To Richard, can we please have someone else update the news on Tibet (maybe yourself or CCT). Rajesh cannot remain objective on this issue, due to his long-time stance on this issue as well as his Indian descent.

March 17, 2008 @ 10:10 am | Comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6XD5A7-Fqg

Footage that CNN/BBC would never show you

March 17, 2008 @ 10:33 am | Comment

when make comments, make sure you know exactly about tibet history

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9QNKB34cJo&&

March 17, 2008 @ 10:58 am | Comment

i still don’t understand how you define protest and how you define riot. a group of people breaking bank facilities, this is a protest?

March 17, 2008 @ 10:59 am | Comment

Chinese Embassy in Toronto attacked by Tibetan activists, flag changed to Tibetan flag:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz0w_4qv-gw

Chinese Embassy in Belgium attacked by Tibetan activists, flag changed to Tibetan flag:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCygAGomaKc

Chinese Embassy in France attacked by Tibetan activists, flag changed to Tibetan flag:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3PNvHm4y4I

Last time I checked, attacked a nation’s embassy is an absolutely crime, no? How come the objective western press did not report any of the above incidents? Please explain this to me, either Raj or Richard.

March 17, 2008 @ 11:02 am | Comment

Hey, US,
free Hawaii and Alaska,
Pack up and leave for Europe.
Out of North America

March 17, 2008 @ 11:19 am | Comment

How do you guys explain the attacks just today on Chinese embassies in Toronto, Belgium ,and France, where Tibetan activists rushed the embassy and took down the Chinese flag there and replaced with a Western flag.

Last time I checked, this is a crime, no? How come not a single peep from the Western press on these incidents?

Would like your comments please.

March 17, 2008 @ 11:21 am | Comment

Rajesh cannot remain objective on this issue, due to his long-time stance on this issue as well as his Indian descent.

…but CCT has proved himself to be objective?! This comes from someone who hurled anti-semitic comments at Steven Spielberg, if I’m not mistaken.

March 17, 2008 @ 11:23 am | Comment

Richard, if there are hundreds of stories on these embassy attacks on Google News as you claim, then they must be a very important aspect of this development in Tibet, no? How come you missed all those 100 stories and instead chose to put up something that has much less than 100 stories on google news? Please explain your motivation behind the choice of the stories in your “update”.

March 17, 2008 @ 12:13 pm | Comment

The Atlantic article makes several vaid points, but it also falls victim to one of the most common Western misconceptions relating to the history of Tibetan-Chinese relations (a misconception that the Chinese government is quite happy to perpetuate):

” In the Qing view, Tibet was a part of China …”

No, no, no! The Qing saw Tibet as part of the Qing Imperium, just one segment of their Empire, administered along parallel lines to Han China, Mongolia, and Xinjiang. Manchu soldiers and a few Manchu administrators had a presence in Lhasa, that was all.

The Qing NEVER saw Tibet as part of some entity called “China”.

Presentday China’s claim to Tibet has no more historical validity — indeed it has less — than if present-day Austria claimed sovereignty over Bosnia merely because Bosnia was once part of the Hapsburg Empire.

March 17, 2008 @ 12:46 pm | Comment

HX, these posts are not all-inclusive. I am not a fulltime chronicler of all things related to China. Go to Google News for that. If you haven’t noticed, I haven’t mentioned nine-tenths of the stories coming out of Tibet.

March 17, 2008 @ 12:47 pm | Comment

Are people still arguing about who owns Tibet?

The answer is: Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

March 17, 2008 @ 1:14 pm | Comment

“Last time I checked, attacked a nation’s embassy is an absolutely crime, no?”

Like attacking the US or Japanese embassies in China? Or is China “special”. Certainly special education.

March 17, 2008 @ 1:18 pm | Comment

How in the world did the protestors get on top of the building in Canada? They must not have any security!
At least, there is no trespassing in US. We all know what happens when people who trespass; the Second Amendment happens.

March 17, 2008 @ 1:48 pm | Comment

Before you accuse me of brainwashed, let me introduce myself and my background. I was born in Mainland China but the chinese communist only had 10 years of time to brainwash me. I got my high school diploma and my Bachelor degree in California, and a master from UK. So spare me the easy throw down, he is brainwashed, please.

I am not going to say things people LIKE to hear. I am going to say things people NEED to know.

First of all, you should examine the facts and don’t take the reports from CNN/BBC/FOX feeding you without question. BBC used to ran a semi-unbiased report on the historical relationship between Tibet and the Chinese Central Government – one of the best I would say, despite all the British had done in the region. As of yesterday, I couldn’t find it any more, instead I found an Q&A that have no source. I don’t think I need to mention the blatant picture cropping, the videos skipping, and all the other Propaganda 101 stuff that the major medias had been practicing.

Second of all, stop buying into that Shangri-la bullshit.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
If Michael Parenti can’t convince you because of his lifetime pursuit of liberal values, maybe

(Yes, despite its short comings, sometimes facts slip through the “free” press and I admire its ability to slip. )

Behind the facade of Shangrila is a society of 99% serf supporting 1% land owners and the religious caste – whom taxed the serfs heavily, took their children into sex slavery and servitude, with the religious line of “you are a serf and your current life is hard because of your deeds last life was bad. Take your punishment and pray for a next life.” (Sounds like a scam to me, but what do I know, I am an atheist. If I am wrong, I will reincarnated into beasthood for the next 30 lifes or burn in hell for all eternity. Both better than the turning into nothingness stuff I believe in. But I digress) I perfectly understand why there is a free tibet movement and why Dalai want to stop the “cultural genocide”. Hell, I would join if I was a monk or a landlord who doesn’t have to work and just take from the peasant their sons and daugthers for my own carnal pleasure. Yes, for those uninformed, unlike the Buddhist in China or India, the Tibetan monks practice sex and a lot of it. Something they were known for when they served the Emperors through the ages. Not sure if that is one of the reason the Qing Emperor grant the head of the head of Gelug Schools of Buddhism in Tibet the title Dalai. Uh, you do know the title Dalai was granted by the Central Government which is why each incarnation has to be approved and confirmed by the central government. The current one was confirmed in 1940 by the KMT government during world war II. (This is not just a

Oops, that last part really got carried away. Might as well get into the history part.

Third of all, we should really examine this claim that China never exert soveign power over Tibet before 1949 bs. The whole claim to be an independent country for Tibet is basically a 3 year period after the collasp of the Qing Dynasty and the Chinese civil war period. There was no formal recognition, no referendum (Hardly seem an idea to do one when 99% of the population are serfs), and basically gone by the time there was some form of the central government come out of the bloody civil war. Before that, there is central government official stationed in Lhasa as the head of the region, there is garrison stationed there, and when there is need, like an invasion from Naple, the Central Government will send army to defend Tibet. That is about as soveign as we go before the rise of the nation states in modern time.

Fourth of all, but I hear that voice now. It is the MODERN time, forget all those history, they are irrelevant. My friend, history is always relevant or else, why accuse the Chinese government of cultural genocide? Why hang on to the old ways of lahmas and land owners dictating the lives of serfs? The question, in reality is simpler than this. Why shouldn’t Tibet modernise? Why shouldn’t Tibetan has the chance to go to school and learn instead letting the monks control education and learning in general? Why shouldn’t we, mordern people, throw away the relics of past such as theocracy and land bondage? Because, as Bill once said, “IT IS THE ECONOMY, STUPID.” Ever realise how Tibet will survive if ever achieve indepandence? Without the capital inflow from the central government, Tibet would be lucky if they achieve the living standard of the Indians, and that is NOT a compliment.

But finally, I hear the cry for democracy. I hear the cry for human right, I hear the cry for freedom. Well, here is the cold hard fact. China ain’t a democracy and isn’t planning to be one after we saw the wonderful fiascos in Philipine, Soviet Union, and “GASP” India. See, if India is the best example of Democracy, then please spare us. We are not that interested to follow someone’s ideology and throw all our livelihood to risk like we did once before. Thank you, but no Thank you. Freedom, on the other hand, is such a subjective thing. Relatively, I saw improvement in China and continue improvement. But are you more free than us? When you have been brainwashed to defend a theocracy? When you just accept the reports as facts? Tell us, what has Dalai and his cronies had done that really subscribe to the western value of religious freedom and political freedom, and “GASP” democracy?

I full expect my comment deleted, my ip and ID to be blocked after I posted my comment. I fully understand the pretense of free speech, free press, and religious freedom can be thrown away when we voice our independent thoughts that you don’t like.

March 17, 2008 @ 2:15 pm | Comment

“HKSojourner” confused me a lot:
“The Qing saw Tibet as part of the Qing Imperium” BUT “The Qing NEVER saw Tibet as part of some entity called ‘China'”.

Was Qing regarded as China at that time?

According to your “RIGHT” conception, in 17 century, people lived in New York NEVER saw New York as part of some entity called “USA”…then…

March 17, 2008 @ 2:25 pm | Comment

Evilpanda, I suspect every single reader here knows about the serfdom and the feudal social order of Tibet, and everyone knows the “Shangri-La” of Lost Horizons is a total fantasy. This blog has blasted that myth again and again. Most of us know the situation isn’t one of black and white, good vs. evil. So please don’t think you are imparting any new knowledge here.

Aside from that, your comment is just another recitation of the usual line we’ve heard for years. Some truths, some exaggerations and a lot of ideology.

No one has ever been blocked for their opinion here, ever (unless that opinion included, say, endorsement of extermination of the Jews or Chinese or Muslims). So feel free to state what you believe. I will, however, delete the link you included about MAJ, as always.

March 17, 2008 @ 2:29 pm | Comment

As I have said before, the CCP has not ended serfdom and the feudal social order, but just reshaped and perpetuated it.
Widespread slavery was found in Shanxi, and the local government was in on it.
CCP cadres have perpetuated the privilege of feudal lords: that’s why there is such resentment against them.
If the Dalai Lama has learned one thing in his life, it is the importance of democracy, which is the one thing that can end the CCP’s feudal privilege over China: That is why he is so vilified.

March 17, 2008 @ 2:36 pm | Comment

@billy
“According to your “RIGHT” conception, in 17 century, people lived in New York NEVER saw New York as part of some entity called “USA”…then…”

The British had just taken the New Amsterdam colony from the Dutch back then.

@Evilpanda feeler: are you Math’s twin?
China has been stomping down other people and committing genocide for 5000 continuous, glorious years. bad, bad bad.

March 17, 2008 @ 2:40 pm | Comment

Right on, Kevin. As always, counter-arguments can be made (“well, they’ve done good things in this area and this area”), but what you’re saying remains true. I do see signs of hope as the growing middle class creates a new, bigger and more demanding segment of society here, but there’s a painfully long way to go. The Shaanxi incident was a good reminder of the ongoing pervasion of feudalism here. As though slavery were something only the Americans took part in.

March 17, 2008 @ 2:43 pm | Comment

Amban,

When have I hurled an anti-semitic comment at anyone? If this was published print, what you said would be considered defamation of character. I’ll expect an apology from you.

March 17, 2008 @ 2:53 pm | Comment

Raj,

As far as I’m concerned, Tibetans are Chinese. You may insist on a racial definition of nationality… in which case I assume you also believe that only Anglo-Saxons can be British (and native Americans can be American), and Indians should stay in their own South Asia country.

(Actually, let me rephrase that. I assume you believe Indians should stay in their own South Asian countries, plural. Bengal, Tamil, Kashmir should really be freed from the majority Hindu as soon as possible.)

I don’t subscribe to that view of nationhood. Tibetans are Chinese. Tibetans aren’t second-class citizens in China, and that should be good enough.

People like to draw a comparison between China’s involvement in Tibet with Japan’s involvement in China. Did Japan give all Chinese the same rights that the Japanese had, and more?

March 17, 2008 @ 3:00 pm | Comment

“We Chinese never forgot and forgave those guilty you have done. Just walk and see. Soon you will know who is right.”

The way of democracy is always right! And the first peacekeepers to hit the ground in deconstructed China will be the Japanese.

March 17, 2008 @ 3:06 pm | Comment

@richard,

I read Peter Hessler’s article years and years ago. I appreciated it very much at the time, and am glad you brought it up now. But in all honesty, I’m of the opinion that this article is now dated, and that popular perception of Tibet in China will have changed.

As I said in the previous thread, I’ve cared about Tibetan issues for more than a decade. I’ve read all of the leading works on the subject, from Tsering Shakya’s seminal work (including poetry collections), to Mel Goldstein, to all of Woester and Wang Lixiong’s writings. I know my fair share of what there is to “know” about Tibet… and none of it has remotely changed my perception that Tibetans are Chinese.

By the way, I also strongly recommend the autobiography of Tashi Tsering, “The Struggle for Modern Tibet”. Tashi Tsering has really seen everything from both sides… as a slave, as a member of the exiled elite, as a Communist, as a political prisoner…

– he was a former slave,
– who joined the Dalai Lama’s court as a young boy as payment for a tax debt,
– who then served briefly as a sex partner for a senior lama (as was common practice for young monks),
– who then went into exile with the Dalai Lama in the ’50s,
– who then was sent to the University of Washington on a scholarship,
– who then subsequently returned to China *out of patriotism for Tibet* (and China),
– who then became a Red Guard in Mao’s Cultural Revolution,
– who then became the target of “struggle” and eventually a political prisoner for years,
– who then later became a successful merchant in Lhasa.

This is the story of a man that actually captures the complexity of Tibet. If you haven’t read his book (or if you aren’t familiar with the stories of others like him), then you don’t really understand Tibet. I’d love to know his opinion of what’s happening today, in all honesty.

March 17, 2008 @ 3:10 pm | Comment

I must say that these discussions really aren’t “bringing out in the best” in people.
If only the dedication to defending utterly misguided and ineffective Chinese policy could be directed towards understanding and working with the Tibetans to overcome the mistakes of the past and create a better future.
….
But instead I get a guy who just wants to fuck up my stupid asshole.
…If this was the approach we took, we’d still be in Vietnam.

March 17, 2008 @ 3:13 pm | Comment

By the way, Washington Post has an article describing what I’ve been saying consistently:

http://tinyurl.com/2abgnh

There is very strong, very nearly united support for a heavy crack-down on rioters in Tibet.

March 17, 2008 @ 3:25 pm | Comment

That doesn’t prove anything CCT: plenty of people went along with the Holocaust. Ever heard of Stanley Milgram?

March 17, 2008 @ 3:28 pm | Comment

As I have said before, the CCP has not ended serfdom and the feudal social order, but just reshaped and perpetuated it.

Frankly, kevin, there are some Chinese that’d agree with that rhetoric. Not a majority by any stretch, but a significant force. If we go back to the “intellectual” thread a few days back, what you’ve described is very much a common criticism of the current status quo from both the “New Left” and “New Right” sides.

If the Dalai Lama has learned one thing in his life, it is the importance of democracy, which is the one thing that can end the CCP’s feudal privilege over China: That is why he is so vilified.

I believe that statement is totally naive, and suspect you don’t really know much about the Tibetan government-in-exile. Look into the Dalai Lama and his exile government’s treatment of Shugden supporters as the most visible sign of its less than democratic practices.

The Dalai Lama has implemented about as much democracy as the Roman Catholic chuch.

March 17, 2008 @ 3:30 pm | Comment

@kevin,

I know this is asking a lot from you, but try not being so patronizing or insulting. I’m not obeying anyone but my own conscience. I’m not going to suggest that all Chinese are well informed about both sides of the Tibet issues, but many are (especially those who’ve spent years overseas). And none of that has changed any opinions this week; as far as I can tell, the vast majority of us speak with one voice on this issue.

By the way, Guardian wins me over again with another notable editorial:

http://tinyurl.com/3cewyh

I’ll emphasize one paragraph:
Tibet has been firmly ensconced as part of the Chinese empire since the Qing dynasty’s military intervention in Tibet in the early 18th century.

But more important than the paragraph is the conclusion, which I do agree with. These are new challenges for China, and I’m not yet sure we’re facing it the right way.

March 17, 2008 @ 3:40 pm | Comment

I’m not being patronizing (ie I did not recommend that you “learn to read”). But the fact that a bunch of people living under a system of censorship support a government policy does not in any way justify that policy.
I would honestly be surprised if the majority of Chinese did not support a “major crackdown.” That doesn’t make it right.

March 17, 2008 @ 3:48 pm | Comment

Sometimes I wonder if the more obscene posts are written by members of the ‘Dalai Lama’s separatist clique’ dedicated to depicting the Chinese people as hate-filled narrow-minded idiots with poor language skills as to provoke more western intolerance of the PRC and prevent any sensible dialog between peoples.

March 17, 2008 @ 4:15 pm | Comment

Sometimes I wonder if the more obscene posts are written by members of the ‘Dalai Lama’s separatist clique’ dedicated to depicting the Chinese people as hate-filled narrow-minded idiots with poor language skills as to provoke more western intolerance of the PRC and prevent any sensible dialog between peoples.

Given this blog rarely talks about Tibet I doubt they would come here just to do that. They have better things to do.

March 17, 2008 @ 4:29 pm | Comment

Oy vey.

I’m just gonna scroll past weeeeeee whatsisname and address something that CCT (who I don’t always agree with but who states his case logically and politely).

CCT, the question is not whether you consider Tibetans to be Chinese. It’s whether the Tibetans consider themselves to be Chinese.

I think in some future China, and yeah, a China that is more democratized than the current model, it’s entirely possible that Tibetans and Uighurs and the like could come to consider themselves “Chinese.” But I’d venture to say that right now, the majority of these “ethnic minorities” do not consider themselves to be Chinese.

Before somebody brings up the whole “America exterminated the Indians!!!!” rationalization, let me state that I say what I said in part from my experience of being an American. A truly multi-ethnic national identity is a difficult thing to achieve. America has managed this better than most societies because it’s a part of our national definition, but we’ve by no means perfected it. It’s a part of our ongoing national dialog, and it’s come at a considerable human cost.

Yeah, the United States, in the name of Manifest Destiny, killed and marginalized large numbers of its native population. I will not pretend to speak for them, as they are still here. But I will say that justifying the actions of the state in the name of bringing “civilization” to the backward natives is not a very good argument.

People with a strong cultural identity generally want to maintain that identity. They seek self-determination. They want to decide for themselves who they are and how they want to live.

March 17, 2008 @ 4:32 pm | Comment

Rajesh cannot remain objective on this issue, due to his long-time stance on this issue as well as his Indian descent.

Hong you fool, I’m not Indian – I’ve said that several times before. Is fatbrick really a fat brick? It’s called an internet alias.

March 17, 2008 @ 4:34 pm | Comment

@CCT
“These are new challenges for China, and I’m not yet sure we’re facing it the right way.”

I do agree with you in this point CCT

“The Dalai Lama has implemented about as much democracy as the Roman Catholic chuch.”
Do not agree here. I mean, your statement of the Catholic Church.

“….as the most visible sign of its less than democratic practices.”
Sooooo…. he seems not to be alone in this visible signs. Don’t you think?

The way the government handles this crisis will have significant consequences. Positive or negative depending on how they act.

For the moment, the blackout in the news,the blocking of web sites (not only this one), preventing access of foreign press in the area, their official declarations, etc, etc make me think that all is going to the negative side.

If they blotched the handling of this crisis now, what will happen in during the summer in Beijing, because there will be protest there too, that is for sure.

March 17, 2008 @ 4:35 pm | Comment

Why do Chinese (i.e. the Beijing government) have a right to tell Tibetans what to do?

Because that’s what it is. Just like the Americans tell Iraqis what to do, the the EU and USA tell Serbs what to do, the Israelis tell Palestinians what to do, the south east Asian countries tell the ethnic Chinese what to do, and so many other who tells whom what to do.

Like it or not, power speaks. This is true for every country, every state, and every nationality in this world.

Yes, Tibet is a colony of China, then what? The CCP government has treated Tibetans much much better than any colonial powers had done to their subjects.

Want the full independence and democracy before other Chinese get them? It’s possible but not without bloodshed.

March 17, 2008 @ 4:36 pm | Comment

I actually kinda agree with Bing here. Not completely – I think it’s very hard to argue that the Chinese have been benign colonial overlords in Tibet. Not even close.

But essentially, this is a relationship about power. About the rulers and the ruled.

It’s nothing one can support from any kind of moral position, and that’s what I like about Bing’s formulation. It’s honest.

March 17, 2008 @ 4:44 pm | Comment

@otherlisa,

I agree with you that a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic nation is hard to build. For most of the past 50 years, China has been trying to go down this difficult path in a more or less peaceful, gloves off manner… trying things in an entirely different route from the American model of “Manifest Destiny”.

No one in Washington DC ever questioned whether the native residents of much of the United States were interested in being “purchased” from the French. No referendum was held in Alaska to determine the support of the local natives. No one in the United States seems to question a border expansion process which included the (implicit and explicit support) for Western colonialism, followed by a referendum held by *all* residents of the territory… native or illegal.

I’m not using this post to be a criticism of the American model. This isn’t meant to be a “you did it so now don’t be hypocrites” complaint… I recognize that it’s been more than 150 years since the United States went through that route, and none of you feel personally responsible for what happened.

Instead, let me tell you what many Chinese are discussing today. Many Chinese are saying that it’s time we emulated the Americans, more fully. I’m not even speaking of American policies from the 19th century… (no one in the Chinese military will be paying Chinese colonialists 100 RMB for Tibetan scalps)… but rather, American policies in the 20th century.

Here’s what many Chinese are arguing for today: an end to the Soviet model of “minority” nationalities. There should be one COLOR-BLIND law of the land which applies to all Chinese citizens, period. If you break this law, if you participate in a riot, if you throw a blow, if you stab someone.. you will face criminal consequences regardless of race.

All Chinese citizens should have the right to work in any other region of China; settlement in another region should follow established rules.. as long as you have a job and can afford a home, you can have local hukou.

No more affirmative action for Tibetans in Universities; no more exception in family planning for Tibetans. No more Tibetan-language education in public schools; Tibetans can pay for private schooling if they wish, but these schools must still meet national standards in Chinese fluency. No discrimination on the basis of race is allowed. All companies must hire in a race-blind manner.

And many believe that in a very short amount of time, no more than 30-50 years, Tibet will be as firmly Chinese as California is American. Only when future generations of Tibetans think of themselves as hyphenated-Chinese should China begin to pursue the question of how to build a “multi-ethnic” country.

What’s wrong with a “color-blind” China?

March 17, 2008 @ 4:46 pm | Comment

@whatsisname

His rants reminds me of what a young member of the Hitlers youth said in the 30s

In resume
“We were pissed off and.. you know, we are going to piss you off, just wait and see.”

Do we have here an over aggrieved, over nationalistic raising power again?
History repeating itself?

I hope not. They have enough problems to solve already.

March 17, 2008 @ 4:48 pm | Comment

“I actually kinda agree with Bing here. Not completely – I think it’s very hard to argue that the Chinese have been benign colonial overlords in Tibet. Not even close.”

It’s sure as hell more “benign” than Dalai’s theocracy! Liberating Tibet from one of the most brutal feudal regimes on Earth is the best thing anyone could have ever done for the Tibetans.

March 17, 2008 @ 4:54 pm | Comment

@Bing

I agree that China can do what they want to Tibet because, as you said, power speaks, but just because one has power over another doesn’t mean it’s always in their best interest to use it.

It seems to me that China wants economic development, wealth, power, and international prestige. To gain all these things, they have to get along with the rest of the world. I believe the reason why they poured all that money into Tibet is because they want to develop the region and bring wealth to the Tibetans so that they would be pacified and thus taking out a domestic and international thorn out of their side. In their eyes, it’s a win-win situation.

However, because of how politics and economics work, the wealth went dispraportionately to Han Chinese. Now they’re rising up and the CCP are stuck.

So this is not really a matter of who has power and who doesn’t. I mean of course the PRC has more power than the Tibetans. It’s a question of whether they should use that power and coercion to control the population.

And with the deadline coming up, we might have an answer to that question soon.

March 17, 2008 @ 4:55 pm | Comment

@CCT
“What’s wrong with a “color-blind” China?”

It sounds to ethnic cleansing (by overflowing) and cultural annihilation.

And please, spare me the “your indians…. etc thing”

Tibetans do not have to pay China’s need for nationalistic grandeur or ill conceived altruism. They just want to live their own life, their own culture, on their own land.
And progress their own way…..

It is not that what China also constantly say to everybody about their own identity?

If you care so much for their well being, just let them be.
It is hard to see that those who you feed bite your hand in return. But if you retaliate violently, that means that your original intentions were not just “trying to help”

March 17, 2008 @ 5:04 pm | Comment

@ecodelta,

I care about my fellow Chinese citizens. I haven’t given any money to Indian charities or Ethiopian charities… I’m not interested in helping the Tibetans for the sake of helping the Tibetans.

You’re Spanish, I take it? The Spanish haven’t taken special steps to protect the Basque regions, have they? Are there laws prohibiting Castilian Spaniards from moving up north? Do you believe there *should* be laws prohibiting the mixing of people from Catalan, Castilia, and Basque regions? Is that what you believe would be best for your country?

March 17, 2008 @ 5:10 pm | Comment

“Tibetans do not have to pay China’s need for nationalistic grandeur or ill conceived altruism. They just want to live their own life, their own culture, on their own land.”

Two of the eight million Tibetans live outside Tibet. When I was in China, my next-door neighbors were Tibetans.

Followin your “logic” they should just pack up and leave because its’ “not their land”?

No, it’s ridiculous to assign land to nationalities. People have the right to choose where they should live.

March 17, 2008 @ 5:13 pm | Comment

Hi, guys, interesting to read these posts on here after stumbling on your blog. The average Chinese is certainly not coming off well right now. The government’s well documented brutality against Tibetans is of long standing (torturing, imprisoning for decades, and executing Tibetans for exercising freedom of speech). The truculent support for such actions among ordinary Chinese is something new, surprising and troubling, at least to people who aren’t familiar with China firsthand.

The main question for us in China is, what happened to China’s pro-democracy movement? Who is the next Wei Jingsheng, where are the educated, humane, thoughtful Chinese of pre-Maoist days, who should have had the time to emerge in China by now? Or is China’s brutalisation by Communism too severe for them to emerge?

Are the Chinese determined on turning into the next great Evil Empire, with an unlimited appetite for brutality and its face set against the world? Because if that is the kind of fight China wants, then I think the protests outside Chinese embassies worldwide show that the world will give it to them.

Stock market meltdowns notwithstanding, we live in a time when growth is underpinned by democratic freedoms, innovation, individual enterprise and growing communication. Brutal dictatorship, repression, state violence and campaigns of extermination will make the Chinese into pariahs once the message is communicated effectively.

Is that really what you want? Then carry on like this, please.

March 17, 2008 @ 5:21 pm | Comment

I was summoned here because my friend, god knows what his id was, got banned for voicing his opinion. I doubt he was an extremist bend on genocide. But I digress. (BTW, your 1st link to your blog abt blasting the shangri-la myth is not working and the other, well, I can’t seem to make the connection on the myth blasting part.)

I saw the slavery/serfdom comparison of the cracked down Shannxi private brick factory. That, my friend, is a very deceiving comparison . First and utmost, it wasn’t sanctioned or permited like the old Tibetan way. The owner actually got punished criminally for doing something like this. (Oh, just fyi, that brick factory wasn’t profitable enough to get the local cadres to protect it, just in case someone wants to pull the “but the cardre got away” card.)

But that is not important, mere smearings shots does make a valid argument.

The way I see it, it is quite black and white. It is not about Dalai and his cronies trying to get back to their “traditional ways”. Or the descendents of the land owners wanting their perks back. These efforts, any rational human being would conclude, is futile. From where I sit, all we need to do is wait a few more years and this Dalai will be dead and we will get a new one who will be loyal to the central government instead getting paid by the CIA. We are quite good at waiting you know. Patience is an absolute virtue.

The rioters’ made up is quite interesting. In 1959, it was the rural nomad that followed Dalai because they believed. Today, it is the Tibetan youths in Lhasa pursuing their dreams that got incited into the streets. They followed the dream of urbanisation and secular wealth and success. They saw the success of the Han entrepreneurs and workers (the losers had long gone home.) The conflict is natural, solvable and will be solved – to the great disappointment of the west, I guess.

The real issue is how Tibet will be developed, modernized and how Tibetan can retain their traditional heritage while embracing the modern world. And how Tibetans able to improve their lives. But then, as chinese, we all want to prosper and economic parity is the key issue today not just in Tibet, or XinJiang, but every single province. Mind you, it is not an issue we ignored, but a price we paid for the breakneck speed of growth, urbanisation and modernisation.

That won’t be solved via riots and burning down shops and posining the water supplies. Or believing in the empty words of the former deputy chairman of the 1st People’s Congress of China.

You don’t have to believe it. But we treat tibetans as one of the Chinese. (Racial and cultural discrimination is something I learnt about when I went to US. I never realised how good, despite all its flaws, CCP had been when it came to racial and sex equality. Not saying its perfect, but it is hella better than any other place on the planet and I am proud of that. Incidentally, one of the scandal that went down in Taiwan last week, was about a high ranking Lahma got caught by the husband when having an affair with a woman. ) WHen it comes to racial discrimination, I point to the affirmative action like policies that had been in place forever. No one, in their right mind, can deny the Tibetans actually enjoys more benefits than their Hans counter part – a policy to make up for their other disadvantage.

In China, we don’t talk about the need for religious and racial freedom. Believe in whatever you want, as long as you don’t organized under the cover of religion and get political, and act within the law, I don’t remember China had crack down on any religion. Unless you want to count the cultural revolution, when we cracked down on ALL religions. That is the exception rather than the rule. Personally, I don’t think it is the religious freedom that Dalai and his cronies seek. What they seek is their lost secular power and they ain’t going to get it back. The lahmas will continue lose their secular influence as generation after generation of Tibetans get their exposure to the modern world.

So, what else can I impart on you?

Maybe the fact that improvement, however slow and little in your view, should be encouraged instead of critisized? (I doubt rational beings can claim the political and economic freedom for Tibetans had not been improved. In fact, I would argue they enjoy more freedom than those under the dominon of the Dalai and his cronies.)

Maybe the fact that slogan is easy but real solution is hard? Yelling freedom and democracy and expect all can be solved is something that happens only in the movies – where Shangri-ra exists.

We long expected this riot will be incited this year. Yes, I believe it was incited. (NOt to deny the underlying sentiment’s, but lets be real.) I was glad it happened so early (with all due respect to the dead) and it got so violent that even the biased media couldn’t completely ignore that aspect. Devil is in the details. The choice of the word between riotor and protestor make all the difference in the world. Cutting and pasting such words without qualification, seems, imho, disingenious at best.

March 17, 2008 @ 5:23 pm | Comment

Just another quick point before I go. I noticed that like many Chinese the poster ‘Evilpanda’ claims there is no discrimination in China.

This is completely contrary to all unbiased reports from the country. I would compare it to a Japanese general after the Nanking massacre claiming with a straight face that there is no violence against Chinese in occupied China.

Most Tibetans do report that they are widely and systematically denigrated and treated as second class citizens by their Chinese occupiers. One report on the subject is here:

http://www.savetibet.org/documents/pdfs/JampaRacism.pdf

March 17, 2008 @ 5:28 pm | Comment

@Rohan,

I do believe China has much reflection to do on how to best manage policies in Tibet. I also believe China has much maturation to do when it comes to how it manages dissent.

But none of this changes one simple fact: if “the world” wants a war over the question of whether Tibetans should have the right to unilaterally secede from China, then it will have one. You can burn down all the embassies in the world, and that won’t change.

I’ve seen it said best by someone else… one Olympics, 10 Olympics, 100 Olympics, even 1000 Olympics… it’s still not something we’d trade our country for.

March 17, 2008 @ 5:34 pm | Comment

“Most Tibetans do report that they are widely and systematically denigrated and treated as second class citizens by their Chinese occupiers. One report on the subject is here:”

Organize your own ideas. No one has the time to read an report by the exiles you yourself wouldn’t bother to explain.

Unlike the Hans, Tibetans are not subject to the Family-planning policy (or the so-called “One child policy”) and are entitled to many privileges such as easier University entry.

The CCP maybe accused of neglect but not of racism.

March 17, 2008 @ 5:39 pm | Comment

@CCT

Thanks, but the question was not “will you trade your country, please?”

After all, if China had been successfully annexed by Japan fifty years ago, I’m sure any good nationalist Japanese would react the same way you do (we will never give up Manchuria). Read Kashmir, read West Bank, read Alsace-Lorraine, there’s rarely any point in having a discussion about such issues because they seem to activate most people’s fight-or-flight brain centres, which seems to be the case here.

I would be more interested to hear, since you do believe China has improvement to carry out on dealing with dissent, your answer to my question about China’s pro-democracy movement, both in relation to Tibet and to broader Chinese freedoms.

After all, if you spend fifty years killing Tibetans whenever they speak their minds, it is hard to understand how you propose to introduce a system of allowing them to speak freely, since they will inevitably speak up to say they hate you.

March 17, 2008 @ 5:45 pm | Comment

@CCT
“The Spanish haven’t taken special steps to protect the Basque regions, have they?”

Yes we do.
Biggest autonomy in Europe, far greater than in North Ireland.
They manage their own taxes. Not only Basque Country and Cataluya but also Navarra.
Local parliament usually dominated by nationalist parties. PNV, CIU
There is a proposal for independence referendum in Basque in november by the lendakary (Basq president )

By the we way, the central government is not placing missiles at the border and there are no significant troops movements.

There are provisions in the Spanish constitution for independence. Not easy but they are.
I do not mind to vote yes if majority local people in that area do want it.

They have their own police forces too. Ertzaina and Mosos de Escuadra. Under control of local government.

Anyone willing to work as civil servant in that area must know the “official” local language. Besides Spanish ( we do not say Spanish language, rather Castilian language)

All companies doing business there must use also the official local language, besides Castilian

Full School curricula is in Basque/Catalan language. Also in Universities.

Our Olympic games took place in Barcelona (Cataluya) in 1992. No problems whatsoever. No restriction on local/foreign media. No internet firewalling.

Was in Barcelona last Thursday with a lot from colleagues from Madrid. Very nice city. Recomend a visit. Wondrous “Sagrada Familia” church from Gaudi. Hope it is FINALLY finished in 2030….

A good tourist guide explained to us not only touristic wonders of the city, but also historical controversies between Spain and Catalunya.
No one flinched an inch in the bus.

Could I visit Lhasa next week?
Did Lhasa applied for Olympic games already?

Regards.

PS: I am 50% Spanish 50% south American
and maybe with some drops of American Indian blood too. Not unusual here.

March 17, 2008 @ 5:50 pm | Comment

WOW, such a popular place here.

Should ask more to come and join in.

March 17, 2008 @ 5:54 pm | Comment

@okmpkmo
Yes. It is getting crowed lately.

We are going to run short of beers.

March 17, 2008 @ 5:59 pm | Comment

@Jinhan

I understand it can be difficult to read in a language which is not your first language. Here are some excerpts from the report.

————————–

Many visitors to Tibet, including some Chinese who visit the region, report that Chinese regularly make openly racist comments with respect to Tibetans, especially about their intelligence, appearance, customs and habits. In reaction to one such comment by Jiang Ping, who dismissed the notion that Tibetans have a rich cultural tradition as “useless nonsense,” two hundred Tibetans at the National Minorities Institute, in Beijing, reportedly boycotted classes in 1992. Jiang Ping was a National People’s Congress (NPC) representative and vice chair of the United Front Work Department.

When a Tibetan student in Beijing met Chinese fellow students, one
participant recalled, the Chinese students were surprised that it was possible for a Tibetan to be clean and articulate. A participant from Amdo remarked that he often witnessed Chinese passengers harassing and kicking out Tibetan passengers from the city buses. Another participant witnessed a Chinese police officer beating a Tibetan cart driver while yelling obscenities at him and calling him, “dirty stupid Tibetan.” Many of the other discussants experienced the Chinese fastidiously covering their mouths and noses while in physical proximity to Tibetans for fear of contact with filth and disease. Several other participants noted that Tibetans are often refused service in the more upscale establishments in Tibet and China just because they are Tibetan. Many participants emphasized the special difficulty Tibetans face to obtaining permits, contracts, tickets, housing, and so on.

Statistics show that the semi-literacy or the illiteracy rate in the TAR is 72.8 percent as compared to a Chinese average of 22.8%. The Chinese are quick to claim that the high illiteracy rate is due to the inherent backwardness of Tibetans and the legacy of “feudal” times. Yet this argument is undermined by the tremendous success in the field of education of Tibetans in exile. Despite the difficult conditions of life as refugees, Tibetans have built their own schools in India and Nepal that produces new generations of highly educated Tibetans in all fields.

March 17, 2008 @ 6:02 pm | Comment

“The Chinese are quick to claim that the high illiteracy rate is due to the inherent backwardness of Tibetans and the legacy of �feudal� times. Yet this argument is undermined by the tremendous success in the field of education of Tibetans in exile. Despite the difficult conditions of life as refugees, Tibetans have built their own schools in India and Nepal that produces new generations of highly educated Tibetans in all fields.”

Watch the BBC documentry Tibet the lost world to see how Dalai Lama and his sister in law describe their lavish lifestyle before fleeing for India. Those who fled were the wealthy rulers and powerful monks whoes privileges were being taken away and whose lands were being redistributed to their serfs, the old aristocarcy the members of whom had always been more educated than the rest of Tibetans.

And who have been pouring money in sponsoring those “highly educated Tibetans” in exile?

Watch the BBC documentary three husbands and one wedding to see how inherent backwardness and the legacy of �feudal� times are still affecting those Tibetans in China which has nothing to do with Chinese rule.

March 17, 2008 @ 6:34 pm | Comment

“… it’s still not something we’d trade our country for.”

I think you mean ‘ occupied territory’ rather than ‘country’.

March 17, 2008 @ 6:47 pm | Comment

The cultural animosity is mutual. When I first visited Tibet a Tibetan monk told us arrogantly that “China had never been civilized anyways”.

The “report” was conducted by the exiles, who have every incentive to twist the truth for their own gains.

“Another participant witnessed a Chinese police officer beating a Tibetan cart driver while yelling obscenities at him and calling him, “dirty stupid Tibetan.””

And this could very well be an example of exile propaganda. The phrase “dirty, stupid something something” is very uncommon in Chinese speech and if someone indeed said it, it would sound very strange and foreign.

“Statistics show that the semi-literacy or the illiteracy rate in the TAR is 72.8 percent as compared to a Chinese average of 22.8%. The Chinese are quick to claim that the high illiteracy rate is due to the inherent backwardness of Tibetans and the legacy of “feudal” times.”

Well there is no statistic regarding the literacy rate in Tibet before 1959…But I doubt the figure would exceed 5%, since under Dalai’s rule, even most monks were illiterate.

Granted, the CCP hasn’t done nearly enough to improve things. But when it’s the ex-theocrats that are barking, take it with a pinch of salt.

And the exiles have like what? 120,000 people compared to 8 million Tibetans in China. They left with all the rich aristocrats and theocrats, and have been receiving “elms” from the CIA for all those years, 78% literacy rate is no surprise.

March 17, 2008 @ 6:52 pm | Comment

Interesting comment in slashdot

“It’s really rather simple.

The Tibetans have a charismatic, articulate and eloquent spokesman in the Dalai Lama. Here in the US he’s probably the most venerated spiritual leader in the US outside of the Pope or the conservative protestant movement. He’s almost the chief rabbi for large swath of American intellectuals who think of themselves as “spiritual” but not aligned with a conservative religious movement and who eschew formal theological dogma.

So, in a way the Chinese leadership is right on the mark when they talk about a “Dalai Clique”.

The thing that makes him a tough opponent in this game is that he’s so darned reasonable and mild mannered. He’s not calling for armed uprising. He’s not even insisting on national sovereignty. He refuses to act angry, or even wronged. He just insists that the Chinese leadership should talk, and listen with an open mind.

The thing is, there’s a lot about the old Tibetan system that is ugly and bad — along with much that is admirable and good. The Chinese would love people to think about the abuses of the old monastic system when they think of Tibet. But can’t oppose somebody like the Dalai Lama without being nakedly blunt about their own unreasonableness and brutality, which makes everything they do an international embarrassment to their country. And that makes this news.”

March 17, 2008 @ 7:11 pm | Comment

“The thing that makes him a tough opponent in this game is that he’s so darned reasonable and mild mannered. He’s not calling for armed uprising.”

Actually, he did. In 1959. After that failed, he continued to wage guerrilla warfare in Tibet with help from the CIA and the Indian government. He had a insurgent training center in Colorado.

He was clearly behind the organizing of this world-wide protest. What are the chances of riots simultaneously breaking out in Tibet, Gansu, India and Nepal?

Being an self-proclaimed “pacifist”, one would naturally expect him to denounce the violence in Tibet. However, when opened confronted with the question, he dodged it cleverly and refused to denounce violence—Which makes sense, since this wave of violence is his way of showing Beijing his muscles.

March 17, 2008 @ 7:29 pm | Comment

Spelling mistake: Being an self-proclaimed “pacifist”, one would naturally expect him to denounce the violence in Tibet. However, when *openly* confronted with the question, he dodged it cleverly and refused to denounce violence—Which makes sense, since this wave of violence is his way of showing Beijing his muscles.

March 17, 2008 @ 7:31 pm | Comment

there’s a lot about the old Tibetan system that is ugly and bad — along with much that is admirable and good.

Enlighten me please like what?

March 17, 2008 @ 7:33 pm | Comment

@jinhan & bing

You are missing the point on the slashdot post.

The question is not how good/bad Dalai Lama/Tibet are, etc, etc. Enough said about it.

Rather. How China can counters the “charming” image of the Dalai Lama.

From the point of view of public relations and self image China is doing a terrible job right now.

This is an area were a lot of improvement is still needed.

I have seen the problem again and again. For example in Darfur and Spielberg affaires.
Even when China was improving cooperation with the UN they just were unable to put themselves under a better light in the public opinion.

China official’s answers usually sound blunt victimizing and/or overbearing.

Sure there must be officials in China who are better at it. I am missing them.

I can remember only one case where a Chinese official reacted promptly, with a good share of courage, and could manage a critic situation quite deftly.
I was really surprised.

At an Train Station full of migrant workers wanting to return home during the new year’s chaos provoked by a heavy ice storm.

March 17, 2008 @ 8:01 pm | Comment

@Bing

It’s up to every country to evaluate themselves. Talk to Tibetans if you want to know what was good about the old Tibetan system. Also, if you are really interested in the question, visit Bhutan, where the system today is still very similar to what Tibet could have been if the CCP had not destroyed it.

I can suggest a passage from the memoirs of Lobsang Gyatso, a monk who was murdered in Dharamsala a few years ago by suspected CCP agents.

“It is hard to convey a balanced sense of the old Tibet. There were terrible episodes like the Tsipa Lungshar affair, but when one thinks of a modern country nominally at peace, our Tibet of old was a place even more peaceful. Though India is at peace it has gigantic jails full of prisoners where hangings take place at regular intervals. There are so many crimes which carry a mandatory death penalty. In Tibetan jails there were not a lot of prisoners incarcerated for long periods. Even in the big jail beneath Namsezhag court there were only two or three prisoners being held in a few cells. In other Tibetan prisons too there were no more than a few cells. This is a very good sign, is it not? Murder occasioned tremendous attention. In the monastery, for example, if monks got into a fight and one was killed, it would cause a huge stir. “How could this have happened?” people would ask. In those days we Tibetans had no conception that such a terrible type of state as the modern state, such a terrifying country, could exist. We were not dominated by a job or career. Restraint and taming the rough side of a person were valued, work was defined by reasonable human need, and gratuitously disturbing one’s fellow man was avoided. And when someone got steamed up over a political event we Tibetans would often refer to the Fifth Dalai Lama’s political minister Desi Sangye Gyatso and say, “Flat-head Desi will take good care of the business of the bureaucrats, just pass me another glass of barley beer.” Generally speaking, in the monasteries in Tibet it was an insult to say of a person that he was taking an active interest in power politics. You could not say that sort of thing as an insult to someone’s face, it was too strong, and if you talked about another monk in that way it was the worst insult, suggesting unbridled self-interest.”

March 17, 2008 @ 8:04 pm | Comment

@CCT

No, you didn’t. Bu HongXing did, if I’m not mistaken.

March 17, 2008 @ 8:31 pm | Comment

@CCT

What’s wrong with a “color-blind” China?

China is not even close to that, regardless whether you are are foreigner or a minority. Some Tibetans do get preferential treatment when applying for college, but how many Tibetans go to college? The fact of the matter is that most real construction and manufcatuting jobs in Tibet and Xinjiang go to Han Chinese. No settler makes any effort to learn the local language, instead Tibetans who are not sufficient in Chinese have a hard time finding jobs. That’s the reality.

March 17, 2008 @ 8:39 pm | Comment

It’s up to every country to evaluate themselves. Talk to Tibetans if you want to know what was good about the old Tibetan system.

I wasn’t trying to say Tibetans would defintely think they are better off than before. I was only arguing against your comparison of iliterate rates between Tibetans in exile and in Tibet.

Even you do ask people in Tibet, you would expect different answers from Tibetans with different family social status before 1950s.

If you talk to Dalai Lama’s sister in law whose family once owned splendid palace and the best garden in Lhasa (BBC documenatry the lost world of Tibet), of couse she would say the old system was so good.

If you talk to someone whose ancesters for generations were tied to the land that belonged to the monastories and paid taxes and served just like slaves to supply the monks and aristocrats who accounted for 20% of the population and didn’t do anything except chanting prayers and “managing” their subjects for their luxuries and festivals, what answer would you expect?

I can suggest a passage from the memoirs of Lobsang Gyatso, a monk who was murdered in Dharamsala a few years ago by suspected CCP agents.

Yes as I said, monks were not just religious, they were as powerful as the middle age churches if not more so. Of course they missed they days when they had everything an ordinary Tibetan wouldn’t dream of. And what was the “fellow man” he referred to? A serf? And when he talked about “Murder occasioned tremendous attention”, did that apply to the murder of a serf? I don’t think so!

March 17, 2008 @ 9:21 pm | Comment

“No settler makes any effort to learn the local language”

Yes, you are absoluately right. Just like most of Western expats don’t learn Arabic or Nigerian tribal languages.

“instead Tibetans who are not sufficient in Chinese have a hard time finding jobs. That’s the reality.”

Then learn Chinese.

March 17, 2008 @ 9:35 pm | Comment

@Bing

As much as I dislike many attitudes among Western expats, they stay for a couple of years at a time and they arrive in hundreds, not in millions. Most of them don’t settle permanently. And they don’t take over the local government.

Who are you to tell a people to just drop their native language because they have been outnumbered in their own land?

March 17, 2008 @ 9:46 pm | Comment

@Bing

Yes, you are absoluately right. Just like most of Western expats don’t learn Arabic or Nigerian tribal languages.

That is why the Arabs and the Nigerians thew out Western occupiers. And it is also why the Tibetans will throw you out.

And what was the “fellow man” he referred to? A serf? And when he talked about “Murder occasioned tremendous attention”, did that apply to the murder of a serf? I don’t think so!

I am sure you believe what you are saying, but it has no basis in fact. It is mostly Chinese propaganda. No Tibetan sources outside CCP control confirm this very extreme view of old Tibet.

During the Nanking massacre, Japanese propaganda claimed that many of the rapes and murders were carried out by the Chinese themselves. Does that make it true? No.

When Chinese propaganda claims that the majority of Tibetans were so heavily oppressed by a few aristocrats that their lives were worth nothing, that is also not true.

Try to separate reality from official propaganda. I suggested you could go to Bhutan. Interestingly, in Bhutan, which has a similar culture to Tibet, serfdom was officially abolished only in 1956. However nobody remembers the days of serfdom as the kind of debased cruelty that we hear from Chinese propagandists.

On the contrary, it was an instance of the kind of inequality typical of all traditional societies, with good and bad. People’s lives were worth something, there were human networks and checks and balances.

It took the totalitarian states of the twentieth century (German Nazis, Chinese Communists, Russian Soviets) to make human life totally worthless and expendable.

March 17, 2008 @ 9:53 pm | Comment

As much as I dislike many attitudes among Western expats, they stay for a couple of years at a time and they arrive in hundreds, not in millions. Most of them don’t settle permanently. And they don’t take over the local government.

Yeah, nowadays they don’t take over the local governments any more though those local ones they did take have become part of their own.

We are not taking the local government of Tibet. We did that 50 years ago and now it has long been part of our own.

“Who are you to tell a people to just drop their native language because they have been outnumbered in their own land?”

Don’t want to make this blunt but in case people always intentionally ignore the fact and the most important fact that Tibet is part of China and under Chinese rule, no matter you like it or not.

When in China do as the Chinese (Han and all other ethnic groups whether having their own languages or not) do.

March 17, 2008 @ 10:06 pm | Comment

@Rohan

Did I say anything about believing in CCP’s propaganda?

I didn’t say anything about how cruel and bad the serfdom was.

I only tried to dispute the previous claim that:

there’s a lot about the old Tibetan system that is ugly and bad — along with much that is admirable and good.

Firstly I doubt you can simply compare serfdom in the two different places. And again, it really depends on whom you ask the question. Secondly with my limited knowledge of serfdom from internet and BBC documentaries, I would say that there was nothing more admirable and better in serfdom even compared with the CCP’s totalitarian rule.

March 17, 2008 @ 10:15 pm | Comment

@Bing

When you write

And what was the “fellow man” he referred to? A serf? And when he talked about “Murder occasioned tremendous attention”, did that apply to the murder of a serf? I don’t think so!

You are making assertions about a period for which you do not have firsthand knowledge. These assertions are evidently based on CCP propaganda.

If these assertions about serfdom would be true, they would be coming from Tibetans also, not just from Chinese. The fact that they come only from China and from people under CCP control shows they are only propaganda.

I recommend taking the time to read this paper from a Columbia University researcher.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/ealac/barnett/pdfs/link3-coleman-ch3-4.pdf

Extract:

“In Case One, Drokar, a human lease peasant who was mistakenly sent
to a tax-base landholding family as a tax appendage, eventually obtained a tre-ten
(tax-base plot) by means of her hard work and became a tax-base landholder.
This upward movement in socio-economic status not only evinces a high degree
of autonomy among peasants, but also indicates that the boundaries between the
two types of peasants in traditional Tibet were fluid. In Case Two, Wangchen’s
mother successfully negotiated for his exemption from mi ser labor obligations
by enrolling him as a monk at Sera Monastery, another example of autonomy
among Tibetan peasants.”

Reality is always more complex, more ambiguous, and more controversial than simplistic propaganda images seen from afar. This is no doubt true of modern China as well as of old Tibet.

On this page you can see a series of articles and counter-articles between Prof. Goldstein and Prof. Miller about whether “serfdom” was an appropriate term to describe Tibetan social organisation, which was naturally profoundly different from medieval Europe. Inconclusive, but nonetheless interesting.

http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/social.htm

The Tibetan popular view on old Tibet’s social organisation is well put here:

http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white4.html

Extract from the 1960 report of the International Commission of Jurists, quoted in that paper:

“Chinese allegations that the Tibetans enjoyed no human rights before the entry of the Chinese were found to be based on distorted and exaggerated accounts of life in Tibet. Accusations against the Tibetan “rebels” of rape, plunder and torture were found to have been deliberately fabricated and in other cases unworthy of belief for this and other reasons.”

To sum up, don’t believe all the propaganda you hear. Expand your reading. Your mind will be the better for it.

March 17, 2008 @ 10:41 pm | Comment

When Chinese propaganda claims that the majority of Tibetans were so heavily oppressed by a few aristocrats that their lives were worth nothing, that is also not true.

How do you define “heavily oppressed”? I don’t need CCP’s propaganda but only watching BBC’s documentaries to see enough apparent or silent oppression those monks and aristocrats had put on their serfs.

We all know Tibet in 1950s was like Europe in the middle ages.

So was a Tibetan serf’s life worth more than a peasant’s in the middle ages England?

March 17, 2008 @ 10:49 pm | Comment

@Bing

Don’t want to make this blunt but in case people always intentionally ignore the fact and the most important fact that Tibet is part of China and under Chinese rule, no matter you like it or not.

When in China do as the Chinese (Han and all other ethnic groups whether having their own languages or not) do.

No, in Tibet do as the Tibetans do. Tibet has not had a significant Chinese population prior to 1951. Han Chinese are uninvited guests in Tibet, and on their side, they have the full force of government repression. That is a fact. I say this for the record. I don’t expect you to express any compassion to the plights of the Tibetans.

If you want to go down in history as a nation that didn’t learn anything from centuries of brutal colonialism, go ahead and do it. But don’t expect the rest of the world just idly watching this unfolding.

March 17, 2008 @ 10:54 pm | Comment

I don’t expect you to express any compassion to the plights of the Tibetans.

Well of course I have compassion to the plights of the Tibetans, Israiles, Palestanines, South East Asian Chinese, Australian aboriginals, the list goes on.

The whole point of me aruging here is: accept the reality, take advantage of what are avaliable, don’t victimize yourselves and move on.

March 17, 2008 @ 11:01 pm | Comment

“due to his long-time stance on this issue as well as his Indian descent.”

Totally agreed. And no Han should be allowed to post here too, because of their Han descent. And no Tibetans too. Oh, no westerners, because they are all westerners. And certainly no Japanese.

Any Martians out there ?

March 17, 2008 @ 11:08 pm | Comment

“when make comments, make sure you know exactly about tibet history”

Which version ? Does it has to be the Communist’s version ?

March 17, 2008 @ 11:09 pm | Comment

“But don’t expect the rest of the world just idly watching this unfolding.”

Who is this world you are referring to here? The governments of USA, The UK, France, Russia? Or organizations like Amensty International, Free Tibet and so on.

What do you expect them to do? Boycott anything Chinese, have a world war? Total isolation of China? Burning down Chinese embassies?

Is there any similar case in history that was solved by this world you are referring to?

There are too many people like you who know too much about hollow idealist slogans rather than face reality and be practical.

March 17, 2008 @ 11:12 pm | Comment

“there’s a lot about the old Tibetan system that is ugly and bad — along with much that is admirable and good.”

Hmm… There’s a lot about the old Chinese system that is ugly and bad — along witht he much that is admirable and good. There is a lot about the old Egyptian system that is ugly and bad — along with much that is admirable and good…

There is a lot about the new Chinese system that is ugly and bad too. Is that good enough reason to enslave Chinese ? Is doing bad things to bad people “good” ? Must be ancient Chinese secret.

March 17, 2008 @ 11:14 pm | Comment

Interesting, Bing compares Han Chinese people in Tibet to Western expatriates in Middle Eastern and African countries. The same people who get infuriated at the suggestion that Tibet has not always been an integral part of China, still regard it as a foreign land.

March 17, 2008 @ 11:16 pm | Comment

” In the Qing view, Tibet was a part of China …”

The Qing didn’t even consider Qing as part of China, nor was Manchuria, much less Tibet, Mongol, Xinjiang.

PRC is just confusing the world with the idea of vassal states. Exchanging of gifts between rulers did not make one nation belong to others. Tang even sent princesses as gifts to Tibet. Does that make China part of Tibet ? Han princesses were given to the western nomads. Does that mean China is part of Turkmenistan ? May be this is just a prelude of Chinese invasion of Vietnam and Brunei, since they exchanged gifts with Ming.

March 17, 2008 @ 11:23 pm | Comment

The same people who get infuriated at the suggestion that Tibet has not always been an integral part of China, still regard it as a foreign land.

Did I say Tibet have always been part of China anywhere on this blog?

March 17, 2008 @ 11:25 pm | Comment

I heard on radio an interview with a Han lady in Lhasa. She describe all the violent situation there. She lived in Tibet for dozens of years, and said the Tibetans were “all right”. However, at the end, she said of all the years she lived in Tibet, she had very little contact with Tibetans.

I can see why there are riots in Tibet… When your guest has been sitting in your living room, having tea and stuff, and never pay attention to you, as if you don’t exist, you would do something to get their attention, won’t you ?

It is one thing to have freedom of association, but it is another to show basic human civility. And if nothing else can get your attention, may be violence is the only way. Just like the Hans killing the Mongols when the Mongols were leaving China, and Hans killing Japanese after they surrendered.

March 17, 2008 @ 11:30 pm | Comment

No, Bing, you haven’t. The above comparison I quoted actually shows that you regard Tibet as a foreign country.

March 17, 2008 @ 11:37 pm | Comment

I can see why there are riots in Tibet… When your guest has been sitting in your living room, having tea and stuff, and never pay attention to you, as if you don’t exist, you would do something to get their attention, won’t you ?

Yeah, rob them, beat them up, burn them alive, kill them, why not? Any heart broken losers will just do that.

March 17, 2008 @ 11:39 pm | Comment

“No, Bing, you haven’t. The above comparison I quoted actually shows that you regard Tibet as a foreign country.”

Not it’s our colony and integral part of China, not a foreign country that has any sovereignty.

March 17, 2008 @ 11:40 pm | Comment

Extracts from Der Spiegel from a German now in Tibet.

For those who knows the language of Goethe
http://tinyurl.com/yqclul

Artikel Selection:
Auch Jacob kann wenig über mögliche Opfer sagen, “aber es gibt weit mehr, als Peking behauptet, da sind sich hier alle sicher”.
Jabob cannot say much about posible victims “but there are much more than Peking says, of that we are all sure”

“Die chinesische Armee greift durch. Die Soldaten im Stadtzentrum sind schwer bewaffnet und fahren mit Panzern durch die Straßen,”
The Chinese Army is taking tough actions. Heavily armed soldiers drive through downtown streets in armored vehicles.

“jedem zweiten Touristen” die Speicherkarten der Digitalkameras einsammelten. “Es sollten keine Fotos der Aufstände nach draußen gelangen.”
From every two tourist they collect the memory cards of digital cameras. There should not be any photos of the uprising going out

“Die Armee hat die Stadt besetzt – im Moment sind im Zentrum genauso viele Soldaten wie Einwohner.”
The army has occupied the city. Now in downtown there are so many solders as inhabitants.

“Die Einheimischen werden rigoros und brutal abgetastet”,
The locals are being rigorously and brutally registered

Die Militärpräsenz sei schockierend, sagt Jacob. “An jeder Kreuzung warten 50 Polizisten, die jeden kontrollieren. Gestern haben wir für einen Kilometer zurück zum Hotel zwei Stunden gebraucht.”
The military presence is shocking, says Jacob. At each crossroad there are 50 policemen. Yesterday we needed 2 hours to make a kilometer back to the hotel

“Vor zwei Tagen rückten bewaffnete Kräfte sogar in den Internetraum des Hostels ein – um wenige Minuten später mit sämtlichen Festplatten im Gepäck wieder abzumarschieren, damit keine Fotos oder Videos gesichert werden können.”
Two days ago armed forces entered even in the hostels internet room. Few minutes later they leave taking with them complete hard drives, to prevent saving photos or videos.

March 17, 2008 @ 11:48 pm | Comment

Is eerily calm here now.

Missing those post from mainland Chinese people(?) trying to explain their views as good as they could in the best English they could muster.

Yes. It seems this blog has been firewalled.

A TOR download anyone? 😉
http://www.torproject.org/

March 18, 2008 @ 12:00 am | Comment

Nah, just tired. It is pointless to argue here. We will work according to our law with or without all those blah blah. Losing the Game is the small price to pay for keeping the country together.

March 18, 2008 @ 1:33 am | Comment

@ecodelta,

I knew little about the Basque “police force”, but reading on Wikipedia, it was interesting to see that it is rejected by Basque nationalists as illegitimate puppets of the colonial force. It was also interesting to see that one of the major responsibilities of the Basque police force is combating Basque separatists.

Has Spain held local referendums (for only ethnic Basques) on independence for Basque country? I ask out of curiosity, not because I know the answer.

I’m not sure I see the Basque solution as being *significantly* different from what Tibet experiences today. Tibetans pay very little tax (no agricultural taxes anywhere in China; low income earners also earn no taxes).. but what taxes are paid stays in Tibet itself. Something like 90% of all government staff in Tibet is made up of Tibetans.

But I think ultimately Tibet will be especially challenging because of the demographics in China. Tibetans are a tiny, tiny minority… representing less than 0.5% of the total population. The level of hostility that we saw this weekend is simply not going to be tolerated by the majority, will not survive. The only thing preventing “Tibetan autonomy” from being erased today is the fact that Beijing is *not* a democracy.

March 18, 2008 @ 2:06 am | Comment

@CCT
Precisely the Basque Nationalist demanded and created that force. There has been complains about the opposite, local police been to lenient with violent separatist groups. Maybe you have mistaken it with the “Guardia Civil”, central government force. Or find references to conflict between both Basque nationalist groups Abertzales (nationalist left) and PNV (nationalist right). Again you should check info behind Wikipedia. Just follow the links

Local referendum to be held in November 2008 if plans are followed. For all people registered in Basque Country. Does not depend on ethnicity. Basques are still majority on their own country, anyway.
There are still discussions over the right time to celebrate the referendum, some call it even illegal. There is anyway a compromise to celebrate it.

Tibetans a tiny minority? In China or in Tibet? Basques are also a tiny minority in Spain, not so in Basque Country.

In our case. Only in democratic periods have had the Basque Country its autonomy. Quite the reverse during last authoritarian period.

March 18, 2008 @ 3:31 am | Comment

@CCT
The difference, in my opinion, between a province and colony is that region’s population’s perception of its own identity. It doesn’t matter what the average Wang on the streets of Nanjing thinks Tibet is or everyone of the 1.3 billion Chinese minus the few million Tibetans think. If the majority of Tibetans don’t view themselves as Chinese the situation is no different from French Algeria.
I still believe that we can’t be sure what the average Tibetan thinks, but these riots are a strong indication that by and large the Tibetans, in their own opinions, are not Chinese. And this is inspite of all the very obvious material improvements that the PRC has brought to the region. To turn around the statement about the ‘Olympics not being worth trading for our nation’, a Tibetan might say that one hospital, ten hospitals, a thousand hospitals are not worth trading for *his* nation.

So the challenge, if we insist China must include Tibet, is to convince the Tibetans that they are Chinese. I believe the majority of Chinese (and you?) are right that the racial apartheid is not helping this cause at all, and is a serious contradiction to the philosophy of a united China. Its also, in my opionion, morally wrong. But I’m not sure if it would be easy in the short term, as it would probably provoke even more violence once the Tibetan nationalists realised what was happening.

To me, it seems that a much better option for the rest of China would be to give Tibet it’s independence and allow all the feudalism, poverty, theocracy and so on to become the Tibetan government’s problems, and to use the freed up resources to improve the lives of people who actually want to be part of China. I know this is not likely to happen anytime soon, but perhaps in a future China that allows slightly more discussion on these things and is a little more flexible on issues concerning its own identity.

Thoughts, please. Am I way out to lunch here?

March 18, 2008 @ 3:45 am | Comment

IMHO, this whole situation reminds me very much of apartheid South Africa. The Chinese government uses the same arguments the Nats did to justify their domination of blacks. They pointed (correctly) to the relative wealth and education of black South Africans compared to people in neighbouring dictatorships. It’s not that Westerners deny the advantages China has brought to Tibet. Just as in South Africa, Westerners firmly believe that no amount of development can justify oppressing and dominating a nation.

March 18, 2008 @ 3:52 am | Comment

“IMHO, this whole situation reminds me very much of apartheid South Africa. “

Typical western propaganda, as bad as CCP’s.

Did white South African have any policies in favor of the Black? Did the Black have equal rights as the white legally or practically?

Occupation, colony whatever you say it is, just don’t make such sensational and specious comparisons.

March 18, 2008 @ 4:59 am | Comment

“To me, it seems that a much better option for the rest of China would be to give Tibet it’s independence and allow all the feudalism, poverty, theocracy and so on to become the Tibetan government’s problems, and to use the freed up resources to improve the lives of people who actually want to be part of China.”

Take a look at the map of China, and tell me what kind of governments would let such a significant part of its territory go?

March 18, 2008 @ 5:17 am | Comment

@Bing
Well, France, Britain, and the Russia all come to mind. Speaking of which, this raises another question. Is the issue here the people, or just the geographic territory? The same could go for Taiwan.

March 18, 2008 @ 5:38 am | Comment

@Bing
I just thought of another one; Czechoslovakia.

March 18, 2008 @ 5:45 am | Comment

Well, France, Britain, and the Russia all come to mind. Speaking of which, this raises another question. Is the issue here the people, or just the geographic territory? The same could go for Taiwan.

I just thought of another one; Czechoslovakia.

Do you think it’s out of kindness and good will that Britain, France and Russia let go of their former colonies and republics?

They are weak and couldn’t hang on to them after the second world war.

Why can’t Britain let go of Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, and Falkland Islands? Why can’t Russia let go of Chechnya? Why can’t Turkey let go of Northern Kurdistan? Why can’t India let go of Kashmir?

March 18, 2008 @ 6:17 am | Comment

Did white South African have any policies in favor of the Black? Did the Black have equal rights as the white legally or practically?

No, they didn’t enjoy equal rights. Neither do the Tibetans. They are being treated as foreigners in their own country, in their own capital. They are seeing important jobs given to people who came straight from the train station. All significant post of political power are in the hands of Han Chinese, who do not speak a word of Tibetan. Their language is treated as a minority language in a region where they used to be the majority. The Tibetans cannot receive higher education in their native language. The PRC government are forcing monks to pay obeisance to an incarnation of Panchen Lama they do not recognize. Peaceful protests are being broken up with violent police clamp down.

For how long do you think you can treat a people like that without things boiling over at some point? The Chinese people are a proud people. They should expect an old nation like the Tibetans to be any less proud.

March 18, 2008 @ 6:23 am | Comment

Why can’t Britain let go of Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, and Falkland Islands?

Simple answer: the British government would have let Northern Ireland go long ago if it were not for the vocal protestant population. And the majority populations of both Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands prefer to stay British.

Why can’t Russia let go of Chechnya? Why can’t Turkey let go of Northern Kurdistan? Why can’t India let go of Kashmir?

I agree. At some point, they should consider getting rid of this regions.

March 18, 2008 @ 6:26 am | Comment

@Bing
I agree with you partly. I don’t think it was out of kindness that any of those nations gave up territories. But I do think that it was out of the best interests of their own people. Russia possibly excepted, of course.
The British Empire had ceased to be profitable and the French Empire one was never really was. The government personnel was in physical danger in many cases, and tax payer money was being lost across the board. There were simply no good reasons to continue to force Africans, Indians, or Irishmen to be part of the British Empire or the French Republic.
The Falkland Islands, Northern Ireland, and Gibraltar are all kept as British territories because they have populations where the majority of people want to be governed by Britain. Chechnya, Kurdistan, and Kashmir I know less about, though perhaps someone else could shed some light on where they fit.

Practically speaking though, look at what the PRC is doing. It’s losing money, respect, and innocent Chinese lives in an attempt to civilise a primitive mountain people who do not seem to be all that interested in being civilised. And for what? Some residual affection or sense of duty towards the Qing dynasty? An immaterial sense of national pride at being able to say that your country is really geographically big?

March 18, 2008 @ 6:42 am | Comment

@Amban
“Simple answer: the British government would have let Northern Ireland go long ago if it were not for the vocal protestant population. And the majority populations of both Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands prefer to stay British”
@Lime
The Falkland Islands, Northern Ireland, and Gibraltar are all kept as British territories because they have populations where the majority of people want to be governed by Britain.

Where did those British supporters come from?

Exactly why the CCP government should have started real massive migration of other Chinese ethnic groups to Tibet a long time ago.

It’s losing money, respect, and innocent Chinese lives in an attempt to civilise a primitive mountain people who do not seem to be all that interested in being civilised. And for what? Some residual affection or sense of duty towards the Qing dynasty? An immaterial sense of national pride at being able to say that your country is really geographically big?

You might not be well informed of how strategically and economically significant Tibet is to China considering the natural resources and of course its geographical position.

March 18, 2008 @ 6:54 am | Comment

@Bing
Wait. I’m confused. So you’re saying that the whole occupation of Tibet is just an imperialist land grab like Britain and France were doing a century ago? With the only justification being previous imperialist land grabs in the same region? And there isn’t a moral justification, just a desire to enrich yourselves by controlling yet-to-be-developed natural resources, and to create a buffer for China proper against the very very theoretical possibility of an Nepalese or Indian invasion?

March 18, 2008 @ 7:33 am | Comment

Amban,

Americans right off the plane are also given preferential hiring in Beijing… at least those with English fluency are. I presume this is also representative of an “apartheid policy” towards the Han Chinese?

There is clearly racial inequality in Tibet. This is not unique to Tibet; poorly educated minorities without a grasp of the majority language will struggle. The United States is still struggling with African-American issues, 150 years after they were freed from slavery.

You mention that the Party Secretary in Tibet has always been Chinese.. that’s actually not accurate, as there has been at least one non Han Chinese chief secretary in the TAR. But regardless… in the United States, there has yet to be a single President that’s not Anglo-Saxon. 98% of Congressman were Anglo-Saxon at last count. Minorities are severely under-represented at every level of government.

Does this suggest government apartheid? Or does it just suggest that socio-economic divides are difficult to overcome in any majority/minority nation?

All we can talk about is government policy, not private attitudes. And all of your rhetoric aside, you can’t point to one piece of government policy that classifies Tibetans as “second-class citizens”.

@Lime,

More and more, this discussion is just bringing into sharper focus, in my own mind, that the solution here is to end the distinction between minority nationalities. The term should be eliminated.

As far as the possibility that this will create more uproar from Tibetan nationalists on the short-term… I’m of the opinion that China can handle it. Domestic opinion is united on supporting the Chinese government on this point, and the population distinction is way too overwhelming. We’re not talking about a minority population that’s 10%, 5%, or even 1% of the total… Tibetans represent about 0.3% of the total population of China.

As far as whether it will create more international uproar… frankly, Tibetan activists have successfully convinced the West for decades that “cultural genocide” is already occurring. It’s a firm belief for many of the posters here that China is already trying to swamp Tibet with Han and Hui colonists.

So, really, what further uproar is possible? As long as China is already being painted in this negative light, I really don’t see see any further negative consequence in carrying out the policy China’s already accused of. Many Chinese are talking about the accomplishments of the jianshe bingtuan in Xinjiang. It’s time to consider implementing the same policy throughout greater Tibet.

A China where the rule of law is color-blind may very well be the best gift I can give my children.

March 18, 2008 @ 7:52 am | Comment

Western and US media should use precaution when they laud the violent “peaceful protest” by the Tibetans who killed and murdered innocent Han Chinese and muslim Chinese living in Tibet and when Tibetans claim to be at a disadvantageous sociopolitical position, because it reminds me of the Los Angeles riots between African Americans and cops when blacks made similar claims.

Tibet under the Dalai Lama’s rule five decades ago was by no means a romatic place full of Buddhist glory and benevolence, as least no better than the first few decades of the Communist rule, because the Dalai Lama surely used a lot of peasant slaves to work on his farm and in his home.

What the Chinese are wary of is the West’s “ulterior motive” of trying to split China, the way they did with Kosovo and Yugoslavia, which they trace back to the 19th century when the British Empire tried to invade and control Tibet. At least, Tibet sought after the Qing Dynasty’s approval of its spiritual and political leader before their enthronment.

Chinese, including both government and people, see Western support of the Dalai Lama as yet another Western attempt to split and weaken China the way they did the former Sovit Union.

Also, many of my Indian and Pakistani friends told me that before the British interefered, the two nations lived as one country and in peace. Now I thought of today’s Iraq war situation where everyone is killing everyone, Iraqis or non-Iraqis. I certainly don’t want that to happen in China.

March 18, 2008 @ 8:17 am | Comment

@CCT
You seem always to be able to find an admirable goal within a grisly issue. A colour blind rule of law is something I wish Canada will someday have too. Simply making Tibetans and Chinese legally equal however will not solve the root problem anymore than it did for the French and Algerians or the Americans and the Sioux. Simply swamping Tibet with ethnic Chinese and forcibly assimilating them through a school system will certainly work to guarantee a mostly Sinofied Tibet, just has it has guaranteed an Anglosised Canda, America, and Australia. I think however you would be much better served to try and win the argument somehow. If you do it with a gun to their head, it will be seen as an atrocity outside of China, and eventually within China as well, just as the English nations’ forced assimilations are seen as atrocities today. Are you familiar with Canada’s residential school system or Australia’s stolen generations? China could portect its national pride better by cutting Tibet loose in the long run, but if it must be kept you need to convince the Tibetans that they should want to be Chinese.

By the way, not every US President was an Anglo-Saxon. Kennedy was Irish.

Happy St. Patty’s.

March 18, 2008 @ 8:22 am | Comment

Chinese, including both government and people, see Western support of the Dalai Lama as yet another Western attempt to split and weaken China the way they did the former Sovit Union.

They were at war with the Soviet Union, and Russia had occupied many Eastern European states against the will of the people living there. Do you admit China has forcibly taken over provinces against the will of the people there? Do you want to suggest China is unofficially at war with Europe and North America?

Also, many of my Indian and Pakistani friends told me that before the British interefered, the two nations lived as one country and in peace.

Then I think they are lying or at best naive. There was a long history of wars between Muslims and Hindus long before the British came.

Furthermore it was only when the British left that Partition happened and Pakistan split from India. British rule may have caused that indirectly, but it was certainly not the aim of policy in the 1940s/50s.

March 18, 2008 @ 8:26 am | Comment

@Lime,

What do I know… I’m just a Chinaman. I honestly didn’t realize that:

a) Kennedy was Irish (although I knew that he was a Catholic from the Commonwealth… and perhaps that should have clued me in),

b) that Irish weren’t considered Anglo-Saxon.

Consider me better informed today, but hopefully the point remains the same. Accusations of “apartheid” based on social results is unfair.. you have to look at government policy.

As far as residential schools + “lost generation”… are you advocating this, or are you suggesting it was a mistake? It wasn’t clear from your context. For what its worth, China has long offered boarding schools throughout “inland” China for Tibetan children. It’s a voluntary process for (usually connected/wealthy) Tibetan parents that want their children better educated in a Chinese environment. But again, after 5 decades of this… I’m not seeing results.

I think however you would be much better served to try and win the argument somehow.
That’s definitely a better solution, and one that I had hoped would come about, and something that I had tried to play my own very small role in.

But I’m not optimistic. Human history tells us that nationalism is a very addictive thing. I don’t know that anyone, including the Dalai Lama, can put this genie back in the bottle by “arguing”. Even if the Dalai Lama were to return to Tibet tomorrow, I’m no longer remotely convinced that he can contain or control the hundreds of thousands of exiles raised on a steady diet of hating China.

It really seems like the easier thing is to live up to China’s reputation and pacify Tibet once and for all.

March 18, 2008 @ 8:48 am | Comment

Xian Ting, that last comment of yours may well take the cake for ignorance, and causes me for the first time in a long time to tell a commenter he has been “brainwashed.” You really have been, and it has made you fact-resistant. People killing other people all around the world – it’s all caused by the US, and a Western conspiracy to split up powerful nations and destroy them. There was no killing before that. Brilliant.

March 18, 2008 @ 9:13 am | Comment

@CCT
I’m not advocating the residential school system or forcibly removing Tibetan children from their parents. I’m suggesting that you have to find some way to convince the Tibetan people to be Chinese without forcibly pacifying them, through these and other methods. It would be easier, but that doesn’t mean it won’t create serious practical problems in the future (look at the living conditions of the average Aborigine or Native Canadian), to say nothing of the stain on your history it will create once more critical analysis of China’s own history is allowed by Chinese historians.

One thing I think might be beneficial is to give the provinicial government of Tibet more power, rather than less, along with every other provincial government in China. Not so that there can be a legal apartheid, but so that the majority of people (Chinese and Tibetan) can decide themselves how to best to respond to the challenges their province faces. If the majority of people speak Tibetan rather than Mandarin, it should be the language taught in schools and used in government, just as Cantonese should be used in Guangdong. This isn’t making it any less Chinese (all three are official Chinese languages, afterall). And it isn’t creating legal inequality; it’s the province’s legal system and if you’re a Han person living in Lhasa you have to learn Tibetan, just as a Tibetan in Beijing would have to learn Mandarin.
This is something like how Quebec and New Brunswick operate within Canada. There are certainly problems that arise with this system, but they are of a type far less horrific than what has happened to our native peoples.

March 18, 2008 @ 9:15 am | Comment

The riot in Tibet reminds me of the riote in LA in early 90′. Lots of Tibet young people share many similarities with the African-american in US. They are poor on average. Unemployment rate is high amoung youth. Also, they are generally lazier than immigrant.

All these reason leads to the LA riot against Asian and spanish, and then similarly leads to the Tibetan riot against Han and Hui.

Chinese government should spend more money to help those “losers” Tibet youth to assimilate into modern society and prevent the perpetual poverty phenomena occuring among African-american neighbourhood.

As for Dalai, he wanted to come back to his hometown before his death. He recently toured many Western countries, probably providing a political foundation for the coming riot. To certain extend, recent event is the last Swan son of Dalai.

Unfortunatly, Dalai is just like Bear Stearns. Do not want to sell at $90 for too cheap, but end up sell at $2.

March 18, 2008 @ 1:32 pm | Comment

@Lime,

You have to appreciate that different countries have very different views of history. You tell me that Canadian historians view the era of forced assimilation critically, and you believe instead that devolving political power (and even language) to the province level is the right solution.

I’m not going to disagree with you, because I for one am not positive how future historians will view *our* generation. For all I know, teenagers in the year 3000 will be taught about the kind of Western liberalism you’re describing in Canada in glowing terms.

But I just want to point out that Chinese historians do have a different view of history and what you’d call assimilation. Qin Shihuang, the first Chinese “emperor”, is seen as a controversial character. On the one hand, he’s infamous for his extreme brutality and authoritarian rule… here was a man who actually destroyed his neighboring nations, slaughtered entire populations in what we’d today call genocide, and erased competing schools of thought whole-sale. On the other hand, he’s celebrated for having unified all of China… giving us a unified language, culture, and political tradition that we’ve never since given up. No one in China is stupid; we all realize we’re by definition the descendents of conquered “nations”. But, so what? Would our lives necessarily be better if we spoke/wrote a language that our neighbors a few miles down the road did not share? Would our lives be better if our cities or provinces were competitors, rather than partners?

This is the major open question, a dilemma I have not (and no one else I know) has answered satisfactorily. Can China find a satisfactory balance between our traditions and Western liberalism? What is that balance?

March 18, 2008 @ 4:01 pm | Comment

It’s amazing how brainwashed you westerners are by the propaganda machines of your western goverments and media when it comes to such sensitive and controversial issues — although I myself am NOT free from my own personal biases and prejudices. While I admire how citizens in the west keep their governments in check in many, if not all, domestic issues, your knowledge and understanding about international political affairs like the Sovit Union and Iraq and India/Pakistan/Kosovo are exactly what you were taught to believe by your governments and media.

While I was simply pointing out the dangers in people’s thinking in my posts, I respectfully urge you to learn about what non-Westerns think, before labeling them governmental agents or propoganda victims.

All in all, there’s still a long way to go before we reach a true understanding between the west and the east, Islam and Christianity, capitalism and communism, etc.

To add on, I personally do not fully approve Beijing’s policies on Tibet. Being atheist one-party ruler per se, the Communist Party must learn its way to deal with dissents, religions, and democracy. If China had been a more open and democratic society, the Dalai Lama might have not escaped to India and all these postings wouldn’t have been necessary.

With my first post, I was simply attempting to point out what ordinary Chinese were thinking, which, if Western countries so care, need to be addressed by the West.

March 18, 2008 @ 4:29 pm | Comment

“atheist one-party ruler”: something of a contradiction in terms, isn’t it? Considering the messianic nature of some nationalist rhetoric, might not the ideas of a “strong, economically-developed, and unified (that means you, Taiwan!) nation” have been raised to the level of holiness? Was the Olympics to be a massive pilgrimage on this model?

March 18, 2008 @ 4:49 pm | Comment

All this reminded me of what a good American friend told me he believed what the Bush administration said about Sadam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, even when the then Iraqi army was being defeated with no defending power by the US troops as he and I were speaking and watching CNN news.

You would think Sadam Hussein would haven already used and launched all of his weapons of mass destruction at the US troops by then.

All of those American citizens who voted George W. Bush should be labelled as governmental agents brainwashed by Bush, no? So please stop personal attacks on anyone who appears to share similar views to Chinese government. It’s totally rediculous and arbitrary of people using this label so swiftly.

March 18, 2008 @ 4:53 pm | Comment

@Xian
Agreed, all countries rely on their own internal consensus-building and often ignore terrible crimes committed in their name. The US with the Iraqi sanctions of the 1990s springs to mind.

But since you believe China should be more democratic, try a little thought-experiment. If Tibetans had more freedom, they would use it to promote their religion, their religious leader the Dalai Lama, their national cause, their monasteries, their right to run their own country with their own system, bring back the Kashag, outlaw the Chinese language, send back the Chinese settlers.

This is a situation similar to Estonia and Latvia where the Russian immigrants are required to learn the local language if they want to stay.

If China became more democratic, it would have to tolerate that. Would it?

Conversely, if it didn’t, then it seems the Tibet issue would become a permanent brake on China’s democratisation (until something catastrophic happens).

March 18, 2008 @ 5:28 pm | Comment

This is a situation similar to Estonia and Latvia where the Russian immigrants are required to learn the local language if they want to stay.

And similar to what Mugabe’s Zimbabwe did to the western descendents, which was well received across the world.

March 18, 2008 @ 6:46 pm | Comment

He’s right to try to restrain the violent mobs after observing the reactions from international governments in which he must be quite dissapointed. But “give up calling for greater autonomy, instead campaigning for “indpendence if the majority wants”?

I don’t see what difference that will make to any side. His greater autonomy has always been equal to a final de facto independence. Everybody knows.

March 18, 2008 @ 8:36 pm | Comment

sorry posted to the wrong thread

March 18, 2008 @ 9:18 pm | Comment

@CCT
I’m not speaking of Chinese historians 3000 years in the future, as it’s doubtful a ‘China’ will even exist then, and if it does, I’m sure that they won’t stoop to judging the PRC as either good or bad, but merely look at it as the political and social contortions of a ancient primitive people, just as we now look back on Qin Shi Huang, Augustus Caser, and William the Conqueror.
I’m speaking of your grandchildren, and maybe even your children. Modern English historians and philosophers don’t waste a lot of time trying to judge the morality of the Anglo-Saxon invaders and the atrocities they perpetrated on the Celts in the fifth century, but they are very concerned with the moral legacy of the British parliament and American government’s involvements in slavery and imperialism from the 19th century right to the present day, because the systems they are living under and benefiting from currently are more or less continuous with the ones that their parents, grandfathers, and great grandfathers lived under. I vote in the same way, for the same parties today as my grandfather did when a government came to power that instituted the residential school system in Canada. An even more immediate and visceral example is the violent debate the that continues to rage in Japan over how best to deal with their own bloody and all too recent legacy.
You seem to think that the CCP is not, and should not, be going anywhere anytime soon. If it will be the government of the your children, they won’t be able to just right off the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, or the forced assimilation of Tibet as legacies of an earlier corrupted system that China has moved beyond. The ideals and structure that Mao and Zhou Enlai established are the ones that you accept and intend to continue to accept as the guiding principles of your nation. As part of that nation, your descendants will have to come to grips with the history the current state is creating as part of their own identities.
As an Anglo-Saxon descendant of British Empire colonists who has went through the modern school and university systems of Alberta, I feel I can speak with some authority on this.

I think you also have to stop and think why it is exactly that you want Tibet within your nation. If it’s just the land and resources, and the people and their culture are nothing more than an inconvenience, the PRC cannot claim to be any better than Imperial Japan. If the PRC has occupied Tibet, just because they feel entitled to it, want to feel tough and strong, and so that they can be proud that they have made their nation bigger, in my opinion, it’s worse than the Japanese, as they were at least annexing territory to make their nation materially better off.
But I’m an optimist, and have not yet fully bought into Snow’s position that the CCP is irredeemably evil. I think that at least part of the reason that the CCP insists on holding Tibet is because they believe that something about it makes China richer in an immaterial sense. Something in the perspectives, culture, and history of the Tibetans is valuable, and in making Tibet part of China, China becomes deeper and more diverse.
This is the only sympathetic explanation I can see for China’s continued occupation of Tibet. If I am at least partly right, then the gut reaction to the these riots, combined with excessive nationalism, cultural chauvinism and a debunking of the Shangri La myth that has went too far has put China, along with the rest of the world, in danger of losing anything and everything valuable the Tibetan people may have to offer.

March 19, 2008 @ 1:23 am | Comment

Still @CCT
Thinking about it, I realise that I didn’t respond to part of your last post properly. The concept of ‘Western Liberalism’ is too much of a simplification to be useful in my mind. This whole idea of a ‘west’ seems to be kind of an ironic inversion of the archaic western European concept of the orient. What I assume you’re referring to is an intellectual liberalism that is shared not only by European and English nations, but also by countries whose ‘westernism’ in other ways is debateable like Israel, Japan, and the Republic of China. The intellectual liberalism that is shared by all these countries boils down to a rejection of the idea that the state should be allowed to dictate the answer to any philosophical question. So the ‘nation’ does not view history at all, individuals do.
I think I am at fault for making it sound like everyone in Canada and Australia agreed that the Stolen Generations and the Residential School system was a mistake. Of course, this isn’t true. There are lots of people who feel that they were good, if poorly executed ideas, just as there is a vocal minority in Japan that feels the imperialist adventures of their fathers and grandfathers were a really great idea.
When and if China becomes more intellectually liberal (I think you’ve indicated that you believe it will), I’m sure there will continue to be a minority that feel the Cultural Revolution was a really good idea, but they will have to be prepared to debate with those who don’t. I’m sure there will also be a minority that feels forcing the Tibetans to Sinofy was a good idea too. So… hell maybe you’re right. Who’s to say what’s right and wrong? But perhaps you’ll concede that China might benefit from waiting until its culture is a little more capable of discussing and seeing issues from multiple angles before taking a step as drastic as intentionally trying to eliminate a whole other culture?

March 19, 2008 @ 2:58 am | Comment

1. The unrest has not much to do with the chinese occupation. Its a result of unusually high inflation +indirect discrimination+being left out of the prosperity of a growing tourism. Note: most rioters r young, probably badly educated, jobless, moneyless, while seeing around them ppl coming from outside making big bugs, as the strangers like chinese&hui have access to production chain&credit source unavailabel to Tibetans like them. Its more economical frustrations rather than political ones.

The core area of Tibet is suffering under ‘brain-drain’. All the well educated Tibetan youth didnt come back to Lhasa. Instead, they stayed in chinese cities or cities around Tibet which offer them a better job & more international flair.
Result: u got lots of angry young tibetan losers in Lhasa.

Fact is: Lhasa is a nice place for tourist, but it does not offer many job options for youth. If u r a Tibetan and u studied IT, what can u do in the land of rock & grass? Not much i guess. Due to Tibets poor geographical situation, the only profitable economy branch is tourism. Nomades live from hand to mouth and that was under DL. Since the chinese, the situation got a little better through trade with china, but thats all. The irony is that the newly gained wealth did include tibetans, of course not as much as the chinese. This wealth comes from tourism with 80% of the tourist being chinese. Now the tibetans destroyed it. If the majority of tourists stayes away, the chinese shop owners go back, there r even less left for tibetans. Dont think the handfull west tourists can save the situation.

2. I wont give much to what the indian side of the tibetans says. I read german newspapers with one of the three last journalist still staying in Lhasa. None of the sources claimed that 30 or even 100 ppl died. They all say they can see police carrying guns but they dont aimed them at tibetans or shot at them. if 100 ppl died, dont u think those journalist who r actually there would report it already?
The indian side is just making up things to throw dirt at china.
They also claim the chinese r killing hundreds of thousands Tibetans and is commiting genocide.
I wonder where all the tibetans in Tibet r coming from if china is really doing that. I mean, 50 years of ‘killing hundreds of thousands Tibetans’ + ‘commiting genocide’ would be enough to make a race disappear from earth. dont u think? how long did it took for the germans to erase the jews from germany and europe? In less than 10 years.
I am not saying the chinese r overly nice to tibetans, but genocide? Come on, thats equally stupid shit.

3. When talking about Tibet, the west only focus on democracy + human rights. They never think further. Like what will happen to Tibet after independency?

The truth is, Tibet cannot live without China. Even if Tibet does gain independency, it still has to depend on China to make bugs. Dont tell me as soon as DL comes back, the tibetans will suddenly all become happy and will live happily in poverty as they did under DLs rule. No they wont. Why? because under the chinese, they got a taste of wealth and how life could be. If DL cant lift Tibets economy, he will be facing the same frustrations of tibetans as well.
Tibets economy situation is worse and has limited development possibility due to its geography.
China invested billions to lift tibets economy artificially. I wonder which country will do the same once Tibet lost its importance as a blackmail possibility of China? Either the US nor India will invest that much in Tibet. The US will probaly march in but invest? In what?

China only has to boycott Tibet like the US Cuba. It just blocks any access of tourism from chinas side and Tibet will sink back to poverty.
Its nealy impossilbe to travel from indias side to Tibet and trade with india is complicated cos
1. steep mountains, no routes. bad trasports.
2. No manufacturing skills
3. No resources.
4. No technology
5. China can offer anything cheaper than any goods from tibet.

And to those who thinks the tibetans will happily live in poverty when they gain their religious freedom back. plz use ur brain. Why do the Tibetans work their ass off and even sell their herds to get their kids an state education? why did the figure of young monks sunk as soon as the tibetans r being offered the possibility of state school? Because the parents r unsatisfied with the life they r living. They want their kids to climb up the social ladder. A possibility not being offered under DLs rule.

Second: The DL never mentioned it BUT Tibet does have a kosovo situation in itself. Since Tibet lost Yunan, Qinghai, Sichuan etc. some 100 years ago, the composition of the population there has changed. Now, in those areas, the Tibetans r a minority themselves. Even within Tibet, there r other minorities(non-han/non-tibetan) too.
i am just wondering what happens if those areas and the ppl living there dont want to be ruled by Tibetans?
Would the Tibetans, once they become the rulers themselves, give the ppl(Non-Tibetans) the same right to decide for themselves as the tibetans demand from the chinese? or would they, like the chinese, retrieve to excuses from historical claims like ‘this part had always been part of tibet’ ?
I wonder if DL will allow a democratic vote in Yunan or Sichuan? As far as i know, he never mentioned this possibility. Perspective change once its about time to cut into ur own flesh I guess?

March 19, 2008 @ 4:49 am | Comment

>”The truth is, Tibet cannot live without China. Even if Tibet does gain independency, it still has to depend on China to make bugs. Dont tell me as soon as DL comes back, the tibetans will suddenly all become happy and will live happily in poverty as they did under DLs rule. No they wont. Why? because under the chinese, they got a taste of wealth and how life could be. If DL cant lift Tibets economy, he will be facing the same frustrations of tibetans as well.
Tibets economy situation is worse and has limited development possibility due to its geography.
China invested billions to lift tibets economy artificially. I wonder which country will do the same once Tibet lost its importance as a blackmail possibility of China? Either the US nor India will invest that much in Tibet. The US will probaly march in but invest? In what?

China only has to boycott Tibet like the US Cuba. It just blocks any access of tourism from chinas side and Tibet will sink back to poverty.
Its nealy impossilbe to travel from indias side to Tibet and trade with india is complicated cos
1. steep mountains, no routes. bad trasports.
2. No manufacturing skills
3. No resources.
4. No technology
5. China can offer anything cheaper than any goods from tibet. ”

Your arguments have some validity, but all too familar; after all, they were the same arguments used by European colonial powers to defend their presence in Africa. If the right to self-determination trumped development in Africa (and China was certainly among those most enthusiastically opposing European colonialism in Africa), why is Tibet different?

March 19, 2008 @ 5:05 am | Comment

Anonymous, i am just pointing out that Tibet needs China for further development. Just like Africa needs the europoean market to develope its economy. Africa is still, in large part, dependent on eu. I guess Tibet will become something like africa for China if it becomes independent. I hope, call me selfish, China will not send further money to the tibetans. Chinese need these money desperately for themselves. After Tibet becomes independent, it has nothing to do with China anymore, its not Chinas duty to keep Tibets economy running. China has already given a lot ‘hardware’ to Tibet.

March 19, 2008 @ 6:34 am | Comment

If u want to compare China with european colonialism:

name me one eu nation that did invest billions into the infrastructure, education, hospitals, schools, supply of electricity, gave financial support, extra points when it comes to entering university in the colonised Africa.

Name me one colonial power in Africa which managed to reduce the illiteracy among the natives from 90% to less than 5%.

Any names? No? How come?

South Africa? Did the whities ever left that place?

The european colonialism basically tried to get all they can from Africa while nearly investing nothing into the population/nation. When they left, they left nothing behind for the Africans to build on.

At least the Tibetans will have a much better position cos Tibet did developed a lot under China. Thats fact, even anti-china basher cant deny it.

March 19, 2008 @ 9:30 am | Comment

I am by no means intending to defend South Africa’s government or the other European regimes in Southern Africa, however, since you have asked me to name their achievements, I will list them:

South Africa achieved a literacy rate of under 20%, Rhodesia’s was lower still.

Both South Africa and Rhodesia had average lifespans of over 60.

In both nations, black average income was several times that of the neighbouring black states.

But you see, ultimately, none of this is relevant. The West, while acknowledging the successes of the settler regimes, was unwilling to defend them on the grounds that they did not govern with the consent of their people. Surely the same logic applies to Tibet, however the Chinese seem unwilling to apply the same logic to the situation. In fact, the only significant differences between the settler regimes in southern Africa and the Chinese presence in Tibet is that Tibetans are fleeing Tibet en masse, and are being shot by the Chinese security guards for it; in contrast, the European settler regimes in southern Africa were swamped by immigrants fleeing the collapse of post-colonial black Africa.

I repeat that I am not defending European imperialism in Africa; surely their achievements are ultimately irrelevant given their lack of popular support and legitimacy, which was the reason why they were shunned by the international community.

I understand that Tibet has an illiteracy rate of 32.50%, not, as I repeat, that this is of any relevance, in my opinion, as to its’ legitimacy.

March 19, 2008 @ 10:02 am | Comment

Correction: “South Africa achieved a illiteracy rate of under 20%, Rhodesia’s was lower still.”

March 19, 2008 @ 10:03 am | Comment

In response to Chinese-style socialism (nice name, man)… do you know the history of Tsinghua University, which now serves as a cultivation ground for Party appartchiks who rant and rave about “American imperialism”? Talk about irony.

March 20, 2008 @ 12:54 pm | Comment

“I hope this isn’t a taste of the future that awaits China across all its provinces, but I fear it is one scenario.”

Oh, I certainly hope it is. It may be our last hope. The fracturing or “splitting” of China is exactly what the world needs now; seeing how shamelessly our leaders are already kowtowing to China, can you imagine how intolerable it will be in a few decades unless something knocks the wind out of China’s sails? Think the Bush adminisration’s annoying, imagine what a Sinocentric world order would be like? I shudder at the thought.

March 20, 2008 @ 3:07 pm | Comment

Check out these old photos taken during the Dalai Lama’s rule before 1951:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24879277@N03/

WARNING: Some photos are graphic and can be disturbing to some users.

DISCLAIMER: I don’t support the Dalai Lama nor the Beijing government. These photos are just for pure public sharing purposes.

March 21, 2008 @ 5:07 pm | Comment