I’ve been waiting for the article below to be published before reproducing it here with permission from the writer Barry Sautman, Associate Professor of social science at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. A slightly shorter version appeared in Monday’s edition of the Straits Times.
Protests in Tibet and Separatism: the Olympics and Beyond
Barry SautmanRecent protests in Lhasa and other Tibetan areas were organized to embarrass the Chinese government ahead of the Olympics. The Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC), the major Tibetan exile organization that advocates independence for Tibet and has endorsed using violent methods to achieve it, has said as much. Its head, Tsewang Rigzin, stated in a March 15 interview with the Chicago Tribune that since it is likely that Chinese authorities would suppress protests in Tibet, “With the spotlight on them with the Olympics, we want to test them. We want them to show their true colors. That’s why we’re pushing this.” At the June, 2007 Conference for an Independent Tibet organized in India by “Friends of Tibet,” speakers pointed out that the Olympics present a unique opportunity for protests in Tibet. In January, 2008, exiles in India launched a “Tibetan People’s Uprising Movement” to “act in the spirit” of the violent 1959 uprising against Chinese government authority and focus on the Olympics.
Several groups of Tibetans were likely involved in the protests in Lhasa, including in the burning and looting of non-Tibetan businesses and attacks against Han and Hui (Muslim Chinese) migrants to Tibet. The large monasteries have long been centers of separatism, a stance cultivated by the TYC and other exile entities, many of which are financed by the US State Department or the US Congress’ National Endowment for Democracy. Monks are self-selected to be especially devoted to the Dalai Lama. However much he may characterize his own position as seeking only greater autonomy for Tibet, monks know he is unwilling to declare that Tibet is an inalienable part of China, an act China demands of him as a precondition to formal negotiations. Because the exile regime eschews a separation of politics and religion, many monks deem adherence to the Dalai Lama’s stance of non-recognition of the Chinese government’s legitimacy in Tibet to be a religious obligation.
Reports on the violence have underscored that Tibetan merchants competing with Han and Hui are especially antagonistic to the presence of non-Tibetans. Alongside monks, Tibetan merchants were the mainstay of protests in Lhasa in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This time around, many Han and Hui-owned shops were torched. Many of those involved in arson, looting, and ethnic-based beatings are also likely to have been unemployed young men. Towns have experienced much rural-to-urban migration of Tibetans with few skills needed for urban employment. Videos from Lhasa showed the vast majority of rioters were males in their teens or twenties.
The recent actions in Tibetan areas differ from the broad-based demonstrations of “people power” movements in several parts of the world in the last few decades. They hardly show the overwhelming Tibetan anti-Chinese consensus portrayed in the international media. The highest media estimate of Tibetans who participated in protests is 20,000 — by Steve Chao, the Beijing Bureau Chief of Canadian Television News, i.e. one of every 300 Tibetans. Compare that to the 1986 protests against the Marcos dictatorship by about three million — one out of every 19 Filipinos.
Tibetans have legitimate grievances about not being sufficiently helped to compete for jobs and in business with migrants to Tibet. There is also job discrimination by Han migrants in favor of family members and people from their native places. The gaps in education and living standards between Tibetans and Han are substantial and too slow in narrowing. The grievances have long existed, but protests and rioting took place this year because the Olympics make it opportune for separatists to advance their agenda. Indeed, there was a radical disconnect between Tibetan socio-economic grievances and the slogans raised in the protests, such as “Complete Independence for Tibet” and “May the exiles and Tibetans inside Tibet be reunited,” slogans that not coincidentally replicate those raised by pro-independence Tibetan exiles.
While separatists will not succeed in detaching Tibet from China by rioting, they believe that China will eventually collapse, like the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and they seek to establish their claim to rule before that happens. Alternatively, they think that the United States may intervene, as it has elsewhere, to foster the breakaway of regions in countries to which the US is antagonistic, e.g. Kosovo and southern Sudan. The Chinese government also fears such eventualities, however unlikely they are to come to pass. It accordingly acts to suppress separatism, an action that comports with its rights under international law.
Separatists know they can count on the automatic sympathy of Western politicians and media, who view China as a strategic economic and political competitor. Western elites have thus widely condemned China for suppressing riots that these elites would never allow to go unsuppressed in their own countries. They demand that China be restrained in its response; yet, during the Los Angeles uprising or riots of 1992 — which spread to a score of other major cities — President George H.W. Bush stated when he sent in thousands of soldiers, that “There can be no excuse for the murder, arson, theft or vandalism that have terrorized the people of Los Angeles . . . Let me assure you that I will use whatever force is necessary to restore order.” Neither Western politicians nor mainstream media attacked him on this score, while neither Western leaders nor the Dalai Lama have criticized those Tibetans who recently engaged in ethnic-based attacks and arson.
Western elites give the Chinese government no recognition for significant improvements in the lives of Tibetans as a result of subsidies from the China’s central government and provinces, improvements that the Dalai Lama has himself admitted. Western politicians and media also consistently credit the Dalai Lama’s charge that “cultural genocide” is underway in Tibet, even though the exiles and their supporters offer no credible evidence of the evisceration of Tibetan language use, religious practice or art. In fact, more than 90% of Tibetans speak Tibetan as their mother tongue. Tibet has about 150,000 monks and nuns, the highest concentration of full-time “clergy” in the Buddhist world. Western scholars of Tibetan literature and art forms have attested that it is flourishing.
Ethnic contradictions in Tibet arise from the demography, economy and politics of the Tibetan areas. Separatists and their supporters claim that Han Chinese have been “flooding” into Tibet, “swamping” Tibetans demographically. In fact, between the national censuses of 1990 and 2000 (which count everyone who has lived in an area for six months or more), the percentage of Tibetans in the Tibetan areas as a whole increased somewhat and Han were about one-fifth of the population. A preliminary analysis of the 2005 mini-census shows that from 2000-2005 there was a small increase in the proportion of Han in the central-western parts of Tibet (the Tibet Autonomous Region or TAR) and little change in eastern Tibet. Pro-independence forces want the Tibetan areas cleansed of Han (as happened in 1912 and 1949); the Dalai Lama has said he will accept a three-to-one Tibetan to non-Tibet population ratio, but he consistently misrepresents the present situation as one of a Han majority. Given his status as not merely the top Tibetan Buddhist religious leader, but as an emanation of Buddha, most Tibetans credit whatever he says on this or other topics.
The Tibetan countryside, where three-fourths of the population lives, has very few non-Tibetans. The vast majority of Han migrants to Tibetan towns are poor or near-poor. They are not personally subsidized by the state; although like urban Tibetans, they are indirectly subsidized by infrastructure development that favors the towns. Some 85% of Han who migrate to Tibet to establish businesses fail; they generally leave within two to three years. Those who survive economically offer competition to local Tibetan business people, but a comprehensive study in Lhasa has shown that non-Tibetans have pioneered small and medium enterprise sectors that some Tibetans have later entered and made use of their local knowledge to prosper.
Tibetans are not simply an underclass; there is a substantial Tibetan middle class, based in government service, tourism, commerce, and small-scale manufacturing/ transportation. There are also many unemployed or under-employed Tibetans, but almost no unemployed or underemployed Han because those who cannot find work leave. Many Han migrants have racist attitudes toward Tibetans, mostly notions that Tibetans are lazy, dirty, and obsessed with religion. Many Tibetans reciprocate with representations of Han as rich, money-obsessed and conspiring to exploit Tibetans. Long-resident urban Tibetans absorb aspects of Han culture in much the same way that ethnic minorities do with ethnic majority cultures the world over. Tibetans are not however being forcibly “Sincized.” Most Tibetans speak little or no Chinese. They begin to learn it in the higher primary grades and, in many Tibetan areas, must study in it if they go on to secondary education. Chinese, however, is one of the two most important languages in the world and considerable advantages accrue to those who learn it, just as they do to non-native English speakers.
The Tibetan exiles argue that religious practice is sharply restricted in Tibetan areas. The Chinese government has the right under international law to regulate religious institutions to prevent them from being used as vehicles for separatism and the control of religion is in fact mostly a function of the state’s (overly-developed) concern about separatism and secondarily about how the hyper-development of religious institutions counteracts “development” among ethnic Tibetans. Certain state policies do infringe on freedom of religion; for example, the forbidding, in the TAR (Tibet Autonomous Region), of state employees and university students to participate in religious rites. The lesser degree of control over religion in the eastern Tibetan areas beyond the TAR– at least before the events of March, 2008 — indicate however that the Chinese government calibrates its control according to the perceived degree of separatist sentiment in the monasteries.
The Dalai Lama’s regime was of course itself a theocracy that closely regulated the monasteries, including the politics, hierarchy and number of monks. The exile authorities today circumscribe by fiat those religious practices they oppose, such as the propitiation of a “deity” known as Dorje Shugden. The cult of the Dalai Lama, which is even stronger among monks than it is among Hollywood stars, nevertheless mandates acceptance of his claim that restrictions on religious management and practice in Tibet arise solely from the Chinese state’s supposed anti-religious animus. Similarly, the cult requires the conviction that the Dalai Lama is a pacifist, even though he has explicitly or implicitly endorsed all wars waged by the US.
The Dalai Lama is a Tibetan ethnic nationalist whose worldview is — in US terms — both liberal and conservative. He and many of his foreign supporters have a pronounced affinity for conservative politicians, such as Bush, Thatcher, Lee Teng-hui and Ishihara Shintaro, but they can get along well with liberals like US Speaker Nancy Pelosi, because they are virulently anti-communist and anti-China.
The Dalai Lama is far from being a supporter of oppressed peoples. For example, in 2002, when he visited Australia, the Dalai Lama, upon arriving in Melbourne, noted “he had flown over ‘a large empty area’ of Australia that could house millions of people from other densely populated continents.” The area is, of course, not wholly empty, as it contains Aborigines. To them, the Dalai Lama proffered the advice that “black people ‘should appreciate what white people have brought to this country, its development.’” (R. Callick, “Dalai Lama Treads Fine Line,” Australian Financial Review, May 22, 2002).
The development of the “market economy” has had much the same effect in Tibetan areas as in the rest of China, i.e. increased exploitation, exacerbated income and wealth differentials, and rampant corruption. The degree to which this involves an “ethnic division of labor” that disadvantages Tibetans is however exaggerated by separatists in order to foster ethnic antagonism. For example, Tibet is not the poorest area of China, as is often claimed. It is better off than several other ethnic minority areas and even than some Han areas, in large measure due to heavy government subsidies. Rural Tibetans as well receive more state subsidies than other minorities. The exile leaders employ hyperbole not only in terms of the degree of empirical difference, but also concerning the more fundamental ethnic relationship in Tibet: in contrast to, say, Israel/Palestine, Tibetans have the same rights as Han, they enjoy certain preferential economic and social policies, and about half the top party leaders in the TAR have been ethnic Tibetans.
Tibet has none of the indicia of a colony or occupied territory and thus has no relationship to self-determination, a concept that in recent decades has often been misused, especially by the US, to foster the breakup of states and consequent emiseration of their populations. A settlement between the Chinese government and Tibetan exile elites is a pre-condition for the mitigation of Tibetan grievances because absent a settlement, ethnic politics will continue to subsume every issue in Tibet, as it does for example, in Taiwan and Kosovo, where ethnic binaries are constructed by “ethnic political entrepreneurs,” who seek to outbid each other for support.
The protests in Tibet had no progressive aspect. Many who participated in the ethnic murders, beatings and arsons in Lhasa were poor rural migrants to the city, but the slogans there and elsewhere in Tibet almost all concerned independence or the Dalai Lama. There have been many movements the world over in which marginalized people have taken a reactionary and often racist road, for example, al-Qaeda or much of the base of the Nazis. The riots in Tibet also have done nothing to advance discussions of a political settlement between the Chinese government and exiles, yet a settlement is necessary for the substantial mitigation of Tibetan grievances. For Tibetan pro-independence forces, a setback to such efforts may have been their very purpose in fostering the riots. Tibetan pro-independence forces, like separatists everywhere, seek to counter any view of the world that is not ethnic-based and to thwart all efforts to resolve ethnic contradictions, in order to boost the mobilization needed to sustain their ethnic nationalist projects. They have claimed that China will soon collapse and the US will thereafter increase its patronage of a Tibetan state elite, to the benefit of ordinary Tibetans. One only has to look round the world at the many humanitarian catastrophes that have resulted from such thinking to project what consequences are likely to follow for ordinary Tibetans if the separatist fantasy were fulfilled.
156 Comments
An excellent article. Objective and informative. Kudos!!
Strong argumentation. I could pick at a couple of points, but the key isn’t in the detail here. The key is: Tibetan people (in general) regard themselves as a natural group, defined by their ethnicity and religion. A very large number of those Tibetans regard Chinese rule over Tibet as unjustified and tyrannical.
I’m sure the author has a point when he says that Tibetans’ human rights are comparable to those enjoyed by the Han (for what that’s worth), and that the economy is developing; perhaps compared to other separatist groups, the Tibetans are not particularly badly treated.
But in saying this, the author completely ignores the Tibetans’ *political rights*. Politically, the position of (as I understand it) the vast majority of Tibetans is clear: they want the DL in charge. But they are denied any opportunity to express this political desire.
And quite what this guy means when he says China has the “right to suppress separatism” I don’t know. International law is weak, and where it allows states to “suppress” their own citizens, it’s wrong. International law is important, but it’s not a good basis for morality.
I had similar thoughts in another forum :
http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/posts/3796540.shtml
This is a very weak article, full of half-truths and innuendos. “Tibetans have the same rights as Han” and there are equal amount of Tibetan and Han leaders in TAR? Do Tibetans have the right to higher education in their native tongue? No. And why has every party secretary in TAR except one been Han Chinese since 1951? More later. “Tibet has none of the indicia of a colony or occupied territory and thus has no relationship to self-determination” Really? What about this: prior to 1951, Tibet has never been subject to Han Chinese rule. Today, Han Chinese dominate every aspect of Tibet’s politics, economy and administration. Chinese is the language in which things gets done. If that’s colonial, what’s is colonial?
To Amban,
If there is no higher education in tibetan native tongue, is there anyone stopping tibetans from setting up one? Tibetans are quick to put blame on others for their own failure to help themselves.
Bonkers. All you have to do is ask “What settlement is China offering?” and “Why, given their total control, has China failed to win over the Tibetan people given their extensive control?” and all the other arguments - less arguments, actually, than a random assortment of facts, suppositions, prejudices, dubious claims and unexamined comparisons - fall apart.
Richard,
China may have extensive control but that’s not total control. That’s why the monasteries and remote areas remain main breeding grounds for dissent.
I can forgive my Chinese friends for their unwavering faith in the Party line on Tibet - for 3 generations they have been told what to think on the subject and access to alternative viewpoints is blocked. However I am assuming “Barry” is not Chinese and has chosen to write this nonsense for personal advancement. Maybe he’ll now be invited on CCTV9’s wonderfully balanced Dialogue program to explain his insights: “So Barry, please explain to the audience why the DL is in essence a Nazi……….”
“If there is no higher education in tibetan native tongue, is there anyone stopping tibetans from setting up one?”
You bet there is. Anything that matters in Tibet is done in Chinese, which disadvantages Tibetans and favors Han Chinese. Not long ago, there were protests among Tibetans students against a decision to only award 2 out 100 advertised government jobs to Tibetans. One of the major required qualifications for these jobs was proficiency in Chinese. I wonder what Prof. Sautman has to say about that.
Don’t get me wrong, proficiency in Chinese is a useful skill, just as knowledge in English. But this is a one way street as far as Tibetans are concerned. Could you mention a single major party boss in Tibet who has been able to speak Tibetan? Does Hu Jintao speak Tibetan?
Amban,
In regards to rights, you need to clearly define this. For example, find me the law that guarantees the right to have higher education in people’s native tongue? Do people in Fujian have this ‘right’? For me, it’s more of a convenience as opposed to a right. However, it wouldn’t be bad if it did happen but ultimately, for their future’s sake, they need to learn Mandarin and perhaps English to succeed in this global economy. Also, I don’t really see anything wrong with the practice of needing to know Mandarin as a requirement for the government jobs. First and foremost, it’s a government job :-) In America, you won’t find us hiring people who didn’t know English.
This practice happens everywhere in China, which is not necessarily a bad thing because it unifies communication. In Guangdong, people speak Cantonese but everything governmental is spoken in Mandarin. This also alludes to another thing, Han people all speak their own dialects, indistinguishable from the next. In your post you use ‘Chinese’ as if it’s one language, or that’s my impression.
“What about this: prior to 1951, Tibet has never been subject to Han Chinese rule.”
Hehehe, I like this statement. However, you are splitting hairs when you talk exclusively about Han rule, which is a race, not a type of government. Here is a quick fly by of Chinese ‘rule’ for those who are not familiar: Yuan was de facto, Ming was de jure, Qing was de facto, ROC was de jure but to be fair, with an exception of a few provinces in China, most of the land the ROC claimed was under the control of local ‘warlords’. As you can see, this issue is VERY complex.
Dan, it is condesending and patronising attitudes like yours (forgive my Chinese friends?) that shows your true colours.
And no Barry is not Chinese if you bothered to look at his surname and where he works he has no desire or need to suck up to the Chinese government.
It is interesting that you have provided absolutely 0 counter viewpoints to this article yet dismiss it with empty contempt and at best humorous rhetoric.
And no where in the above article did the author ever link DL to Nazis…you have removed your tin foil hat right?
@Philly
Whatever you want to call it, prior to 1951 Tibetan was the language of society, culture and government in Tibet. Today that is not the fact and no one has asked the Tibetans what they think about that. Perhaps that doesn’t matter to you, but then I don’t really know on what basis we can continue any discussion.
“And quite what this guy means when he says China has the “right to suppress separatism” I don’t know. International law is weak, and where it allows states to “suppress” their own citizens, it’s wrong. International law is important, but it’s not a good basis for morality”
Is this the same international law being applied to help the Palestinians achieve statehood? Or help Macedonia secede from Greece? Or supporting Quebec’s right to hold referendums to leave Canada? Kosovo anyone?
Oh, but every MNC and second rate company in the world is up to its armpits in China, so everyone marches to the beat of big commie.
JRB:”Many who participated in the ethnic murders, beatings and arsons in Lhasa were poor rural migrants to the city, but the slogans there and elsewhere in Tibet almost all concerned independence or the Dalai Lama. There have been many movements the world over in which marginalized people have taken a reactionary and often racist road, for example, al-Qaeda or much of the base of the Nazis.” The intention is clearly to smear the Tibetans by equating their actions to those of the Nazis.
Re: “Forgiveness” - how else should one react when confronted by the hatred manufactured against the DL, Chen SB, the Japanese? If I had been reared in the Chinese education system and relied on the Chinese media for my understanding of the world I would most certainly feel the same way. Forgiveness is difficult, but appropriate.
Re: Counter viewpoints, sadly no time for a full rebutal so lets just take one line “Tibet has none of the indicia of a colony or occupied territory” ?! - a militarily weak ethnic group living in a geographically distinct region with a seperate written and spoken language, history, architecture, culture, religion, food, dress, customs - conquered and then controlled by a militarily stronger group of outsiders who differ from them on all the above. Do you think Tibetans would vote for this state of affairs? I suspect not - people want their rulers to at the very least speak to them in their own language.
Of course Tibet is a colony. The question is can Tibetan culture survive the colonisation? The key is language - as long as the settlers from outside have no requirement/incentive to educate their children in Tibetan, I see little hope. On present policies they will be heading the way of most card-carrying ethnic Manchus/Mongols/// etc I meet in China - unable to speak/read a word of Manchurian/Mongolian///etc - culturally indistinguishable from their peers.
Is this a bad thing? Yes I think it is. The world is a small enough place without eradicating the remaining linguistic and cultural diversity we have.
An interesting article, however it is lacking in terms of references and footnotes, which in turn makes many of the points difficult to swallow for a non-expert.
proficiency in Chinese is a useful skill, just as knowledge in English. But this is a one way street as far as Tibetans are concerned.
What a ridicuoulse statement. Every single country in the world has to have a lingua franca. You need English in India to get ahead. Maori and Aborigines also need English to get ahead in their respective countries. So do Native Americans in the US and Canada. The fact is the Chinese government has fostered Tibetan language education to the extent that many Tibetans now lack Mandarin skills to be able to get ahead.
there is a two-track school system in Tibet, with one track using standard Chinese and the other teaching in the Tibetan language. Students can choose which system to attend. (The same dual system is used in Xinjiang and other provinces with large non-Han populations.) One negative side effect of this policy, which is designed to protect and maintain minority cultures, has been reinforcement of a segregated society. Under this separate educational system, those graduating from schools taught in languages other than standard Chinese are at a disadvantage in competing for jobs in government and business, which require good spoken Chinese. These graduates must take remedial language instruction before attending universities and colleges. US State Department. http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/bureaus/eap/950907WiedemannTibet.html
The Chinese are damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
There is not ONE country in the world which does more to preserve minority cultures than China. Dual education systems for Uighurs, Tibetans, MOngolians and other minorities, enforced bilingualism. What is the US and Canadian record with respect to the indigenous peoples. Far far worse than the Chinese.
White people: get out of Canada, America, Australia and New Zealand before you condemn China for Tibet.
Tibet is an inalienable part of China. China has more right to Tibet than whites have to be in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. This is absolutely indisputable. Anyone who thinks otherwise - provide your justify your point of view.
Han Chinese are about 10 to 20% of population of Tibet, and westerners call that genocide. What then is 3% Native Americans, 2% aboriginal Australians then called?
Even the US has long accepted Tibet to be part of China - even well before the 1950 liberation:
The United States considers the Tibet Autonomous Region or TAR (hereinafter referred to as “Tibet”) as part of the People’s Republic of China. This longstanding policy is consistent with the view of the entire international community, including all China’s neighbors: no country recognizes Tibet as a sovereign state. Moreover, U.S. acceptance of China’s claim of sovereignty over Tibet predates the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. In 1942, we told the Nationalist Chinese government then headquartered in Chongqing (Chungking) that we had “at no time raised (a) question” over Chinese claims to Tibet.
US State Department. http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/bureaus/eap/950907WiedemannTibet.html
Is this a bad thing? Yes I think it is. The world is a small enough place without eradicating the remaining linguistic and cultural diversity we have.
Dan where do you come from. If it is the US, how much have you done to help preserve Native American customs, culture and language?
Yes thanks Mongol Warrior - there are parallels with the cultural genocide inflicted on the New Worlds by European colonizers. That’s the point. Let’s do what we can in our own life times in the part of the world where we are both living (I assume?) to stop it happening again.
The children of migrants to Tibet and Xinjiang should be taught the native languages and a level of fluency should be a requirement for government positions. Only then will the languages have a chance of surviving.
Check out the Swiss model - some food for thought in how they deal with linguistic diversity.
Channel your anger in the right direction. You seem to have over-dosed on “patriotic education” at some stage and are stuck in a nationalistic intellectual rut. Calm down, and think things through from first principles.
Amban,
I disagree with your assertion that Tibetan is no longer the language of Tibetan culture and society. I have a family member who went to Tibet for a pilgrimage and what she said is that the Tibetan language is still king.
Because of the education system, some are bi-lingual in mandarin but there is no doubt Tibetan is the dominate language. Bare in mind, more Tibetans speak and write Tibetan in absolute and relative terms than every before.
And this leads to my other point. I believe preservation of culture is important. However, preservation of culture in the guise of keeping a culture homogeneous is not a good thing, it’s racist.
I hear the Tibetan argument about “cultural intrusion” all the time, but it’s not from Tibetans, it’s from White people telling Blacks and Mexicans to “go home”. And yes, they use the euphemism “cultural preservation” all the time. However, because the pleas are levied against “big bad old communist china”, our biases start to kick in.
Regarding the “higher education” in Tibet. I guess not many people here know that the vocabulary for math, physics, and all other modern science in Tibetan almost does not exist. So all the higher educations related to natural science have to be performed in Chinese and English. There are, however, Buddhism colleges in China, led by Tibetan Lamas.
Prior to 1951, Monks with higher ranks were the only people who could receive education in Tibet. Even for those people, 99% of what were taught was Buddhism and the rest 1% some basic math and handwriting.
Yes thanks Mongol Warrior - there are parallels with the cultural genocide inflicted on the New Worlds by European colonizers. That’s the point. Let’s do what we can in our own life times in the part of the world where we are both living (I assume?) to stop it happening again.
The children of migrants to Tibet and Xinjiang should be taught the native languages and a level of fluency should be a requirement for government positions. Only then will the languages have a chance of surviving.
What model of multilingualism to follow is a legitimate question. On the one extreme, you have the uncompromising monolingualism of US, UK, Australia. Move a little bit over and you have the symbolic/bureaucratic bilingualism of Anglophone Canada. Move a little further and you have the mother-tongue as second language education of Singapore. Move further over and you have something like the multi-track bilingualism found in TAR. Move over more and you have the mix bag of community-based multilingualism of Belgium and Switzerland. At the extreme is probably Quebec.
This is perfectly fine for debate.
What I don’t understand is why China’s policy is seen as so out of place among the countries of the world — unless, of course, you believe Tibetans really ought to be monolingual in Tibetan and all the Chinese influences should be, shall we say, cleansed.
Amban: Does American Indians have the right to higher education in their native tongue? What about native Hawaiians?
There are a few universities I could name that have programs in Tibetan language. However, I doubt that every ethnicity in China has a university program that’s in their language.
I don’t think Hu speaks Tibetan. Currently two of the top 5 ‘party bosses’ in Tibet are ethnic Tibetans.
It’s always fun to read in the alternative fantasy worlds of China apologists. This is really wonderful article, absolutely amusing — definitely gives Gregory Clark a run for his money! — (1) claims China has the “right” to kill people in occupied Tibet (2) hacks on the Dalai Lama in particularly crude ways — the imputation of racism is especially delightful, there simply to provoke, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the rightness of Tibetan independence (even if every Tibetan was a frothing Nazi it would not make Chinese occupation of Tibet ethical or legal) and (3) adopts the language and stance of the colonialist government in Beijing. I especially love the idiotic comparison between the Los Angeles riots and the Tibetan ones. A brilliant farrago of empty emotional strokes.
As a human being, it always appalls me to see a fellow human being serving authoritarianism. I understand why people want to be authoritarians, and I understand why people want to fight them, but I will never understand the kind of cringing, servile mind that places itself at the beck and call of authoritarians. That sort of personality is a total mystery to me.
Michael
@Mongol Warrior
The difference between what the Europeans and Americans did and what the Chinese did and still do is that the West STOPPED and is actively making amends. Meanwhile China is continuing a pattern of cultural and ethnic cleansing that began thousands of years ago…look what happened to the various nations that are now Hunan, Guangdong, Shanghai, Anhui and Yunan.
And China keeps doing it!
What a bad, bad, ugly country.
Nanheyangrouchuan,
“The difference between what the Europeans and Americans did and what the Chinese did and still do is that the West STOPPED and is actively making amends.”
U mean what NATO and USA are now doing to the Kosovon Serbians and denying them of their human rights and forcibly and illegally annexing Kosovo from Serbia as ACTIVELY MAKING AMENDS to their past history of interference and aggression?
Yours is a very mischievious mind!
nanheyangrouchuan:
You are an idiot. Yes the West more or less stopped (internally at least) AFTER they had already made the aborigines, the Maoris, native Americans, Innuit complete minorities in their own lands (2 or 3%). AFTER whites have already stolen the best lands. AFTER whites have already enriched themselves on colored peoples wealth.
Very easy to do. Like a burglar giving you a cup of coffee after he has already stolen most of the items in your house and has you tied up.
The English colonialists only 50 years ago slaughtered about 250,000 innocent Kenyan civilians in an attempt to maintain white rule in Kenya. What about the French in Indochina, French atrocities in Algeria, Americans killing 2million Vietnamese civilians, Americans killing about 500,000 Iraqi children through sanctions and then causing another 500,000 deaths since 2003.
As for “Hunan, Guangdong, Shanghai, Anhui and Yunan” - you know what? Anyone could say the same about the Prussians (the original ones), the Celts, the Welsh, the Saxons - all of whom were absorbed by other racially similar groups. No Saxon descendant today has a grudge about William the Conqueror.
nanheyangrouchuan: you are a low iq dimwit. Get yourself a course in critical thinking
Michael Turton:
Just answer this one question. If the Chinese minority should leave Tibet, to avoid swamping the majority Tibetans, should not white Americans such as yourself get back to the Europe of your forefathers to avoid even further swamping of the only 2 to 3% Native Americans remaining?
Similarly for Australians and NEw Zealanders and Canadians?
Answer me this one simple question.
I don’t think Hu speaks Tibetan. Currently two of the top 5 ‘party bosses’ in Tibet are ethnic Tibetans
Did Chris Patten speak Cantonese during his time in Hong Kong? Does George Bush speak Cherokee? Does Stephen Harper speak Innuit?
Does Helen Clark speak Maori?
You anti-China people are fucking so low IQ it is great - each of your arguments are so easy to just whack out of the park. But that is because you have no valid arguments. You are all pathetic asiaphile losers who can’t get white women.
Oh great. That troll Michael Turton is here to cry about his imaginary apologist enemies.
mongol warrior - us losers may not be able to get white women, but at least we can get chinese women. you can’t get either. (I wondered how long it would take an irrational Chinese nationalist to reveal the true reason for his anger against westerners - can’t get the chicks! what a laugh.
ps. try, just try, to answer one single argument raised in this thread without recourse to the sins of the west. just try and answer one single argument on its own merits, without falling on the biggest cop out of them all: “yes, we may be bad but not as bad as you.”
Most people on here would not dream of trying to defend the US and native americans, Australia and aborigines, etc, etc, so it is a straw man argument. By presenting such an argument, you are in fact equating China and Tibet with the cultural genocides of the west, thus arguing in favour of the very point you are trying to refute. so not only can you not get any women, you present arguments against yourself. hardly the characteristics of a mongol warrior eh?
stick that in your next crack pipe and smoke it.
“You are all pathetic asiaphile losers who can’t get white women.” - Mongol(oid) Warrior
I love reasoned, intellectual discourse like this.
Keep it up, MW, along with your completely “apples and oranges”
(bologna and ‘dim son’ is more like it) argument equating the history of native American oppression with today’s Tibet.
Aside from my carping about Mongoloid Warrior, I think the only major area where this article falls a bit short is where no attempt is made to refute the obvious lies being spun by the Chinese media regarding the so-called “Dalai clique” and attendant ingrained nonesense parroted by average Chinese regarding Tibetans.
I am a foreigner working at China Daily and it has been hard to keep from laughing when I hear otherwise intelligent and educated Chinese coworkers spouting nonesense like “The Dalai Lama requires two human skins on his birthday” and the paper prints equally unchallenged, unsubstantiated tripe such as “3.5 TONS (emphasis mine) of explosives discovered in in a Dalai Clique monastary,” and “suicide bombers” as well as citing a single “confession” by an unnamed “separatist” to back up these ridiculous claims.
Much of the western media have indeed over-simplified and emotionalized many aspects of this situation, however I have yet to see any reasoned analysis of China’s official and desperate flights of fantasy and conspiracy.
Barry is on the Chinese payroll, the amount of mispresantation is amazing. Too long and useless to point at them, but everyone can well informe himself to check the blatant lies.
I just touch 1 point, Tibetan language is a very sofisticated unique language, it has unique caracters and even more than one caracters that are used in accordance with the purpose. It has also a vast literature.
Now are you all aware that in Tibet from primary education to high school Tibetan language is not a subject of study? Only at university level it becomes an optional subject. The basic vehicle of “people” is language, the hearth to preserve one s own culture, you forbid education of one s own language and automatically you kill the culture and so the people.
That s why in Tibet we are assisting to a cultural genocide.
@Michael Turton
what’s really amusing is china hators like you in this thread. they came here had no points to offer except some silly rhetoric overheard from hollywood moives, no facts to present because they have never come into a thousand miles within tibet or even china, and no self-consciousness whatsover! all they’ve got to say is : I hate commies ur brainwahsed and I pity you.
That sort of personality is truely pathetic to me.
@Piero
Now are you all aware that in Tibet from primary education to high school Tibetan language is not a subject of study?
No I m not aware of that, it’s simply not true. the only “touch” you made is either a mistake or a lie
there is a two-track school system in Tibet, with one track using standard Chinese and the other teaching in the Tibetan language. Students can choose which system to attend. (The same dual system is used in Xinjiang and other provinces with large non-Han populations.) One negative side effect of this policy, which is designed to protect and maintain minority cultures, has been reinforcement of a segregated society. Under this separate educational system, those graduating from schools taught in languages other than standard Chinese are at a disadvantage in competing for jobs in government and business, which require good spoken Chinese. These graduates must take remedial language instruction before attending universities and colleges. US State Department. http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/bureaus/eap/950907WiedemannTibet.html
bunch of useless argument~~lame~~
yep,China rules over tibet ,soooooooo what??
wanna change it?just have a try~~loser~~
China can veto all the UN resolution and that’s may not the “worst” :
“东风31”and”巨浪2“ r still waiting 4 u ~~
^_^
#
Most people on here would not dream of trying to defend the US and native americans, Australia and aborigines, etc, etc, so it is a straw man argument. By presenting such an argument, you are in fact equating China and Tibet with the cultural genocides of the west, thus arguing in favour of the very point you are trying to refute.
tommydickfingers: you have just revealed yourself to be a complete fool.
Firstly a strawman argument is where one creates a misrepresentation of the views of the opposition and then proceeds to attack that misprepresentation. This is commonly the tactic used by fundamentalist Christians who create a parody of the theory of evolution, debunk that parody and then crow about ‘disproving’ evolution.
My argument against morons like yourself has absolutely nothing to do with strawman arguments. I have presented evidence proving that China’s treatment of Tibetans is about one million times better than white America’s treatment of Native Americans. While of course it does not logically follow that China’s treatment of Tibetans is moral, it completely supports my view that whites have no moral authority to beat the Chinese up over Tibet.
tommydickfingers: If you jumped queue at the movies (something that is not quite moral), would you accept sermonizing on your queue-jumping from a convicted child molester?
Should an occassional cannabis smoker accept a heroin drug lord pontificating about the evil of drugs?
Get it now, Mr Low IQ TommyDickFingers?
As for the status of Tibet, every single country in the entire world recognizes Tibet to be a part of China. Even during the nadir of China’s relations with the West, there was no attempt in the UN to declare Tibet an independent country.
The US recognized Tibet to be a part of China BEFORE the 1950 liberation.
Even the government on Taiwan has long recognized Tibet to be a part of China.
stick that in your next crack pipe and smoke it
@ Mongol Warrior:
Rhetoric is interesting. Rhetoric is where “strawman” fallacies come from, as well as ad hominem attacks. As far as rhetorical logic is concerned, it is a mistake to judge a message by they messenger. So a heroin drug pontificating about the evils of drug use to the pot head may seem ironic or even ridiculous, but his message is no less “right” or “wrong.”
For most people, however, and in accordance with what is widely considered “reasonable,” the messenger does affect the message. Reputation, legitimacy, credibility all lend towards this idea of “moral authority.”
I think you’ve brought up a lot of great points, and I’m not taking any sides in this, but I do think you’re geting a little cocky in your style of argumentation…to the point where you’re making unnecessary mistakes that ultimately weaken your credibility. In doing so, you’re exemplifying the very argument you’ve just advanced: that its ridiculous to listen to someone who you consider to be a bigger ass than yourself.
Pardon the above spelling mistakes (”they” instead of “the”) and other errors (missing “lord”).
So a heroin drug pontificating about the evils of drug use to the pot head may seem ironic or even ridiculous, but his message is no less “right” or “wrong.”
Kai, you are of course right here. But the pot-head would also be right to point out the hypocrisy of the heroin drug lord, especially if the advice was provided in a self-righteous morally superior fashion.
Ninety nine percent of whites who criticize China over Tibet do not have the real interests of Tibetans or Han at heart. They want to weaken China by using the Tibetans. This is just a continuation of something that they have been trying to do since 1840.
But of course genuine dialogue on human rights matters with genuine people should be welcomed - but only a a bsis of mutual respect and equality.
I actually believe the message (ie Tibet should be independent) to be wrong. But this is not what angers me. What angers me is the sheer breathtaking arrogance, self-righteousness and contempt for Asian people in general displayed by most Westerners.
Furthermore, most issues are not truly black or white. What is acceptable or not acceptable is adjudged by reference to historical precedents and the current behaviour of other countries and what they can get away with. Morality is relative, not an absolute concept - especially in regard to international affairs. So if it can be argued that if the US hangs onto New Mexico, Texas and Califorinia, whites continue to rule Australia, New Zealand and Canada, then the Chinese are right to ask why they are being singled out over Tibet. This of course would not mean that some Tibetans do not have some legitimate gripes about Chinese rule. But the issue of the national rights and interests of China would and should override the feelings of a few bitter Tibetans. And I say few because 95percent of the Tibetan people have benefited vastly from Chinese rule and do not support the Dalai Lama, and in fact they are themselves Chinese and full citizens of the PRC. Judging the feelings of Tibetans towards China by the histrionics of a few exiles is like gauging the popularity of Fidel Castro among Miami Cubans and calling the results representative of the feelings of all Cubans.
I would be willing to bet my last dollar that the vast majority of Tibetans want to remain with China and do not want to see a return to the brutal theocracy that ruled prior to 1950.
Of course the other sickening thing is that while these whites feel they are morally superior to their genocidal ancestors; this of course is such an easy thing to do AFTER the crime has been done, the loot spirited away, and the victim rendered completely incapacitated. There is no chance that these whites will deed their property to the descendants of the local Indian or aboriginal tribe which use to inhabit the area upon which they now squat. Not even a chance that these whites will start sharing some of the world’s resources on a more equitable basis with Africans and Asians.
All very well to condemn the actions of your ancestors and feel smug and good about it. But it means absolutely nothing while you still benefit from inherited stolen loot, inherited stolen land, and benefit from a world capitalist system created in the heyday of imperialism which is designed to keep the poor poor and the rich rich.
yes to those who only think history starts in the 1950’s perhaps should scroll back and read how “peaceful and loving, Tibet is prior to the the 1950’s. Of course its peaceful no slaves were allowed to challenge the all mighty monks, 5 % or less live lavishly and the remainders live in Hellish conditions. Torture were a daily activity, slaves were pretty much born slaves they are freely traded or punished or killed, etc etc. Of course those peaceful loving monks brainwashed these people to believe it is their god given duty to born this way and its because they did something bad and evil in their past life thats why dserve it am i not correct?
Of course when ask about the Feudal system in Tibet, your HH, its a feudal system unlike the European there was love in it and not to mention “i was thinking about changing it but the Chinese disrupted me.”
and no violence those Tibetans are all peace loving monks? You sure? I thought the CIA funded a program to train Tibetans fighters? oo but of course those with “high morality” will claim they have the right to, and totally ignore what they claim that there were no violence in tibet what so ever.
To Dan, please don’t feel sorry for the Chinese. I feel terribly sorry for you being educated by Hollywood manufactured history. For your information i grew up in HK, Singapore and in Toronto. Most of the history i get in HK school’s is…” the opium war is not really the British faults”.
@ Mongol Warrior:
Right, which is why I stated that the messenger matters most of the time in the real world, even if it doesn’t in Rhetoric 101.
I think your comment that begins with “99% of whites” is a hyperbole that doesn’t really contribute positively to the problem. Then again, I’m so sick of the idiocy from both sides that I really don’t want to care. This is a train wreck I have difficulty prying my eyes away from. I’m a masochist.
“Both sides are idiots” case in point: The self-righteous arrogance and contempt of West versus East. You’re right, this phenomenon exists and, however inavoidable–even understandable–it is, it is demoralizing. That said, many Chinese (with regards to this issue) people aren’t exactly handling this with superior savvy.
Allow me to point to the recent article featuring a Chinese person’s encounters with a German (http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20080403_1.htm). It doesn’t take a lot of general awareness of this issue and critical thinking skills to instantly gag at how incredibly STUPID both sides are, both in behavior and in thought. Both sides are guilty for precisely what they accuse the other of and their inability to see that fundamental hypocrisy only contributes to not only their argument but also their negative perceptions of each other. It is a tragic spiraling descent into hyperbole, generalizations, and self-righteous contempt.
I’m really tired. I fear I may have written so much above just because I like listening to the sound of my own voice.
With regards to your general argument about hypocritical double-standards of Western nations and their occupation of land that did not belong to them at some point in history, I will say this: Just as you believe in moral relativity, it is no less right or wrong for Tibetans to seek autonomy/independence than it is for the Chinese to maintain control. It is, further, no less right or wrong for anyone else in the world to have one opinion or another against or in support of Tibet or China. In this world, all that matters is the means to serve one’s own self-interests. Rhetoric and arguments and debates, then, are just means.
I will, however, nitpick some of your statements to just keep you going:
This of course would not mean that some Tibetans do not have some legitimate gripes about Chinese rule. But the issue of the national rights and interests of China would and should override the feelings of a few bitter Tibetans.
You are, of course, drawing arbitrary lines and defining a framework of discourse that benefits your opinion here. What are “national rights and interests?” What about the interests of the even those few Tibetans? What about the interests of foreign countries that would prefer an independent Tibet or a weaker, humiliated China? Again, with moral relativism, nothing is right or wrong here. You’d be wise to invoke sovereignty here to support these “national rights and interests,” but the concept of sovereignty itself is an arbitrary line in the sand.
And I say few because 95percent of the Tibetan people have benefited vastly from Chinese rule and do not support the Dalai Lama, and in fact they are themselves Chinese and full citizens of the PRC.
First of all, I’m not sure you can legitimately say 95% of the Tibetans don’t support the Dalai Lama. If you want to go down that route, then you’d be in contradiction with what other people say, and getting to the bottom of it would require opinion surveys and crap. Let’s not overlook the fact that I don’t think the Tibetans have much of a choice in being of “Chinese” nationality and “full citizens of the PRC. It isn’t as if these things are “opt-in” programs and the Tibetans said “yeah, that’s cool, I’m signing up for that.” So, saying these things is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. At best, you’re only invoking the semblance of support.
I would be willing to bet my last dollar that the vast majority of Tibetans want to remain with China and do not want to see a return to the brutal theocracy that ruled prior to 1950.
I’ll refrain from pointing out all of your logic fallacies by name. Doing so would be fun, but I would be being unfairly mean to you when I don’t necessarily disagree with you in spirit. But the reason I highlight this sentence is because it is a bit ridiculous to be suggesting that choosing to not remain with China automatically means a return to pre-1950s theocracy and all that other fun stuff like
@ Mongol Warrior:
Right, which is why I stated that the messenger matters most of the time in the real world, even if it doesn’t in Rhetoric 101.
I think your comment that begins with “99% of whites” is a hyperbole that doesn’t really contribute positively to the problem. Then again, I’m so sick of the idiocy from both sides that I really don’t want to care. This is a train wreck I have difficulty prying my eyes away from. I’m a masochist.
“Both sides are idiots” case in point: The self-righteous arrogance and contempt of West versus East. You’re right, this phenomenon exists and, however inavoidable–even understandable–it is, it is demoralizing. That said, many Chinese (with regards to this issue) people aren’t exactly handling this with superior savvy.
Allow me to point to the recent article featuring a Chinese person’s encounters with a German (http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20080403_1.htm). It doesn’t take a lot of general awareness of this issue and critical thinking skills to instantly gag at how incredibly STUPID both sides are, both in behavior and in thought. Both sides are guilty for precisely what they accuse the other of and their inability to see that fundamental hypocrisy only contributes to not only their argument but also their negative perceptions of each other. It is a tragic spiraling descent into hyperbole, generalizations, and self-righteous contempt.
I’m really tired. I fear I may have written so much above just because I like listening to the sound of my own voice.
With regards to your general argument about hypocritical double-standards of Western nations and their occupation of land that did not belong to them at some point in history, I will say this: Just as you believe in moral relativity, it is no less right or wrong for Tibetans to seek autonomy/independence than it is for the Chinese to maintain control. It is, further, no less right or wrong for anyone else in the world to have one opinion or another against or in support of Tibet or China. In this world, all that matters is the means to serve one’s own self-interests. Rhetoric and arguments and debates, then, are just means.
I will, however, nitpick some of your statements to just keep you going:
This of course would not mean that some Tibetans do not have some legitimate gripes about Chinese rule. But the issue of the national rights and interests of China would and should override the feelings of a few bitter Tibetans.
You are, of course, drawing arbitrary lines and defining a framework of discourse that benefits your opinion here. What are “national rights and interests?” What about the interests of the even those few Tibetans? What about the interests of foreign countries that would prefer an independent Tibet or a weaker, humiliated China? Again, with moral relativism, nothing is right or wrong here. You’d be wise to invoke sovereignty here to support these “national rights and interests,” but the concept of sovereignty itself is an arbitrary line in the sand.
And I say few because 95percent of the Tibetan people have benefited vastly from Chinese rule and do not support the Dalai Lama, and in fact they are themselves Chinese and full citizens of the PRC.
First of all, I’m not sure you can legitimately say 95% of the Tibetans don’t support the Dalai Lama. If you want to go down that route, then you’d be in contradiction with what other people say, and getting to the bottom of it would require opinion surveys and crap. Let’s not overlook the fact that I don’t think the Tibetans have much of a choice in being of “Chinese” nationality and “full citizens of the PRC. It isn’t as if these things are “opt-in” programs and the Tibetans said “yeah, that’s cool, I’m signing up for that.” So, saying these things is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. At best, you’re only invoking the semblance of support.
I would be willing to bet my last dollar that the vast majority of Tibetans want to remain with China and do not want to see a return to the brutal theocracy that ruled prior to 1950.
I’ll refrain from pointing out all of your logic fallacies by name. Doing so would be fun, but I would be being unfairly mean to you when I don’t necessarily disagree with you in spirit. But the reason I highlight this sentence is because it is a bit ridiculous to be suggesting that choosing to not remain with China automatically means a return to pre-1950s theocracy and all that other fun stuff like sub-35 year average lifespans. C’mon, let’s try not to scare the children here.
“…a world capitalist system created in the heyday of imperialism which is designed to keep the poor poor and the rich rich.”
Yeah, well, suggest something better then.
You’re getting a little hysterical here. You’ve gone from Tibet to raging against capitalism in general. Now, who ISN’T guilty of capitalistic self-interest in this world?
One thing I forgot to mention above was whether you lean towards absolute rights or towards utilitarianism, and how that’s going to affect your conception of what is right or wrong.
I’m giving you a hard time again, and that’s unfair, because I probably think you’re a pretty cool person. Fact is, I could really poke holes in most of the comments/arguments above in general. Doing so only reaffirms my destructive penchant and the fact that it is often far easier to destroy than create. It is easier to point out how both sides are wrong, but infinitely harder to help both sides arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. Forgive me, I’m not much help with the latter.
Oh, and all this Whites vs. Asians stuff, it really isn’t any better than Tibetan on Han/Hui/Chinese violence.
Tibetan on Han…hm…
smear the Tibetans
Once again, you show your paternalistic colors by automatically attributing ethnic violence and a desire for a pure race free from “Han contamination” to all Tibetans.
It goes hand in hand with your inept use of the term “Han” and is a perfect example of the indoctrination you’re supposedly free from in your country.
@nanhe
“what the Chinese did and still do is that the West STOPPED and is actively making amends.”
No, the difference is China has NEVER singled the Tibetans out for genocide (the CR and GLF was tragedy for everyone) of any kind. They have been dumping billions into the development of Tibet. This would be like the U.S giving $20,000 to every American/Alaskan Native every single year.
Hypocrisy and sloganeering might work in some places, but it isn’t working here.
try, just try, to answer one single argument raised in this thread without recourse to the sins of the west.
Here let me do it for you so your stupidity doesn’t give him an aneurysm.
Look, the world is arranged neatly in various cross-aligned geopolitic blocs of varying size and power. This is a lesson the “Western world” taught to everyone with their exploitation and butchery of not only other civilizations but of eachother.
One side is gorged with blood money and has 1,000+ nuclear ICBMs pointed at China. In a broad sense, the general “Western/European” bloc dominates something like 65% of the world’s land mass after they more or less deracinated these areas, 30-40% of the world’s wealth, and is on a constant campaign of economic/cultural/genetic/religious aggression cohesively or in a disorganized way.
The fact that the colonization of Tibet can hardly be compared to the genocide and continued destruction of Aborigine/Maori/Alaska Native/Hawaiian/Siberian/Native American peoples through negligence or just as a side-effect of “Westernization” is another key argument contra yours.
In essence your stance is ripped straight from the pages of BS fairy tales and you resort to feel-good pandering to further your geopolitical stance without regard to the views and opinions of true Tibetans.
A form of censorship and authoritarianism by all means.
Aside from my carping about Mongoloid Warrior
Curiously enough the term Mongolism was coined when the West, in its ever tolerant and objective way, diagnosed the occurrence of mental retardation to the “superior Caucasoid” “regressing” into “Mongoloid” states. The word Mongoloid itself is an archaic term steeped in racial pseudoscience that attempts to lump a huge mass of humanity together by measure of their physical closeness to a stereotypical phenotype.
I think that’s pretty applicable to the topic at least.
parroted by average Chinese regarding Tibetans.
Conveniently enough, it’s the exact opposite of the utterly retarded view of Tibetans Westerners have; i.e the “racially pure” monks who pray all day and are incapable of violence.
I hear otherwise intelligent and educated Chinese coworkers spouting nonesense
Well, I’m sure if you dropped your pro-European indoctrination you’d find a whole lot of things in life humorous. Like the portrayal of ethnic pogroms as freedom fighting.
@Ferin
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=11899
So what would you say to a non-white citizen of a post-colonial country advocating Tibetan independence? Are they just pawns of the Whites and Japanese?
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=11899
So what would you say to a non-white citizen of a post-colonial country advocating Tibetan independence? Are they just pawns of the Whites and Japanese?
He has a horse in the race, you know. Baichung Bhutia is from Sikkim and ethnographically Tibetan, went to a state-run “Tibetan school” that, ironically, taught only in English. I wonder why he didn’t complain about the cultural genocide of India which invaded Sikkim in the 70s. What say you, Lime?
You know, it’s fine for anybody to criticize anybody else. The criticism may even be perfectly valid regardless of the messenger. Even the Chinese government has had a few periods of self-criticism on Tibet. That is normal.
What isn’t normal is for certain groups of people who obviously have no interest in Tibetan welfare to propose half-hearted so-called solutions to the problem. Why do I say they obviously have no interest in Tibetan welfare? That is where the messenger’s credibility comes into play. If they had any sense of genuine moral urgency in the solutions they propose for Tibetans (e.g. language and cultural preservation), they would have been and still would be doing that in their own countries.
Yes! let’s have state-sponsored native-language universities in your country. Today. Let’s! Why not? Oh… yes… now we start to consider the implications of that. When you start to think about your own problems instead of those of others, then you are forced to evaluate the problem honestly. Which is the whole point: No one should listen to your bitching about Tibet until you are ready to evaluate the problem honestly like it’s your own problem.
cultural genocide like how may i ask those who claim this is happening?
Pre 1950’s the literacy rates of the Tibetan is what? 2%, and now? A dozen times more and many of them can write both Tibetan and Chinese and even some english? So is letting English in Tibet a part of Cultural Geocide in Tibet? What a ridiculous claim. Yes i am sorry the Chinese decided to built school and force those tibetan children to attend school in the first place when there wasn’t any schools for average Tibetan before the the “evil Chinese” marched in. How ironic those who claim cultural genocide are the ones that “never” even bother educating the average Tibetans and treated them as nothing but slaves and tools. Those who are accused of Cultural Genocide are “building” schools how dare they make it “compulsory” for Tibetan children to attend school like every other parts of China. Its funny to see how many claim the “evidence” is that you need to know Chinese if you want to excel. Well many can’t even attend University in HK if they can’t read and write English, and many can’t even find a decent job if we are not bilingual. Am I complaining about it? Well the British like to glorify it as West and East Mixed together, so its ok I suppose because the British say so right? Maybe the Chinese should learn from the Brits when it comes to PR. Come up with a hip line like the Tibetans mixed with Han. oo wait but thats cultural genocide, well someone better send a letter to UN and accuse Britain of causing cultural genocide in HK as well then. Since knowing english is also a compulsory in getting a Job under the British Colonial Government. There proof of British committing cultural Genocide on the Chinese in HK.
Considering the fact that most tourist to Tibet are Chinese for starters (oo right cultural genocide) why wouldn’t it makes sense for the locals who want to get a better job to know Chinese in the first place? If I only speak Chinese and not a word of English i will end up most likley never being able to have my own desk at a office of even a being a counter sales.
Again many Tibetans speaks English, is that not cultural genocide then? If those Tibetans can speak Tibetan, Chinese and English i am sure they will be better paid than someone who can only speak Tibetan and Chinese? Is that not fair?
Hell the last time i heard there are Tibetans that can speak French and German as well, I am sure they are even better paid.
What is cultural genocide that so many of you claim China is guilty off? If it is Cultural Genocide wouldn’t be don’t built school, and don’t let them study Tibetan instead of encouraging them to study? If you are referring the the Cultural Revoloution or the Great Leap Backward, “its not design specifically” to target the Tibetans for your information, and actually because of Mao’s stupidity many Chinese culture has been destroyed more severely than the Tibetans. I can say that Taiwanese and Hong Kong people are sometimes more Chinese than people who grew up in the Mainland.
So tell me what Cultural Genocide? Are the Chinese suppose to bare Tibetans from TV’s, computers, electricity, clean water, etc? If we do, I wonder what those who accuse of Cultural Genocide will say? Suppression on “Modernization” of Tibet?
So what should we do, the enlightened ones? Bomb all the roads, electricity, water system? Should we tear down the Schools and hospitals, but leave some for the all mighty monks only? Than destroy all the infrastructure that were built post 1960’s?
IMO to solve this problem the Chinese government needs to do more to stop the discrimination of Hans against locals. I don’t think the government is a discriminatory act for asking to know Chinese, but being able to visit XinJiang 2 years ago, I believe a Local Uighur put it out perfectly.
“Chinese only hire Chinese” notably their own family members (the root of Chinese wide spread corruption again, not only limited to Tibet) than is the people from the same village, town, province than its race…
I got to say i am not even shock to hear it, this is like a really big part of Chinese culture, its only sad that Cultural Revolution never brought an end to these practices, but instead it even got more wide spread how sad.
Sometimes I wonder are these protest really pro independence, incited, etc? Can we look at things more simply and that is discrimination is “actually” happening from the Hans who prefer to hire family, cousins, etc over qualifications? Wouldn’t this simple matter be the main cause that these riots got so wide spread? Even if it was incited by the Dalai Lama, in the end why so easily incited, is it really because they are ungrateful, religious reasons? or simply because they want to “work” but you are more willing to hire your lazy ass cousin, because he is family instead? These aren’t just problem in Tibet, its a problem for the whole of China.
In the end i only believe that people want to make a living and when they can’t they will turn to other things for support not financially but mentally.
I’ve thought about the language issue brought up by Bchung above. Expanding on his theme, imagine that English is the language of the state, either officially or de facto as in India, such that it is necessary to know it to get a job in Tibet (taking the place of Mandarin).
Would any of you still complain? What’s your first gut feeling, honestly?
Of course you wouldn’t complain. It was never about the preservation of Tibetan culture, but always about being anti-Chinese.
@Nimrod
I’m honestly not sure what Baichung Bhutia would say about the Angloication of India. I intended my question more generally, what you would say to any non-white post-colonial, he was just the first example I found. But I thought of a better question; what would Ferin, or Mongol Warrior, or whoever else say to a Tibetan advocating Tibetan independence?
I’ll leave the ‘cultural genocide’ question to someone else, as I don’t like the term and think that it trivialises real genocide, whatever Raphael Lemkin may say, and ‘cultural genocide’ has never been one of my objections to the PRC occupation of Tibet anyway.
What would we say to a Mexican calling for California independence, or for the unification of Texas with Mexico?
What would we say to a Seminole for independent Florida, a Cherokee for independent Oklahoma, or in general, a native American for their free America?
These example aside, what did you say to the Serbs living in current Croatia or Bosnia or Kosovo calling for autonomy/independence in their own area? Just so you know, Kosovo was actually where the Serbs originated, as far as I can tell.
@Tarinxxx
“U mean what NATO and USA are now doing to the Kosovon Serbians and denying them of their human rights and forcibly and illegally annexing Kosovo from Serbia as ACTIVELY MAKING AMENDS to their past history of interference and aggression?”
This is also to protect the muslim population in Kosovo from ethnic cleansing by Serbia.
@ Mongol Warrior
China has been doing much worse to the world and even more to Chinese people for thousands of years and is still nothing more than a third world toilet nation. The west capitalized from its bad behavior and now makes amends with humanitarian organizations, immigration, grants, free technology, education, etc.
China is killing hundreds of thousands in Sudan, Zimbabwe, central Asia, millions of northern Koreans have starved to death, over 1 million executed in Laos, 50 million Chinese who starved to death or later purged, millions of dead Tibetans and Uyghurs and China is still poor, smelly and ugly.
@ferin:
“No, the difference is China has NEVER singled the Tibetans out for genocide (the CR and GLF was tragedy for everyone) of any kind. They have been dumping billions into the development of Tibet. This would be like the U.S giving $20,000 to every American/Alaskan Native every single year.”
Oh, so moving hordes of ethnic Han into Tibet, killing and imprisoning Tibetans and driving the rest out of Tibet by denying them any shot at real economic opportunities isn’t genocide?
The only people who have received Beijing’s “Tibet investments” have been the CCP bosses that run Tibet as the money goes into CCP organs and state owned banks.
Unlike the tens of millions that the US gov’t pays out to Native American tribes, directly to the tribal governments.
BTW, tribal gov’ts now have equal standing with states in federal law, just check out EPA regulations.
@PMW
I would say win the governorship of Texas/California/Oklahoma/Florida, and put it a referendum. I don’t know much about the political breakdown of the new Kosovan state, but the essence of what I would say would be the same. That’s just me though. I’m asking *you*.
“This is also to protect the muslim population in Kosovo from ethnic cleansing by Serbia.”
Right. Serbs, accounting for less than 8% of the population in Kosovo, just might commit ethnic cleansing against the 90%+ Kosovo Albanians.
This is pretty much in line with the 7% ethnic Hans in Tibet as evidence of China’s ethnic cleansing of Tibetans.
Lime,
The question I am gonna ask back is, if the CCP does kill most of the Tibetans, or if it does flood Tibet with ethnic Hans such that Hans become the dominant majority in Tibet, several generations down, can the descendants of the Hans in Tibet say the same thing to the remaining Tibetans about winning the governorship and put it into a referendum? Of course, these Hans I’m sure will condemn the hell out of the atrocities of their ancestors. Would you give the same answer? Whatever your answer might be, I think I’ll be pretty comfortable handing it back to you regarding the questions you asked.
By the way, as far as I can remember, US federal system has an anti-secession law that forbids state independence. So your referendum proposal will amount to zilch even if 80% of Florida residents are Seminoles. We have seen precedence of the federal government using force against secession, right?
@PMV
“The question I am gonna ask back is, if the CCP does kill most of the Tibetans, or if it does flood Tibet with ethnic Hans such that Hans become the dominant majority in Tibet, several generations down, can the descendants of the Hans in Tibet say the same thing to the remaining Tibetans about winning the governorship and put it into a referendum?”
I would say absolutely, but unfortunately that would be a debate happening generations into the future. The problem with the PRC occupation of Tibet now isn’t ‘cultural genocide’. It’s the lack of it. Despite all the running water, Chinese education, etc. etc., the PRC has failed to convince what seems to be the majority of Tibetans that they should happily assimilate, and it also hasn’t managed to flood them into minority status yet. If it can and does do this, then it’s a whole other ball game. I don’t know how the PRC would accomplish a ‘flooding’ of Tibet, though. The place doesn’t seem to be exactly a land of opportunity. Short of the government creating some huge artificial economic incentive in Tibet, making it even more of a white elephant, why would large numbers of Chinese ever want to move there? As far as analogies go I think colonial Africa is much more appropriate than the American West.
But again, we’re not talking about America or Africa 100 years ago, or Tibet 100 years in the future. What would you say to a Tibetan today if he posted on this thread saying he wanted freedom for his ‘nation’?
As for my referendum proposal, the Civil War and the anti-secession laws both date back more than a century ago, and laws can change. Whether they would or not is another matter, but you were asking me and not the United States government of the future, so that would still be what I see as the best solution.
nanheyangrouchuan wrote:
BTW, tribal gov’ts now have equal standing with states in federal law, just check out EPA regulations.
Well, if it makes you feel better, maybe China should change its current policy, carve out a few dinky reservations in the desert around Lhasa, and force march the Tibetans into them. They can enjoy their equal tribal statuses there. That’s actually so much easier to implement than all this ethnic harmony and integration stuff. Good?
Lime, if you aren’t willing to talk about neither the reactionary past nor the grandiose future, then why not stick to the reality of the present? Today, Tibet is but a region of China, so it is much more fruitful to think about solutions within this context instead of arguing over an economically unsustainable and politically intractable independence, or the return to some expanded Greater Tibetan protectorate as is Dalai Lama’s plan. Let’s not be out of touch. As the original commentary by Sautman alludes, China is mostly concerned about separatist and anti-Chinese teachings of Tibetan madrasas driven by external propaganda from the exiled government in India, and policy is calibrated to that threat. Why not remove that threat.
Lime,
“I would say absolutely, but unfortunately that would be a debate happening generations into the future.”
The real misfortune would be if there would be such a debate in the future when the Tibetans does become minority in Tibet, by force. And if the CCP is half as evil as what Daramsala makes them out to be, they might just do that given your rationale.
“The problem with the PRC occupation of Tibet now isn’t ‘cultural genocide’….. why would large numbers of Chinese ever want to move there? ”
This is where you kinda lost me, Lime. Why do you not buy the argument of Dalai’s government-in-exile that Tibetans are already a minority in Tibet, that CCP already killed millions of Tibetans, that the Hans have already started cleansing Tibetans out of Tibet and successfully doing so, that the CCP has destroyed Tibetan culture? On the other hand, why do you buy their argument that the majority of Tibetans want an independent Tibet that bad?
“What would you say to a Tibetan today if he posted on this thread saying he wanted freedom for his ‘nation’?”
I say [edited for language] to him if he happens to one of the
Lime, (cut off by the system)
“What would you say to a Tibetan today if he posted on this thread saying he wanted freedom for his ‘nation’?”
I say [edited for language] to him if he happens to one of the
Lime, (maybe it’s telling me to watch my language)
“What would you say to a Tibetan today if he posted on this thread saying he wanted freedom for his ‘nation’?”
I say [edited for language] to him if he happens to one of the
Lime, (wrong guess)
“What would you say to a Tibetan today if he posted on this thread saying he wanted freedom for his ‘nation’?”
I say [edited for language] to him if he happens to one of the less than 3% Tibetans that live outside of Tibet. I say more power to him if he actually lives in Tibet or anywhere else in China, as long as they don’t resort to violence.
“As for my referendum proposal, the Civil War and the anti-secession laws both date back more than a century ago, and laws can change.”
Fact of the matter is, the law is still there and hasn’t changed. And as soon as any splittist movement materializes, the US government is legally bound to crack it down. Plus, I don’t share your optimism about this law being changed, for the convenience of any secession. Can we take the Canadian government as an example? As soon as the Quebec independence referendum results shifted dangerously close to favoring secession (a nearly 20% lead against secession shrank to less than 1.2% within 15 years), the Clarity Act was installed to stipulate that any future referendum without a ‘clear majority’ would not be recognized.
As far as what you see as the best solution, even the western governments don’t give much of a hoot if it is to be applied to themselves.
@Nimrod
If you’re unwilling to consider Tibetan independence, then the solutions are limited. Basically you have three that I can see, flood them (‘cultural genocide’), kill them, or just continue to keep enough soldiers there to keep under control. The former is definitely the one I would feel most comfortable with, though I have doubts that it’s realistic.
As for the anti-China propaganda in the monasteries and schools, I do have a proposal for you. The state needs to further infiltrate the monastic orders. My idea is this; it’s my understanding that the CCP’s mock Panchen Lama is dismissed by the government in exile, but revered to a limited extent by many of the ground level people. Send him back to Tibet, put him in situations where it’s likely Gyatsoista extremists will have an opportunity to assassinate him. When it happens, use monk-government agents to fan outrage against the assassins, while selecting a new mock Panchen in the most authentic seeming way possible. This hopefully will have the effect of creating a schism, with one side pulling strongly for the new mock Panchen who will continue to be a puppet for the state. Support this faction in its struggle for power within the monasteries and reward it when it succeeds.
That said, I think the continued occupation of Tibet is a really dopey idea. Tibet his a huge drain on the state’s budget, and whatever natural resource potential it may have can just as easily be developed by Chinese capitalists in an independent Tibet. This isn’t a game of Red Alert. The strategic security reasons Mao had for originally occupying the territory were very justified at the time, but as the cold war has past and everyone has nuclear weapons anyways, these arguments are null. India is not going to be launching an invasion anytime soon.
I don’t know what you mean by economically unsustainable. I’m willing to concede that an independent Tibet would be a poorer place, at least initially, than it was under the PRC’s rule, but you’ll notice that Bhutan and Nepal are managing to scratch out a living. You might suggest that it’s morally right to keep supporting these poor Tibetan, but as it’s against their will, this is the same as the White Man’s burden argument. The stupid savages must be saved from themselves. And if that’s your only justification, it certainly opens the door to further imperialism doesn’t it?
As for the ‘politically intractable’, it’s obviously not within Tibet; they even have the government they want ready and waiting, so the only way it’s intractable is that, for whatever reason, the PRC won’t let it go. Whoever said this was a ‘Chinese’ problem, was right. Why not just give it up, save billions of dollars, the lives of Chinese soldiers and policemen, and give the rest of the world the impression that the PRC moving beyond the 19th century, and let the Tibetan have their reincarnated bodhisattva king back if that’s what they so desperately want?
Now as I am a white person, you’ve indicated I don’t really have the best interests of the Tibetans at heart, and you’re right. Ferin and Mongol Warrior have told me in no uncertain terms that because of my race, I am unqualified to pass moral judgement, so I’ve tried to make my argument logical rather than emotional. If you critique it, I hope you can bear that intent in mind. But I’m still interested in how you and other supporters of the PRC’s Tibet policies would respond if there were more Tibetans making their case here. That is something I would like to hear your views on.
Lime wrote:
If you’re unwilling to consider Tibetan independence, then the solutions are limited. Basically you have three that I can see, flood them (‘cultural genocide’), kill them, or just continue to keep enough soldiers there to keep under control. The former is definitely the one I would feel most comfortable with, though I have doubts that it’s realistic.
It’s not that I am unwilling to consider it. It’s a false thesis to begin with. There is some misdirected economic strife among the lay people channeled through ethnic differences, and then there is some incoherent grumbling from the monks about the Dalai and other lamas. This is so out of sync with the fantasy interpretation of genocide propagated by the exiled government that there is no convergence of your concerns with the actual concerns of the people. Each is a problem that can be addressed in the course of normal events. It is completely unhelpful to inject separatism or revolution into this to make the two problems even worse.
That said, I think the continued occupation of Tibet is a really dopey idea. Tibet his a huge drain on the state’s budget, and whatever natural resource potential it may have can just as easily be developed by Chinese capitalists in an independent Tibet. This isn’t a game of Red Alert. The strategic security reasons Mao had for originally occupying the territory were very justified at the time, but as the cold war has past and everyone has nuclear weapons anyways, these arguments are null. India is not going to be launching an invasion anytime soon.
Might as well say the same about Alaska. Care to let some friendly Russian fur-trapper descendents back and create a Novo-Novo-Sibirsk oblast?