Along the same line of thought, why doesn’t the Chinese throw some money on NGOs to promote Native American asperations? When I visit China I don’t see cars with “Free Native America” stickers.
Is it because of self-respect? Non-interference? Or actually lack of self-respect and the old foreigner worshipping timidity?
Just do what we do when people point out the hypocrisy vis-a-vis Tibet - “it’s apples and oranges”, “Tibet hapened 700 years ago”, “it’s complicated (unlike yours)”.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:44 am
I mean did the Chinese meadia bang the sh!t out of cultural genocide news like this one?
http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=last+native+speaker+Eyak+died
If it was the other way around, like some Tibetan dialect died out, trust me it would be news of the century. But when the Eyak language dies out in America, nobody gave a flying hoot.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:12 am
@Charles Liu - Or maybe they should do what YOU do, and point out that China was (to quote Che Guevara, when he visited the PRC for training before his adventure in the Congo) “a bastion of the revolution”, and supported organisations from FRELIMO to Lumumba, and inspired the Shining Path rebellion in Peru, movements which killed tens of thousands and achieved NOTHING.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:32 am
@Wuming: ‘The Tibetan “theocracy” recalls Taliban style Islamic fundamentalist rule, while “cultural genocide” reminds people of the Holocaust and Rwanda massacre. Of course, we use them precisely for the purpose of hitching a ride on some existing western discourses and to gain western sympathies, and hence fall neatly into the traps that Netizen K was decrying.’
What words we use make a big difference. It seems nobody on this blog supports the idea of “cultural genocide”, and I’m pretty sure Tibetans or Westerners writing here are interested in re-establishing a theocracy in Tibet (neither do I think DL intends to, after all those years). Perhaps it’s just nitpicking, but it’s the same way when people talk about the Chinese “regime” - it’s an unnecessary slight to frame the discussion a certain way.
@Charles Liu: ‘Along the same line of thought, why doesn’t the Chinese throw some money on NGOs to promote Native American asperations? When I visit China I don’t see cars with “Free Native America” stickers. Is it because of self-respect? Non-interference? Or actually lack of self-respect and the old foreigner worshipping timidity?’
I hope Chinese naturally can be as critical of bad things in the US, as Americans can be of Chinese. No need to continue this “you have your problems too, so you can’t criticize us” type of thing.
Here’s a text showing what I think is the best attitude to these things:
http://www.stallman.org/human-rights-us-china.html
September 6th, 2008 at 3:21 am
OK. Let’s suppose that PRC rule in Tibet is entirely benevolent and that any accusation of the government is trying to obliterate Tibetan culture is completely uncalled for. Then, why is that almost every party secretary in Tibet since 1950 has been Han Chinese? And why is it that any information of any importance emanating from TAR is in Chinese, HAN CHINESE, not Tibetan. This is completely against the spirit of the promises that the CCP gave Tibetans when the region was integrated into the PRC.
September 6th, 2008 at 3:47 am
@Hemulen: The way China is ruled seems to be typical of any one-party state: officially there’s some separation between government and party, but in reality they have a two-tier structure where the party has its own leading group next to the state. The government of autonomous areas are usually led by the “minority people” in that area, but real power rests with the party committee, and that’s almost always led by the Han.
Then, I seriously don’t believe the government is trying to obliterate local culture, but I do believe that a government based on Marxism will never be able to peacefully coexist with religion. When the government gets less ideological, these problems will be less prominent.
September 6th, 2008 at 5:10 am
@Wukailong,
Do you really think religion is the basis of the friction in Tibet? I always thought it is politics (i.e. politics of the Dalai Lama and/or the West v. politics of the Chinese central gov’t) - and that religion is just a rhetorical ammunition used by the Dalai Lama and/or the West.
September 6th, 2008 at 6:08 am
@Allen: I believe it’s not the sole basis, but it’s certainly an important part that shouldn’t be overlooked. Political problems are usually based on something else, be it social, religious or economical matters.
One thing I’m curious about is the fact that Dalai Lama and the Chinese government cooperated for a whole eight years before 1959. What happened during that time? Why were tensions escalated? What are the versions of that story by the two sides?
September 6th, 2008 at 10:30 am
@Wukailong
If you have seen how Buddhism is thriving in China, if you have heard how Tulkus are sought after outside of Tibet to bless various openings, it would be hard to draw conclusion that the current conflict in Tibet is even in small part based on religion.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:59 am
@Wukailong
I share your curiosity about what happened in Tibet 1951-1959.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
@Wuming: “If you have seen how Buddhism is thriving in China, if you have heard how Tulkus are sought after outside of Tibet to bless various openings, it would be hard to draw conclusion that the current conflict in Tibet is even in small part based on religion.”
Well, I live in China. Religion is a large and complex matter, and how religious policies are and was implemented has of course shaped how this conflict has evolved. I believe it’s quite a different thing now than it was in the early 80s (not to speak of the 60s and 70s).
September 6th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
@Wukailong
Even though Tibetans played no part in the revolution 1949 and the PLA was not invited to Tibet, many Tibetans were interested in reforming Tibet and part of the Tibetan ruling elite sided with the new rulers. Tensions started to escalate when the Chinese forced Tibetans to provide for Chinese troops, which put a strain on the economy, and when they cut border trade with India, which dealt another blow to the livelihood of many Tibetans. In the late 1950s, Chinese authorities tried to carry out reforms without consulting with the local Tibetan government, which further alienated many Tibetans. What ignited the revolt was the influx of Tibetan refugees from outer Tibet, i.e. Sichuan, Qinghai and Gansu, who fled collectivization and the Great Leap Forward. DL and the Tibetan government tried to keep distance from these refugees, but was helpless when the revolt started during Tibetan new year in 1959 and had to chose sides. By the time DL fled to India almost the entire Tibetan leadership had left Tibet. The ones who stayed in Tibet were thanked by the government by being persecuted, often to death.
I don’t have any strong opinion whether Tibet should be independent or associated with China. But if I were Tibetan, I would probably be in favor of independence, sjut by default. The PRC has treated Tibet as a piece of real estate and a social laboratory, and it has never been interested in listening to what Tibetans want. The PRC demands absolute compliance to its Tibet policy and treats even the most loyal Tibetan critic as a “splittist”. The PRC is now ready to meet Taiwanese politicians and give them red carpet treatment, even though they may disagree on many issues, but it is not ready to meet DL, even though he has practically given up his entire agenda.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
@Wukailong “Religion is a large and complex matter, and how religious policies are and was implemented has of course shaped how this conflict has evolved.”
On that I agree, the root of the conflicts certainly contains religious factors. I would class that as part of the historical grievances. When I look at the Tibet problem, I have the hardest time with the historical grievances. I can not find an answer to the question “yes, you Chinese have also suffered under Mao’s struggles, but why we Tibetans have to suffer with you?”
September 6th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
@Hemulen
The PRC better give us red carpet treatment. Whereas the DL gov’t officially aspire to at most 25% of the PRC territory, our gov’t (ROC) officially aspire to all 100%!
September 6th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
To Charles:
maybe you should start a Blog for Native Americans site…or a Blog for Geese site. Did you actually make a coherent point about hypocrisy with contemporaneous examples? Must’ve missed it.
September 6th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
To Allen:
the reach should exceed the grasp, or what’s a heaven for?
September 6th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
To Hemulen #16:
absolutely agree. Cast away all the talk and rhetoric about monks, Tibetan independence, theocracies, and cultural genocide; 2 immediate, seemingly not-too-difficult measures to implement would be to insert a Tibetan as top party official in TAR, and to increase the prevalence of use of Tibetan language. The first would be largely symbolic; but the latter would serve long term as a means to help preserve the culture. For one cannot truly understand or appreciate the culture without the language. Tibetan shouldn’t be an official language of China; but it should be one of 2 official languages in Tibet.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
@S.K. Cheung,
Source please? What make you think Tibetan is not the official language in Tibet now? As far as I know, it is. Tibetan has always been the dominating language in Tibet, except perhaps in the crazy ten years of cultural revolution. Immediately after the cultural revolution, the centural government innitiated a new “ethnic sentive policy” which pretty much resembles the policy before the cultural revolution, alias, in Mao era. Since 1980, the central government requires that all governmental officials working in Tibet who are not ethnic Tibetan and under age 50 should learn Tibetan. And this is before the formal legislation on language use become in effect. In 1987, a law was passed by Tibetan people’s congress regulating language use in Tibet, which is called “Some Regulations on Learning, Use and develop Tibetan Language In TAR (to be revised) (西藏自治区学习使用和发展藏语文的若干规定（试行）》) The guiding principle of this legislation is: “Tibetan be the main language, both Tibetan and Chinese to be used” (以藏文为主、藏汉两种语文并用的方针) In 1989, some further laws and regulations were enacted to realize the principles of this general law, such as in education system, governmental organizations, media, public sign use, etc.. In 2002, a formal language law (revised from the 1987 law) was passed: “Regulations on Learning, Use and Develop Tibetan Language In TAR” 《西藏自治区学习、使用和发展藏语文的规定》. The principle remains the same: Tibetan is sole main language to be used in TAR, but Chinese as national official language should also be used. Two sites might be helpful to have a glance at the language issue, (in Chinese): (The development of language policy in TAR) http://www.xzzyw.cn/jsp/xz/detail.jsp?newsID=8000000513&type=030 & (Comparison of language legislation in TAR and in XingJiang) http://www.guoxue.com/ws/html/zuixinfabu/20050104/418.html
September 6th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
@demin
Nice laws. The laws of the PRC are among the best in the world, on paper. The only problem is that most of them are never implemented. Can you give any evidence beyond those laws that Chinese officials in Tibet actually use Tibetan?
And where is the Tibetan language version of Lhasa people’s government website?
http://www.lasa.gov.cn/
September 6th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
@Allen
>For a couple of acclaimed documentaries made by people from the West, please see here and here.
I have no problem with the documentary “Tibet Diary” which you recommend, but I don’t think it would be accurate to describe it as:
1. “acclaimed”
2. “made by people from the west”
1. The movie has won two awards. If you look at the website of “Aurora Awards Independent Film and Video Competition”, it does not give the impression of being a wellknown nor recognized award. There are 172 award categories every year. According to the website the “Winners may purchase statues at $150 US each, plus shipping and handling.”
http://www.auroraawards.com/mainFr.html
The other award, The Videographer Awards has 167 categories (winners) each year.
http://www.videoawards.com/index.html
Are these real awards, or awards you can “buy” on the internet? Even if they are legitimate awards, it would not be accurate to characterize these as “acclaimed” awards.
2. “Tibet Diary” is not made by “people from the West”, although China Daily on their website says this movie is made by two american tourists. It is made by Oakland based D3 Production headed by Duffy Wang, former CCTV director. At his website, CCTV is cited as one of their main clients. Could there be a conflict of interest here? Directly or indirectly, this documentary is funded by CCTV. D3 Production also made the 13-part Olympic games tv-series called “Beijing, are you ready”, officially approved by Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games.
http://www.cctv.com/english/special/tibetdiary/03/index.shtml
http://www.insidechina.org/whats_new/beijing_are_you_ready.htm
September 6th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
@ Hemulen
Thank you for your description of what happened from 1949 to late 1950s. May I ask for the sources of it? I wish I could learn more.
I don’t have opinion on whether “PRC has ever been interested in listening to what Tibetans want” or not. This is apparantly the charge made by the Dalai Lama’s exile government, and Beijing surely insists otherwise. I don’t have yet enough information to judge what’s really the case. But on the PRC not wanting to meet DL comment, I may have something to say. Professor Melvyn Goldstein, who sympathizes with the Dalai Lama, says in his book that ever since 1980s Beijing has always been willing to talk with the Dalai Lama, trying to pursuade him back to China and thus solve the Tibetan problem once and for all, under the condition that Tibet be part of China and CCP rule not to be challenged. But of course the Dalai Lama with his exile government also has his own agenda, including some form of independent status of Tibet and redrawing Tibet’s border as “Greater Tibet”. Despite the large gap between Beijing and the Dalai Lama, there were always opportunities for the two sides to sit together and have some kind of talk. And apparantly Beijing was willing to let these opportunities be used, if only to ’seduce’ the Dalai Lama to drop his hostile attitude towards Beijing government. But the Dalai Lama appears to insist that it is more effective to seek for western countries’ support as a leverage to ‘force’ Beijing government into succumbing, rather than directly talking with it. And this has been Tibetan exile government’s policy ever since then and until now. There are a sequence of occasions on which the two sides had chances to directly talk with each other but at last aborted either because the gap between the two is too big or simply because the Dalai Lama always tends to choose the hard way to approach. And this in the end amounts to a conclusion drawn by Beijing that the Dalai Lama can hardly be trusted, just the same conclusion with Taiwan’s Chen ShuiBian. It’s a sad outcome, but you can not twist the picture as if the Dalai Lama always want to engage but the central government insists not. It’s actually almost the opposite if you look at the whole picture. Well, anyway, professor Goldstein says such is “the nature of Tibetan question”, and he adds that it might just be that the Dalai Lama simply finds it emotionally too difficult to work with the communist leaders of China.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
@demin
I have read Melvyn Goldstein and Tsering Shakya, two of the foremost authorities on modern Tibet. Beijing has made it pretty clear that it will only talk to DL if he recognize the “correctness” of the official PRC position, that is, in effect, saying that they do not want to negotiate at all. Beijing has not yielded an inch.
When Hu Yaobang stretched out his hand to Dharamsala in the early 1980s, he thought that Tibetans were happy with liberalization and had more or less forgotten about DL. When DL’s fact finding tour came to Tibet, they were mobbed by Tibetan crowds who demanded to see DL, which shocked the central government and it has refused to allow DL to enter Tibet freely since then.
Sure, DL has made it fair share of mistakes and he has lost a few opportunities to speak to Beijing. But the fact that nothing has happened in the Tibet question is because of the intransigence of the parts of the Chinese government that decides Tibet policy, among other the United Front Dept in the CCP. The current party secretary in Tibet, Zhang Qingli, previous job was head of the PLA Xinjiang Production and Construction corps. He is not exactly the kind of guy who would look the other way when some mischievous monks are sporting portraits of DL. Then In March, there were signs that Wen Jiabao was ready to talk to DL without preconditions, but how do you expect that to materialize when we have recently appointed Zhou Yongkang in the PSC, who is known for his harsh methods against Tibetans when he ruled Sichuan?
Many Chinese Tibetologists are appalled by official Tibet policy and many admit that privately.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
@ Hemulen
Thanks for your comment. Surely I admit that there is a huge gap between law and realities. But let me say this: first of all, you can not find a place in the world where law or regulations are completely realized. But why law matters anyway? There is a saying that “if good guys abide by the law and bad guys tend to break the law anyway, why do we need law in the first place?” Well, my argument is that law matters because it sets the bar. We need law not really to see it realized 100% becuase it is simply impossible in real life. We need law to set out what is right and what is wrong and to compare the realities with the law. In case of Tibetan language law, the thing is, if the bar is set, it would just need a small step forward to lift up the realization of the law to a satisfying level. And it would be completely legitimate and without any question in law. I would consider that as something definitely pisitive to build on, rather than to be negated or even destroyed.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
To Demin:
These language laws you quote have been on the books for how long? What have been the barriers to their implementation? What steps has the government taken to address these barriers? What plans do they have to further their implementation, moving forward?
Laws are great, but only as good as the extent they’re practiced and enforced. So if the reality still does not meet the standards set out in law, you either need better laws, or better implementation. China can take her pick.
Playing the blame game is neither here nor there. You need two sides to meet and produce an agreement. So if the Dalai Lama and the CCP haven’t been able to forge one, both are to blame. Your assertion that the Dalai Lama deserves more of it is no more compelling than someone in the other camp making the opposite assertions.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:07 am
@S.K. Cheung,
As for the realities under the law, don’t forget that they are not that bad. If you need some facts, Professor Barry Sautman’s article “Tibet and the (mis)representation of cultural genocide” can provide plenty. Sautman refuted almost every accusation of “language genocide” made by Tibet Exile Government and some western groups. Since Sautman can provide much more hard evidence than the latter, I choose to believe Sautman. One simply fact is that “In the TAR, an ethnic Tibetan who cannot speak Tibetan is practically unheard of.” And the use of Tibetan language is encouraged in almost every areas of social life. And “Even if all urban TAR Tibetans were bilingual, they are only some 15% of the TAR Tibetan population. In fact, surveys show only about half of urban Tibetans have mastered spoken Chinese and little more than a third have mastered written Chinese.” The use of Tibetan as MOI (medium of instruction) is specifically emphasized by language policy in TAR, to the effect that many urban Tibetan parents complain that their children may lose some chance of gaining the bilingual ability. And here comes the accusation that Mandrin Chinese has become so popular that Tibetans are forced to learn Chinese so as to gain a better career. Apart from the fact that this hasn’t in the least harmed the status of Tibetan language in TAR, it does not necessarily go agaist the aim of culture preservation. In this world of globalization, English has almost become a lingua franca and in many places even been established as second official language. And their cultural identity hasn’t been lost. Ironically, The Tibetan Exile Government used English as the sole language until 1994 and “it was not until 1994 that the emigre administration endorsed Tibetan as the MOI for primary schools in Tibetan settlements in India. Many young ethnic Tibetans outside China tend to drop Tibetan and adopt English or other languages as their communicative language.
I am not here to cheer for TAR government and Beijing government for their ‘achievements’ in TAR. Certainly there are much room to improve since a lot of good words in the former cited law hasn’t been realized yet, as I believe they should be. I have no problem with critizing, but I don’t think exaggeration is a good idea.
For the second point, I apologize if I sound to be playing the blame game. And I urge everyone on this blog to refrain from doing this. Again, what I want to say is: do not twist the picutre too much, if nobody can really be completely neutral and truth-talking.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:35 am
@demin
OK then, if Tibetan has such a prominent position, why is it next to impossible to find a TAR government website with a Tibetan language version.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Oy vey, again this Barry Sautman. The guy who compared the ethnic riots in Lhasa to Nazis. No wonder he is now the Chinese government’s favorite Western scholar.
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/ceun/eng/zt/xzwt/t425983.htm
“…the use of Tibetan language is encouraged in almost every areas of social life.”
Except in government, economy and administration where Chinese reigns supreme. Can you mention a single party secretary in Tibet with even a passable knowledge of Tibetan? And where is Tibetan on the official TAR site except as in the ornamental part?
http://www.xizang.gov.cn/index.do
No, this is not genocide. But if Sautman is right and most Tibetans speaks Tibetan only, it is nothing short of a scandal that the main language of government in Tibet is Chinese.
September 7th, 2008 at 4:14 am
Hu Jintao was the boss of the TAR for four years. I wonder how good his Tibetan is?
September 7th, 2008 at 5:09 am
Hu Jintao was also the boss of Guizhou province for 3 years. I wonder how good his Guizhou dialect, a southern dialect that is not mutually intelligible with Mandarin, is?
Why we are at it, I am not sure if the Party Secretary of Guangzhou speaks Cantonese … man, the evidence is piling up.
September 7th, 2008 at 5:47 am
To Demin:
I’m happy to avoid exaggeration. I’m not familiar with the facts according to Sautman. When he refers to “language genocide”, does that pertain to accusations that the CCP are actively trying to “kill off” the Tibetan language? If that is the context, I would tend to agree that such has not occurred. However, one can also weaken a language through neglect (ie lack of use), and while that may not qualify for any loaded terminology, the net effect is the same.
“The use of Tibetan as MOI is specifically emphasized by language policy in TAR” - I have no problem with that. As you say, it’s the law. But how well is that law being translated into action? You acknowledge a lot of room for improvement; so I don’t think bringing that up is exaggerating anything.
“Tibetan language is encouraged in almost every areas of social life” - but how about areas of public life, or political life? If Tibetan is an official language in TAR, shouldn’t government conduct business in that language, as well as Chinese? What of Hemulen’s claim that the website has no translation? Shouldn’t everything that the TAR government does come in both languages? And if it’s the law, shouldn’t that have been one of the first places to start, so that government sets an example?
“English has almost become a lingua franca and in many places even been established as second official language. And their cultural identity hasn’t been lost.” - this is beside the point. Learning an extra language doesn’t threaten your cultural identity; it’s losing your language that does.
If the laws are as you say they are, suggesting that the government get on with putting them into practice doesn’t seem to me to be an unreasonable request.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Here is an analysis of Sautman’s recent article. HK-based Sautman mix facts and distortions of facts in his recent articles to obtain an aura of neutrality and objectiveness, but his political punches and position is close to China’s offical position on Tibet.
http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/04/05/communst-apologetics.html
On this point, as Netizen K mentioned earlier, why are we so obsessed with what westerners say? Most of the time, Westerners fail to understand the reality of China and Tibet.
Cannot Chinese and Tibetan people discuss together and base their discussions on work by Tibetan and Chinese scholars?
September 7th, 2008 at 10:45 am
@Hemulen,
1. If you want to disqualify someone’s fact-based research result with comments on his personality, it’s your prerogative. I guess if this blog tolerates some blame game, why wouldn’t it tolerate some of this.
2. OK, I would consider no Tibetan language gov webesite a scandal too. You’ve got a point. But that’s a internet website technically fabricated by a Shanghai company and a lot of local Tibetan governments don’t even have a website. If you look at the traidtional way of communication, like TV, Radio broadcast, Newspaper etc.. they are nothing short of Tibetan language use. Most of the media coverage where Tibetans are living is in Tibetan, in some areas even local Tibetan dialects are used in broadcast. (Figures are Sautman’s, if you want to verify it, go ahead) And I would consider this as the effective way of communication in political, economic and cultural life, instead of some websites. Plus, have you found Tibetan Exile government website and the Dalai Lama’s official website in Tibetan? I havn’t found any. And here you can find the Tibetan Information Center in Tibetan (and Chinese and English as well): http://zw.tibet.cn/ As for the party secretary, I think it would be nice if they know Tibetan, but I would not expect them to grasp Tibetan at their age of over 40 or 50 and serve four years in Tibet and then be dispatched to some other places where they don’t speak local dialect or language neither. You know what, I can give you one party secretary who have more than passable knowledge of Tibetan. His name is 阴法唐, who lives for a long time in Sichuan and Tibet and his wife speaks excellent Tibetan. And the former deputy party secretary in TAR 胡春华, now deputy party secretary in Henan province, a young one, also speaks fluent Tibetan.
Look, I know the existence of the power structure headed by the party. If you want to talk about the issue of power-sovereignty-party-rule, you can open a new thread on that and I would be glad to discuss with you. But as far as we are talking about language use and cultural preservation here, let’s assume that power structure as given. And then here is the most possible dynamic: in the documents of language policy in Tibet (and other minority areas like Xingjiang), the rehtoric not only focuses on the cultural values of languages, but also on political aims, namely national unity and sovereignty. As in almost all political areas around the world, it is the political motivation that really directs the attention and acts of government. In this sense, preservation of local cultural value and language only serves the government’s cause and can fend off outside critics. The links between language and cultural policy with state sovereignty and the counter-back of outside critics in government’s tone are common. “有利于民族团结，不给境外反华势力以口实”(…language policy…facilitates the unity of nationalities and leave no excuse for foreign anti-China powers), one such article says. It appears that Beijing government and TAR government are pretty sensitive to outside critics particarly in areas of ethnic issues. It only serves their interests to preserve the language and culture as much as possible. They are not so stupid to deliberately destroy the languages cultures, not even to ‘neglect’ the issue so as to allow them fall into the hands of ‘foreign critics’ to attack the Beijing and TAR government. And again, ironically, this runs somewhat contrary to Exile Tibetans and the TGIE, and some other ethnic minorities in the world such as Hakka in Taiwan, who supposedly have the “freedom to use their own languae” but also tend to ‘freely’ let go the use of their own language and favor some other more ‘useful’ and popular languages. The Dalai Lama once had to urge Tibetans in US to speak Tibetan in their homes.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:48 am
I guess if someone remind the Beijing government or TAR government that it is better for them to add a Tibetan version of government website, they would be more than glad to do that. It doesn’t hurt, but only serve their interests to do that.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:58 am
@skylight,
Actually I don’t particarly care if the scholar I cite is Chinese or not, or if he is a friend of Chinese government or not. What I care is whether they care give trustworthy veriable facts and whether their argument could stand on those facts or not. I like and cite professor Melvyn Goldstein as well, who sympathizes a lot with TGIE and favors some kind of ethnic segregation which I disagree.
As for the link you give, sorry, I don’t like Beijing government myself and I consider CCP as hinder to China’s modernization, but I am allergic to talkings like “Chinese Communist Party is 90% Mafia organization” and “Chinese Communist Party is a ‘militant whig’ organization”.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
@demin,
I share your seach for truth and facts.
So… do you think the analysis of Sautmans article was good or bad? Do you think Sautmans arguments can stand on his facts?
1. He links Tibetans with Al Qaida and Nazis.
2. He says there is no colonization or occupation of TIbet.
3. He says Nancy Pelosi is anti-China.
4. He says Dalai Lama is part of cultism.
5. He claims Dalai Lama is anti-Aborigines (original people of Australia)!
In some of his other articles he ridicules Tibetan protests because he claims they are so small compared to Philippine protests and he make some other misguided statements about how Tibetan culture is marginalized in Lhadakh as justification for current Chinese policies in Tibet.
Sautman is known to be rather careless about his use of facts in his newspaper articles (by the standards of a scholar), I find it interesting that you emphasize his trustworthyness.
Here is another analysis of Sautman by a Tibetan writer:
http://www.jamyangnorbu.com/blog/2008/07/13/running-dog-propagandists/
Social anthropologist Melvyn Goldstein has been much cited by Chinese commentators on the internet, he is indeed one of the few western “experts” on China/Tibet who speaks Tibetan, which gives him access to first-hand sources. However, Tibetans consider Goldman a scholar who has been bought by Chinese money, an opportunist who cares more about access to China and continued funding of his research in Tibet/China, than representing an objective view. Especially after he wrote the Tibetan history book giving a distorted picture of Tibetan history. Tibetan writer Jamyang Norbu analyze Goldstein from a Tibetan perspective here:
http://www.jamyangnorbu.com/blog/2008/07/19/black-annals-goldstein-the-negation-of-tibetan-history-part-i-tris/
http://www.jamyangnorbu.com/blog/2008/07/27/black-annals-goldstein-the-negation-of-tibetan-history-part-ii/
September 7th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
To Demin:
“If you look at the traidtional way of communication, like TV, Radio broadcast, Newspaper etc.. they are nothing short of Tibetan language use.” - this is consistent with your earlier points, and is a good thing. But one should also be able to have access to government in both official languages. How is one supposed to feel all warm and fuzzy about their government when it chooses not to communicate in the native language?
Again, it’s nice that the government apparently deems this to be an important issue. But if this is as much progress as they’ve managed on an important issue, one wonders how things fair on issues the government chooses not to prioritize.
September 7th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
This is what amuses me about these links. The Sautman version of the facts suit Demin, so he uses them. But we know nothing of Sautman’s allegiances and sympathies, and therefore, potential biases. And let’s face it, his version of facts = his opinion. Skylight then counters with a site filed under communist apologetics, so even without reading it, you get a pretty good sense where that’s going.
Oh, to have the unvarnished facts, that would be the day…
September 7th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Did I say I am completely neutral? I use Sautman’s figures (actually a large part of his figures are drawn from other (western) independent or non-independent researches) because at this stage I didn’t find any other usable figures, particularly on the topic I was talking about. I admit in this sense I am limited. But if you have other better datas, could you please show them and let us check and ultimately let everyone draw his/her own conclusion? So, what did you do? You give nearly nothing solid fact-based counter-arguments except repeating ones that were raised by Hemulen. Instead, you are trying in various way to disqualify this or that one, using sarcastic languages hinting on their personalities. If this is your game, I quit.
Best wishes to you!
September 7th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
@skylight,
Thanks Skylight, you make me know more.
But, this is going beyond my scope. I wished we could find out what’s going on and what conclusions should we get from what we know. But apparantly I neglected the fact that there are something more than that. And that is emotion. There are things we can talk and reason, but there are things that we cannot talk, because it contains deep emotions and feelings that are genuine and sometimes painful. So I’ll just leave this, and Good luck to you!
September 7th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
To Demin:
let’s face it, when it comes to Tibet, the facts are nebulous. I don’t have the facts, nor do I pretend to. Sautman’s assertions aren’t facts; they’re his opinions. We don’t know how he formulated those opinions. Specifically, while we know the “facts” he chose to include, we don’t know which “facts” he chose to exclude, nor why. And when someone like you chooses to pass them off as the “truth”, I enjoy pointing out the fallacies. As you can see, that’s what I have done.
I don’t expect you to be completely neutral. I know I’m not. Nor would I expect anyone who comes to a blog to be. We all have our opinions, and we’re all entitled to them. But it makes me chuckle when an individual thinks that having a concurrent opinion to their own somehow makes theirs more legitimate.
BTW, show me a “fact” that I can’t disqualify, then you’ll have my attention.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
@Skylight,
Sigh… I wish so, too. Problem is:
1. Are there any Chinese scholars that exiled Tibetans would consider neutral?
2. Conversely, are there any exiled Tibetan scholars that Chinese would consider neutral?
If so - could anyone list them?
September 7th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
@demin and S.K. Cheung and skylight and all others,
I suppose from our back-and-forth just above, we can see that the Tibet issue is not just about facts, but about perspectives - i.e. which political history and stories one subscribe to.
Problem is: if we focus too much on the facts, we lose the emotion/story part. But when we focus too much on the emotion/story, we get too far from the facts - and we we stop talking. Any common ground of reference get lost.
So what should we do now?
September 7th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Allen,
I think the Tibetans and the Chinese should talk. Only two sides talk.
When the outsiders came in, the situation became more complex because instead two sides had their interests, three or more sides had their competing interests in the issue. For example, when the CIA was invited in by Dalai Lama’s brother (who passed away this week?) in the 1950s, the whole Tibetan issue became thorny. Then the Indians had their design as well. The issue didn’t get resolved. Then Nixon needed China’s help in the cold war. China said Ok, CIA get out Tibet. So that was the history.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/staffPub/f_affairs.htm by Prof. Melvyn Goldstein
After 10 years, the percentage of Tibetan officials would increase substantially from its current 60 to 70 percent to as high as 85 to 90 percent.
Remember Han Chinese dominated economy, most Tibetans are ill-educated.
Please define “prominent”.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
“This is what amuses me about these links. The Sautman version of the facts suit Demin, so he uses them. But we know nothing of Sautman’s allegiances and sympathies, and therefore, potential biases. And let’s face it, his version of facts = his opinion.”
This is what amuses me about these links. The Hemulen version of the facts suit SKC, so he uses them. But we know nothing of Hemulen’s allegiances and sympathies, and therefore, potential biases. And let’s face it, his version of facts = his opinion.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:38 am
To Wahaha:
doesn’t that go without saying? In fact, if you had the courage to acknowledge this reality yourself, we’d all be better off.
“But it makes me chuckle when an individual thinks that having a concurrent opinion to their own somehow makes theirs more legitimate. BTW, show me a “fact” that I can’t disqualify, then you’ll have my attention.” (#51) - see what you can do with that one.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Where are the YouTube videos dropping F- and MF-bombs? I want to see them!
I have to admit, I didn’t know these expressions until now, so I checked them up with Urban Dictionary. F-bomb, among other usages, also refers to
“Leaving a fart in the elevator just before exiting. That way the next person that gets into the elevator get’s a surprise.”
(Sorry, this is completely offtopic, but I couldn’t hold myself)
September 8th, 2008 at 5:51 am
To Wukailong:
didn’t know F-bomb had 2 meanings. But i’d imagine that MF-bomb only has 1 meaning….although I suppose if you let a really wicked one rip, you could refer to it as the mother of all F-bombs
September 8th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Re: F-bomb“Leaving a fart in the elevator just before exiting. That way the next person that gets into the elevator get’s a surprise.”Wukailong: (Sorry, this is completely offtopic, but I couldn’t hold myself)
LOL…That’s nasty. But my friend who used to work in Zhuhai tells me someone left a steamy
pile of F-Mine before leaving the elevator ! How gross is that! Once in a subway train in Shenzhen,
I personally saw parents lettng their child ..oh, never mind.
Regarding Tibet and Theocracy….although it is philosophically impossible to be an atheist, because to be an atheist one must be omniscient in order to know absolutely that there is no god. Therefore one can’t be god and an atheist at the same time! In this sense, atheism is not the rejection of a deity. Instead, it is the belief in emergent deity. But what good is godhood without power? Well, such leap is not that far off for some of those in high political or financial positions. Post-Mao China did the right thing by rejecting the worship of personalities whether be in political or religious sphere. I really don’t understand how although the essence of most religious tenets being about love, selflessness and peace, could in practice bring out the worst in mankind. I don’t know if god exist, but I kinda suspect religions has nothing to do with dieties, let alone the benevolent ones.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
The truth is, without independent information gathering it is impossible to know what is happening in Tibet and what the opinion of the Tibetan people is. So here are data points I trust, and why I trust them:
1) The riots - we know they happened, we know who they targeted, we know whose picture the rioters brandished.
Reason - both sides agree on this, they just put different spins on the facts.
2) The Nangpa La shootings.
Reason - From an independent source (Romanian TV station) and confirmed by multiple witnesses from differing countries who had not met previously and who were unconnected to either side of the Tibet problem.
3) The flow of people across the border.
Reason - They risk their lives by doing so.
4) Reports of economic development in Tibetan.
Reason - exaggerated to be sure, but only to the degree seen in other parts under PRC rule.
5) The heavy military presence in Tibetan areas.
Reason - confirmed by multiple sources, and would make sense for such a large border area.
6) The refusal to allow unrestricted reporting from Tibet.
Reason - confirmed by the PRC government.
7) What Tibetan exiles unaffiliated with the Tibetan independence movement I meet here in the UK say.
Reason - the same reason you believe anyone else you meet, with the caveat that I have only met two and they both left Tibet in the early nineties, and that neither were very well educated.
Everything else? The talk about ‘cultural genocide’, ‘peaceful liberation’ etc. consists of propaganda, to varying degrees. Commenters like The Trapped carry a lot of weight with me as well, but this the internet.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
My point in the above comment is this - if you just take all the data points I consider unbiased you would get a fairly negative view of the Tibet situation, however, allowing unrestricted (at least to a reasonable degree) reporting from Tibet might give a much more positive view containing all the evidence of the ‘brotherhood’ between the Tibetan people and rest of China that some of the people who comment here believe in so firmly. Until then, however, I’m going to keep on trusting in these data points.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Negative/Positive view. Funny. Our great thinker Karl Marx devoted his whole life combing through the history of modern capitalism, looking for evidences, only to reach the ‘negative’ view that ‘capital comes dripping from head to foot’, that the whole world of capitalism should be turned up side down.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
SKC, to your post #57 and post on other thread :
Let us talk about fact :
Do you know how lavish Potola palace is ? those statues were painted with gold.
Do you know how poor ordinary Tibetan people were ? I dont have to say more.
And you do know Monks dont work, right ?
So, who built Potola place, who paid for all the cost, who support those monks living ?
The only way Potola place could be built is it was built under an extremely brutal regime, like the great wall was built in Qing Dynasty.
__________________________________
Now, since 1959, Chinese government killed hundreds of thousands of Tibetans ? this is as ridiculous as it can be ?
To kill so many Tibetans, Chinese government had to kill hundreds of villages of tibetans. In modern society, killing 1000 people would be #1 new all over the world. Did you see any reports about killing thousands of Tibetans ?
I am sure if chinese government had killed so many Tibetans, Westerners reporters and tourists wouldve heard hundreds of storys of how Han chinese killed Tibetans, even US satellite may be able to record what happened, right ?
______________________
I dont want to have your attention, I read both sides of story, and reason out the “fact” that at least makes sense.
You think Tibetans would be better under the rule of monks, show me what those monks have done for ordinary Tibetans.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
@Wahaha - I don’t see how any of that is a justification for current CCP policy in Tibet, or even helps to explain any of that. Similar conditions existed in many parts of China in the early part of the last century, you might as well argue that current CCP policy in other parts of the PRC is justified by China’s imperial past.
September 8th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
@FOARP,
The current policy of any nation is justified by one’s history. CCP may be anti-religious as part of its campaign to rid of forces (such as superstition) that has for so long kept China looking backwards, holding China back. America’s laws may be supersensitive on race as part of campaign to get rid of the long shadows of slavery that arose out of its slavery heritage.
What’s wrong with either? To each be each own.
We should learn to appreciate each other’s history more before judging each other. We should also definitely refrain from judging others based on our own history - which may have little to nothing to do with the others’ experience.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
@Allen
Totally agree with your view of learning others history before judging each other. Too often we jump to conclusions based on our own experiences or history. Sometimes seemingly similarities on the surface hide large differences underneath.
@Wahaha
Most tibetans have deep respect for our monks and lamas…after all Tibetans themselves and other buddhist (including many Chinese) fund these monasteries. Tibetans take pride in sending one of their son or daughters to the monasteries, they feel these institutions are relevant to keep tibetan culture, religion and language alive, and especially in the countryside these institutions provide services such as medical assistance, orphanage, dispute solving etc.
Many of these monasteries are called institutes and they teach architechture, traditional medicine, artwork, buddhist philosophy etc., not all the pupils enrolled are necessarily monks and many monks disrobe after taking education because they find out they want to live regular life.
These institutions are part of Tibetans society, most tibetan family, rich or poor have some connection to a monastery through a relative or close family member.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Skylight,
There was no books outside monasterier before, right ?
If not true, show me a name of book.
If true, how was that part of culture for ordinary tibetans ? what kind of culture was that ?
September 8th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
@FORAP,
I am not trying to defend CCP.
The whole campaign is not against CCP, it is against Han Chinese.
Now, if we talk about politics, the whole campaign is to let those monks rule Tibet again/
September 8th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
@Wahaha
In addition to the socio-relgious-cultural role, there is currently a forth very important role of the monasteries.
In the current Tibet-China conflict, the monasteries take a new role as a gathering place for nationalist sentiment and strengthening the identity of Tibetans. This is very similar function that the Catholic church played in Poland both during German and Russian occupation.This role was also played by the late Pope John Paul II who was Polish. It is not a coincidence that late Pope John Paul II and Dalai Lama got along very well because of their similar experiences. Dalai Lama met the late Pope eight times, more than any other single dignitary (according to wikipedia).
“During the communist era, the church provided a necessary alternative to an unpopular state authority, even for the least religious Poles.”
After the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, the popularity of the Catholic church declined drastically, since the large support it had recieved ealier from the people was partly as a counterforce and rallying point against the Soviet rule.
http://countrystudies.us/poland/39.htm
September 8th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
According to Tulku Thondrup, there are the following genres in Tibetan literature:
1. Religious literature
1. By origin
1. Translated from other languages
2. Written by Tibetans
2. By subject
1. Religion
1. View
2. Practice
3. Action
2. History and biography
3. Poetic composition and yogic songs
4. Music, dance, art and architecture
2. Secular literature
1. History
2. Grammar
3. Poetic composition, metrical literature and lexicons
1. Poetic literature
2. Metrical literature
3. Lexicons
4. Logic
5. Astrology
6. Mathematics
7. Medicine
8. Geography and Cosmology
9. Law
10. Drama
11. Arts and Crafts
The majority of books were religious literature, but there is also a secular literature, for instance the “King Gesar” epic was and remains very popular among lay people. Another author, a former monk, who was very critical of Tibetan religious institutions was Gendun Choepel, who wrote several books, poems, travelouges etc.
Here is some extracts from his writings:
On British colonialism, Calcutta 1941
Sponsored by kings and ministers the colonialists sent out a great army of bandits, calling them traders. They introduced new forms of living, but their laws were only good for the educated and wealthy. As for the poor, their small livelihoods are sucked like blood from all their offices. It is in this way that the so-called wonders of the world were built, such as railroads and high buildings. I am an astute beggar, who spent his life listening. I know what I’m talking about.
Poem, Tibet 1946
In Tibet, everything that is old
Is a work of Buddha
And everything that is new
Is a work of the Devil
This is the sad tradition of our country
Newpaper article, Tibet Mirror, Kalimpong, 1938
In olden days, even in Europe, the world was thought to be flat. And when some intelligent people claimed the opposite, they were exposed to various difficulties, such as being burnt alive. Today, even in Buddhist countries everybody knows, that the world is round. However in Tibet, we still stubbornly state that the world is flat.
Foreword of a Kamasutra translation, Calcutta 1939
As for me - I have little shame I love women. Every man has a woman. Every woman has a man. Both in their mind desire sexual union. What chance is the for clean behaviour? If natural passions are openly banned, unnatural passions will grow in secrecy. No law of religion - no law of morality can suppress the natural passion of mankind.
Childhood in Eastern Tibet (1903-1927)
Gendun Choephel was born in 1903 in a small village in eastern Tibet, near the silk road, at the Chinese border, in a remote region populated by nomads. This region was inhabited by Muslims, Chinese and Tibetans that were constantly fighting each other. The villages often were attacked and looted by warlords. In this explosive and mixed cultural climate Gendun Choephel started to be interested in his Tibetan identity early on. He received a traditional education as a monk in the most important monastery of the region, where he developed a friendship with an American missionary that the other monks and his family resented. In 1927 he left the monastery and moved to Lhasa with a caravan of merchants.
Monastery education in Lhasa (1927-34)
In Lhasa Gendun Choephel studied in Drepung, the biggest monastery in the world. His rebellious attempts to bypass the monastery’s rules annoyed the other monks. Ultimately, monastic life suffocated him too much in Lhasa as well and he left the monastery. Afterwards he survived as a portrait painter and artist for rich aristocrats in Lhasa. In 1934 he met Rahul Sankrityayan, an Indian researcher of Buddhist teachings who also was a communist activist for the Indian struggle for independence from British colonialists.
Journey across Tibet (1934-1938)
Rahul Sankrityayan and Gendun Choephel traveled together across Tibet searching for old texts that were destroyed in India centuries earlier but had survived in remote monasteries in Tibet. For Sankrityayan, historical research was part of his political fight; for him researching history was the key to the present. Gendun Choephel was Sankrityayan’s translator as well as his mediator for Tibetan culture. At the same time the fascinating stories about India awoke his curiosity.
Journey across India (1938-1946)
In India, Gendun Choephel was confronted with a foreign world. For the first time he saw a railway and other technological achievements. India was then undergoing radical changes and, contrary to Tibet, the Indians took their destiny into their own hands. The fight for independece was at its peak. Gendun Choephel’s view of his own culture started to change; in India he experienced the most creative phase of his life. He travelled across the country as a Buddhist pilgrim, lived in the crowded city of Calcutta, saw the ocean, visited brothels and libraries, wrote his first newspaper articles and translated the Kamasutra in Tibetan, enriching it with his own experiences. He sent many of his writings, notes and sketches back to Tibet in order to convey his impressions of a foreign world.
Return to Tibet (1946-51)
In 1946 Gendun Choephel returned to Tibet passing through the Indian-Tibetan border town of Kalimpong which, next to British and Chinese agents, was a nest of radical Tibetans who fell out of grace with Lhasa’s government. In 1939 they founded the Tibetan Revolutionary Party. Choephel got acquainted with the party and designed their logo: a sickle crossed by a sword. The Tibetan Revolutionary Party’s goal was to overthrow the tyrannical regime in Lhasa. When Gendun Choephel arrived in Lhasa the Tibetan government was already informed about his political activities. He began to write the political history of Tibet but this attempt was abruptly stopped by his arrest. He was accused of insurrection and thrown in jail for three years. In 1949 he was freed. But his heart was broken and he drowned his desperation in alcohol. Soon afterwards the Chinese army overran the Tibetan troops in eastern Tibet and, in 1951, shortly after the occupation of Lhasa by the Chinese army, Gendun Choephel died. Supposedly he commented on the political events of his era in this way: “Now we’re fucked!.”
September 8th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
@Allen - People are not robots pre-programmed with historical code that they obey on command, nor should criticism be withheld simply because of historical differences - nor is a judgement reached over years ‘jumping to conclusions’. Persecution simply due to religious belief or membership of religious organisations is not justified by the idea that some forms of religion are ’superstition’. Political and religious oppression are not a cultural ‘quirk’, but are part of the CCP’s mechanism of control. Intolerance amongst the general public for racist opinions and a bar on racial discrimination in law and in the workplace is not the same as arresting and imprisoning people simply for their religious beliefs and affiliations.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Allen,
“To each be each own.
We should learn to appreciate each other’s history more before judging each other. We should also definitely refrain from judging others based on our own history - which may have little to nothing to do with the others’ experience.”
Sounds like a good starting point for dialogue between Tibetans and Chinese.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:06 am
@Allen: Personally, I don’t think CCP’s anti-religious stance has anything to do with rooting out superstition in China. It is Marxism, pure and simple.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:08 am
skylight,
First, I want to thank you for all the information in # 71.
Now, no offense, but I am not sure what you are trying to prove to me. I believe you read Oli’s comment in which Oli made the observation : “……the centuries of misrule by a theocratic nobility that was primarily interested in maintaining an “ignorant” society in order to preserve its Buddhist theological monoploy and thus by extension, its political/social power, despite the preponderance of printing, books and learning in both next door imperial China and India.” and I think your information confirmed Oli’s observation.
If a society or country is dominated by religions, the country and people will be of no hope, they will live in poverty for ever. This was proved by European history. some countries in mideast are dominated by religion, imagine how poor Saudi Arabia and Kuwaitt would be without oil. What happened between 1949 and 1978 in China also proved that.
When a country is dominated by religion (with no culture other than the dominating religion), when religion dominates people’s daily lives religion becomes an effective tool for ruling elites to control people’s minds, ruling class rules the poor people in the name of religion, brainwash people to accept the misery in their life. In such case, religion is not culture, it is a tool.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:20 am
@Wahaha,
I am only beginning to explore (knowing I will probably never be able to completely comprehend) all the information given in #71.
But I am guessing some Tibetans would consider it important for us to acknowledge that there was a Tibetan voice separate from the Chinese voice (of China proper) long before the CCP existed… and to recognize that voice exist as we negotiate with the Dalai Lama …even as we firmly reject the possibility of an independent Tibet.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:23 am
To Wahaha:
do you have a secret crush on monks or something? Can you roll out of bed in the morning without obsessing about them for a few minutes?
Worry not, for at your current trajectory, you will never have my attention. BTW, how are the 1950’s working out for you?
September 9th, 2008 at 5:36 am
To Allen:
“CCP may be anti-religious as part of its campaign to rid of forces…holding China back” - even if one were to stipulate that such a position was once necessary (and that’s a huge stipulation), wouldn’t it be reasonable to re-evaluate as situations evolve? Shouldn’t policies be allowed to continue based on merit, rather than habit?
If China is already continually moving forward, as many here suggest, then how is religion holding her back?
September 9th, 2008 at 5:40 am
To Wahaha #64:
“You think Tibetans would be better under the rule of monks, show me what those monks have done for ordinary Tibetans.” - I’m not sure how many time this has to be spelled out for you, but if ordinary Tibetans prefer to be ruled by monks, who empowered you to dictate to them that they can’t have their wish?
September 9th, 2008 at 7:29 am
@S.K. Cheung
About superstition (religion being a subset) holding the country back: I had in mind especially the historical roots of CCP’s aversion to religion - rooted especially in the early to mid 20th century.
As for whether religion is holding society back today, I think it’s debatable. On the one hand, religion has definitely been suppressed as part of political suppression. So I can see how protecting freedom of religion is noble.
On the other, if you ever hear about creationist v. evolution debate in the U.S., or if you look to the Palestinian - Israeli conflict, or if you look at all the religious/ethnic driven conflicts in Africa, Eastern Europe, Kashmir, and Tibet (I suppose), etc. - I sometimes wonder if religion is really more a problem than a solution…
September 9th, 2008 at 9:44 am
@Allen - “I sometimes wonder if religion is really more a problem than a solution…”
So I guess that makes banning worship of any but a small set of government approved religions OK? Whilst we’re at it, which is holding China back more - religion, or the millions of work hours wasted in interminable meetings in which people who do not believe a word they are saying lecture their colleagues on subjects like “study Lei Feng”, “applying ‘the three represents’ to medicine”, “eight rights and eight wrongs”? Which wastes more money - religion, or the millions spent on government propaganda which is not believed or even listened to by anyone? Which is more stupid - a talented university student spending his or her time at the church or busy studying for their ‘politics’ course - a course which consists of memorising random historical facts and brain-dead political theory and which they must pass? Which is more of an act of ‘brainwashing’ - religious education of the young or the military drill and chanting of cadences which all university students must undergo? Whose superstition and nonsense is holding China back?
September 9th, 2008 at 11:56 am
@FOARP
I know what you are saying and agree most of them.
However I think “Lei Feng” need be studied.(his serving the people part. It was true or not is not important). I always laugh at ‘the three represents’.
Regarding the military drill and chanting from the students. They are just disipline training which is good for kids. One month of run/stand/walk/chant won’t change anyone’s mind. The Taiwannese company you worked for also dose the same thing for new staff I don’t think it has much to do with CCP.
regardless how bad or good these things are, they are not the counter argument of what Allen is wandering about religion.
BTW, I think Allen is a “Chiang bundist ” not a “communist bundist” .
September 9th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
@BMY - A friend of mine who is a party member and works at the 414 military hospital in Nanjing laughed at me when I asked her if she had to teach her colleagues about Lei Feng saying that it was ‘only for school children’ - then the week after she was asked to do just that! Those kind of stories are OK for primary school, but when you hear of doctors having to sit through such talk - given by people who do not even slightly believe in them - then things have gone a little bit too far.
My point was that the CCP objects to religion because it can create centres of power outside of their control, not out of an attempt to stamp down on ’superstition’ - the CCP actually has its own brand of superstition that it forces on people.
As for military drill - it is done in university for the same reason it is done in the army - to get people used to obeying without question. This is why Foxconn does it, and this is why the CCP does it, and I object in both cases.
I know that the KMT used to call communists ‘共匪’ (communist bandits), but what did the communists call the KMT?
September 9th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
@SKC,
“but if ordinary Tibetans prefer to be ruled by monks, who empowered you to dictate to them that they can’t have their wish?”
LOL, that is how you look at the situation in Tibet and China ?
Chinese wanted to be ruled by CCP in 1950s and 1960s, why do you cry about “Great Leap” ?
Why did you cry me a river about the political system in China ?
September 9th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I think the past practices of Tibetan Buddhism or Chinese Communist Party are only relevant to the extend that they inform on their current and future behaviors. From what Trapped, skylight and other Tibetans have said, they certainly wish that Buddhism will still be central to Tibetan culture and society. I believe the sentiment make the most sense since the Tibetan culture detached from Buddhism is nearly meaningless.
If that is true, then ultimately people need to examine the implications of that on various aspects of the Tibetan society, and more importantly on whether there will there be room on both sides to reach compromises.
One such area is education. From the Prof. Nima’s paper (links on the English reading list,) we can see that there are effort to implement bilingual education by Chinese government, though the results are decidedly mixed. Can monastery based education be used to compliment the public secular education? Can monasteries educate children who are not monks? Can Chinese government feel secure enough to source part of the education system to the hotbeds of the Tibetan independence sentiment? Seem to me the most sensible solution is to form monastery schools that concentrate on teaching Tibetan language, history, religion and traditional cultural practices in the form of extended Sunday Schools; while at the same time, mandate secular education for the same kids that concentrate on math, science, Chinese and foreign languages.
I agree with FOARP that Chinese government can tolerate any particular religion only to the extend that it does not form separate power center. When you strip away all the rhetorical facades, what’s left is this question. The Tibetan Buddhism played and is playing a large political role. Chinese government will comprise only if they can constrain it back into a the form of Buddhism that is practice in the rest of of China.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Since the topic of China and religion is being discussed, new readers may want to read another essay by Oli.
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2008/06/25/on-china-and-religion/
September 9th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
@wuming,
Even that could be a tall order. In an article in Asia times called Past presents problems for Tibet, it is argued that political reconciliation can come about only through a reconciliation on history. And the gulf between the view of history held by the CCP and that held by the Dalai Lama is currently very wide.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
@Allen
I personally think the fastest way to understand other people and their perception of history is to read autobiographies. Indeed, it is not neutral, but it doesn’t pretends to be neutral either, it just represents one persons views with all its faults. To me, these first-hand sources give me much more information than many historians who try to argue both sides of a story and end up it the land of neutrality and colorlessness.
I haven’t read many Chinese books and autobiographies, expect for Iris Chang and Jung Chang. Could you please recommend some other Chinese autobiographies or books (preferably in english)?
Here are some books (including several autobiographies) written by Tibetans:
1. Memories of Life in Lhasa under Chinese rule by Tubten Khetsun
2. A Poisoned Arrow: The Secret Report of the 10th Panchen Lama
3. In the service of his country: The Biography of Dasang Damdul Tsarong, Commander General of Tibet
4. The Dragon in the Land of Snows: A History of Modern Tibet Since 1947 by Tsering Shakya
5. Warriors of Tibet by Jamyang Norbu
6. Freedom in Exile: The Autobiography of The Dalai Lama
7. Tibet Notes by Woeser
8. Forbidden Memory: Tibet during the cultural revolution by Woeser
Several of these books are available free for download here:
http://gangjanba.googlepages.com/download
Woesers books can be bought here:
http://www.yesasia.com/global/wei-se/0-aid575374-0-bpt.47-en/list.html
Good reading!
@language education
As many others have mentioned earlier, I also think language education in Tibetan is very important. Here is an interesting white paper by the Tibetan Exile-Government which discuss language policy.
http://www.tibet.net/en/diir/pubs/edi/tib2007/chap-2.pdf
September 9th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
@Allen
“Even that could be a tall order. In an article in Asia times called ‘Past presents problems for Tibet’, it is argued that political reconciliation can come about only through a reconciliation on history. And the gulf between the view of history held by the CCP and that held by the Dalai Lama is currently very wide.”
I would somehow draw the opposite conclusion, namely that the political reconciliation can come about only through IGNORING history. Instead start with pure political positions, for example:
China could start with one of those “as long as …. then everything is on the table” stance often taken with Taiwan. Insist on that the rule of PRC is not to be challenged.
Tibetans could start with the insistence on much higher degree of autonomy, i.e. a form of the “One country, two systems” that lie somewhere between the current state and Hong Kong.
Of course that would require courage from both sides which I don’t thing they possess. On the Chinese side, they have to give up on the perceived strength of holding all the cards. While Tibetans have to give up the last card it thought to be holding — the support of the western government and the public opinion.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
To Wahaha:
I haven’t complained about 1950’s and 1960’s. Mao’s little experiment is the cross for people like you to bear. So I don’t cry about it; you might want to, however.
I’m certainly also not weeping about CHina’s political system. If that’s how they want to go, they can fly at’er. But I can complain all I want, and thankfully, where I live, ain’t nothing you can do about it.
However, if in your logic (and I’m using that term loosely), it’s okay for you to dictate to Tibetans, then you can’t get bent out of shape when people try to dictate to Chinese.
I’ve already toned down my ideas so people like you don’t have seizures. If it were up to me, it’s self-determination all the way…but I said all I had to say on that one months ago on one of Allen’s posts. But if ordinary Tibetans want to be ruled by monks, as I said, who are you to tell them no?
September 9th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
To Allen #80:
I have no use for religion whatsoever. But in keeping with my life philosophy, if someone chooses it, that’s their prerogative.
Similarly, if a return of religion might hold back Tibetan progress, (and again, many here have suggested they haven’t made much progress to begin with, in the absence of religion, so I’m not sure how much more held back they would be in its presence) but they choose it anyway, then they live with that decision. But it would be nice if it was a decision for them to make.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
“But if ordinary Tibetans want to be ruled by monks, as I said, who are you to tell them no?”
My answer : Monroe doctrine.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
@SKC,
Yeh … I remember that: it seems like just yesterday.
I still have a lot of problems with self-determination. As we left off, we understood that self-determination is a collective right - not an individual right. And as such, you can never have complete self determination because as in any groups, there will necessarily be a minority that have to bend to the will of the majority. In practice, that means that even if the DL were to form his nation, there will be groups within him that object to his rule (atheists, other factions within the Tibetan religious order, non-buddhists, different sub-ethnicities speaking various dialects of Tibetan, Han Chinese, Uighur Chinese, Mongolian Chinese, etc.) - do they all get their independent little nations?
My main problem with self determination as applied by many in the West is that if you are going to tear apart the Chinese nation, why ignore the will of the “Chinese People”? If you persist in defining a Tibetan people as a separate people, aren’t you guilty of making your mind up regarding the issue of self-determination before applying the so-called principles of self determination? Even worse, aren’t you guilty of presuming that the natural order of nation states must be split along ethnic-religious lines (a principle I strongly reject)?
I’ll be straight: I think the principle of self determination is a relic of the West’s attempt to cleanse itself from the legacy of colonialism. The concept - created to address previous ethno-religious grievances caused by colonialism - will in the 21st century actually cause more bloodshed in its single-minded focus on identity politics rather than good governance.
The concept really holds little relevance to China - except to the extent that China is still living in the shadows of Western history…
Those were my issues with self determination when I wrote my post (my first here) in May. In time, we’ll get a second chance at arguing over these again … but I just want to get the above off my chest because I think people are too enamored with a principle that is really more a geopolitical tool than a working principle.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
@FOARP #83
Thanks for correcting my wrong spelling.
The communists used to call KMT “Chiang bandits(蒋匪）“ or just “KMT bandits (国民党匪徒)“
September 10th, 2008 at 12:14 am
“I think the principle of self determination is a relic of the West’s attempt to cleanse itself from the legacy of colonialism.”
What about the principle of state sovereignty? Also created by the West, and these days perhaps as unrealistic as anything else. Why should countries have independence at all? What is indepence anyway?
What I want to say with this is that if you question one concept, go further. Question all the “Western” concepts China use.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:29 am
@Wukailong,
Good point.
But I view there to be a fundamental difference between self determination and state sovereignty. Whereas self determination is defined as a “right” (in a normative fashion) of a “people”, state sovereignty is more predefined high-brow “etiquette” between nations - an established protocol in the dealing between nations - to reduce potential tensions and disputes between existing power centers.
We all know absolute sovereignty does not exist (especially in today’s global world). Even in the past before today’s global order, stronger nations routinely meddle and interfere in the internal affairs of weaker nations. But the concept of sovereignty does define boundaries by which countries are supposed to obey - in the spirit of mutual respect.
As far as I am concerned: sovereignty is simply a facet of global governance. As time changes and as the world changes, we may have more or less national sovereignty. But with that said, I also strongly believe that sovereignty is a tremendously useful and helpful feature of the current global governance system - a feature that can greatly reduce the risks of mistakes, misunderstandings, and wars.
And War is the last thing that China wants…
September 10th, 2008 at 12:29 am
“What I want to say with this is that if you question one concept, go further. Question all the “Western” concepts China use.”
I think that will be a very reasonable pose for us to assume. We take too many concepts for granted without really understand its meaning and implications. That certainly should includes those concepts that China is using to defend itself.
One of the problems with American political system is precisely that people, including its political elite taking its founding principles for granted. In a healthy political system, these principles should have been constantly re-examined and adjusted.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:36 am
@wuming: “One of the problems with American political system is precisely that people, including its political elite taking its founding principles for granted. In a healthy political system, these principles should have been constantly re-examined and adjusted.”
That’s what worries me too. There is debate going on in the West about the political system, but it is too little and mostly done in academic circles. There’s no reason it should stop there, since the end of history is not in sight.
Another problem is of course whether big countries have more of an “inertia” to change? It’s easier to imagine a smaller country changing their system than a country like US or China. Perhaps this is just psychological, or because power groups in large countries make it more resilient to change and experiment?
@Allen: I agree completely with you, and I hope I didn’t sound too provocative (which wasn’t the intention). In a sense, I too think that self-determination is somewhat of an ad hoc solution when there are conflicts and tensions in an area. For countries the size of China, some sort of federalism might be the best solution; in fact, it’s already in place with Hongkong and Macau.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:16 am
To Wahaha #92:
say what? An objection to colonialism allows you to dictate to Tibetans? Who’s colonizing who? Intervention aimed at economic stabilization allows you to tell Tibetans who they can and cannot follow? You have got to be kidding me!
Of course, it hasn’t yet ceased to amaze me that people would pull out American principles to (at least try to) justify Chinese government actions. For if the Chinese government wants to test drive a presidential doctrine, then they should take the presidential elections concept out for a spin too.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:41 am
To Allen #93:
as we both said, we’ve kicked around “self-determination” pretty good. But I don’t remember it like yesterday, so i can’t recall exactly what was and wasn’t said back then. In so saying, some of your current points seem like fresh ones to me; but if my response is redundant, please forgive me.
“means that even if the DL were to form his nation, there will be groups within him that object to his ruleR