I cannot find the orignial post about the interview. Anyway to post the full article?

January 17, 2009 @ 2:22 am | Comment

There was no post, just a video. Were you able to open the link to the video? If so, that’s it.

January 17, 2009 @ 2:30 am | Comment

I suppose the Japanese also celebrated the freedom of CH people of feudal regime when they invaded CH….

January 17, 2009 @ 4:48 am | Comment

Is Tibet an Independent Country?

There’s an American senator named Charlie Keel. He believes that China occupied the country of Tibet in 1951. Many Americans believe in this claim as well, mainly because their geographical knowledge is too poor. Recently, the American media starts to spread this false claim again, and they said such things like even though Japan changed history in its textbooks, China also concealed the occupation of Tibet. This post will clarify many things and review some history with you.

In 1951, China occupied Tibet, this is a fact. The reason is that as the Chinese Civil War ended, Chinese troops from 1948-1951 not only occupied Tibet, it also occupied Heilongjiang, it also occupied Hainan Island, it also occupied all provinces of China. So occupation of Tibet is natural, because Tibet is of course always a part of China. Now you may scream hysterically and yell, “Math! Prove it!”, well what’s the rush, why don’t you let me show you.

In mid 13th century, Tibet was formally included into the map of China’s Yuan Dynasty. The emperor named Kublai Khan gave the authority over Tibet, and established the “Central Ruling office” (Zong Zhi Yuan in Chinese), this office was responsible for all the Buddhist and Tibetan affairs of the nation.

In late 14th century, the Ming Dynasty inherited from the Yuan Dynasty the system of governing towards Tibet, and implemented the policy of “Paying money and titles to local Monks and Monestaries, and respecting their political power”, and this made the relationship between the Central government and Tibet even stronger.

After the 17th century, the Qing Dynasty increased their rule over Tibet. In 1721, it sent 4 powerful Tibetan “Ge Lun”‘s to rule Tibet. In 1727, it sent a representative-govenor to Tibet. In 1792, it published 29 rules regarding the affairs of Tibet. And those rules were about reincarnation of Llamas, local laws, economies, military, foreign affairs, etc. This symoblized that the Qing’s rule over Tibet is legalized and systematic.

When the Republic of China was first established, it declared China to be a Republic containing the Han, Manchus, Mongols, Ughers, and Tibetan ethnic groups. Sung Yat Sen wrote in the declaration that, “The foundation of a nation depends on the people. Uniting Hans, Manchus, Mongols, Uighers, and Tibetans to be one nation and one people, is the unity of the people.” And the temporary flag of the China then was 5-colored, representing the unity of those 5 ethnic groups.

In March 11, 1921, the Nanjing temporary gov’t published the “Temporary laws of the Republic of China”, and it stated: “The Chinese terrortory is of 22 provinces, plus Mongolia, Tibet, and Qinghai”. “All Provinces and Inner Mongolia, Outer Mongolia, Tibet need 5 representatives, and Qinghai needs one…”. This clearly states that Tibet was a part of China, and has political involvement in China just like other provinces.

In 1927, The KMT gov’t establishes in Nanjing. Jiang Kaishek wrote to Dalai and Gelun, in which he sayd “Even though Tibet is far away, it is a territory of China.”

In 1947, the Nationalist gov’t published the Constitution of China, and it says “China’s terrority includes Tibet, and without a vote in the Assembly, this status cannot be changed.”

In 1931, May 5, the Ninth Banchan in Tibet went to participate in the National Council, and he made a speech called “Tibet Is A Part of China’s Territory”. This Banchan travelled across China for 14 years, and made great contributions to the unity of different ethnic groups. In December of 1937, he died. But even before his death, he urged to make the ethnic groups more unified and that is the best for China.

On March 29, 1948. The Constitutional Council had a a national meeting. And 13 representatives from Tibet attended. There are 3 law makers from Tibet: Bu Dan San Bu, Ba A Wang, Da Zeng Dang Que; Three inspectors from Tibet: Tu Dan Ce Dan, Ba Za Xi, Dan Ban Peng Cuo. 5 committee members: Ji Jing Mei, Cai Reng Tuan Zhu, Tu Dan Ni Ma, Luo Sang Jian Zan, Na Wang Jing Ba: Three seniors: La Ming Yi Xi Chu Cheng, Ji Yu Jie, He Ba Dun. Luo Sang Jian Zeng was even hired to be a member of the council of National Policy by the President.

So from the Yuan to Ming to the Nationalist gov’t, each gov’t recognizes Tibet as part of China and each increased their relationship with Tibet.

So of course Tibet has already been established as part of China, much earlier than when the “Purists” landed in the Americas. In fact, those histories are not important at all. The important thing is that Tibet is currently a part of China. When America occupied Hawaii, Hawaii could also be considered an independent nation. But America occupied it, so what’s wrong with it? When America occupied California, Nevada, Utah ,Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, wasn’t Mexico also an independent nation? But America took many lands from Mexico, so what’s wrong with it? People often accuse China of destroying Tibetan culture, but Tibet today has more monestaries and monks than it had before 1951. And who destroyed the culture of Native Americans? In fact, China did a very good job of preserving the original culture of China’s ethnic groups than America preserved the Native Americans’ culture.

I hope after reading this post, you will be more open minded and learned more history.

January 17, 2009 @ 5:54 am | Comment

One thing to add to Math’s post.

In 1949, the 10th Panchen Lama telegraphed Mao, urging him to send the People’s Liberation Army troops to Tibet to liberate the region.

January 17, 2009 @ 7:39 am | Comment

Yes Math and Serve the People, but you’re talking about Tibet’s history as part of successive ‘Chinese’ empires, not Tibet as part of a Chinese nation.

This makes your posts amusing in the same way as some Brit breathlessly informing us that Britain has every right to be in Ireland because Ireland was historically part of the British Empire.

Perhaps it is best for the Brits to remain in Northern Ireland, but however justified, the British presence there is simply an ugly reminder of colonialism, imperialism, and injustice. It’s hardly something to get a hard on over. Please try and control yourselves.

January 17, 2009 @ 10:10 am | Comment

I was there in 2001 when Tibetans were forced to celebrate the 50th anniversary of ‘Liberation Day’. I sipped endlessly on yak butter tea as locals told me their version of five decades of occupation.

It was a different story altogether.

January 17, 2009 @ 10:16 am | Comment

@Think Ming!

The People’s Republic is the successor of the earlier Chinese dynasties. It inherits all the rights, territories, and obligations under the international law.

January 17, 2009 @ 10:42 am | Comment

A wonderfully dense response from Serve the People, one of our many resident idiots. . .

January 17, 2009 @ 10:55 am | Comment

the Chinese government and Tibetans view historical events that still create friction today.

Because Mr. Random American Idiot speaks for all Tibetans, and all Chinese! Wow, omniscience must be nice.

I sipped endlessly on yak butter tea as locals told me their version of five decades of occupation.

That certainly is a very interesting story. Probably a big lie, but interesting nonetheless. I guess you were speaking fluent Tibetan to them in the Starbucks in Lhasa?

I suppose the Japanese also celebrated the freedom of CH people of feudal regime when they invaded CH….

It’s different. Bad, yes, but less bad. For one, the the Qing didn’t establish suzerainty over Tibet to annihilate and enslave them. The ROC didn’t inherit territories from the Qing to do that either.

As for the comparison above to Northern Ireland, I’m surprised someone is actually not being a hypocrite on the issue for once. I agree, Chinese out of Tibet, English out of Ireland, New Zealand and Australia, Russians out of Siberia, and Americans back to Europe.

Make it so!

January 17, 2009 @ 11:32 am | Comment

The one-child policy itself is very inhuman, because many fetuses have to be aborted. Even the live aborted babies have to be put to death in order to enforce this law. Absolutely no second child of any couple is allowed to live, ever since this law was in effect. The govt has murdered many lives this way with impunity while it executes a child killer to show it is the righteous one.

Some Indian people blindly admire the efficiency of the Chinese govt to control the population while lament the indecisiveness of their democracy to control their growing population, because they fail to see the ruthless side of the success.

Modern Chinese culture under Communism mostly is inhuman and unethical, because the people and their govt don’t have a decent ethics to follow. They are as much inept to adopt Christianity as democracy. However, the govt at least has done one right thing: the Chinese people should not be allowed to own gun

January 17, 2009 @ 11:53 am | Comment

Just want to point out that just about every word of Math’s post is cut and pasted from here: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+Close+Look+at+Tibet+from+China-a01073864619

January 17, 2009 @ 1:09 pm | Comment

They are as much inept to adopt Christianity as democracy.

Are you going to let this comment stand?

Or do you think Chinese people should be forced to adopt Christianity?

January 17, 2009 @ 2:02 pm | Comment

Rather are you content with him revealing that all these “freedom of religion” and “democratization” whines are just a front for Christians and their fanatical proselytization?

Christians using their religion and “democracy” propaganda to forward their own interests (keeping “others” under control). Not surprising.

January 17, 2009 @ 2:05 pm | Comment

Ferin, anytime you refer to other people’s religion as child rapists and shit like that I am deleting you. You can make your point without provoking people and insulting them. If not, there’s no place for you here, period. You know I’ve given you slack in the past, and now it’s up to you to show us you can talk like an adult.

By the way, I am not a Christian.

January 17, 2009 @ 2:40 pm | Comment

… and I am not a liar.

If you really care for the Tibetan view and have any interest in the truth about the past six decades on the plateau, I suggest you go see/ask for yourself.

Your problem of course, assuming that you look like Han Chinese, is that you won’t be trusted and will find it difficult to secure any Tibetan hospitality. Go figure.

January 17, 2009 @ 3:10 pm | Comment

assuming that you look like Han Chinese

Really now, and what does a “Han Chinese” look like? Last I checked this ethnic group is very diverse. But I guess I can trust you, an insufferable know-it-all, over the works of reputed population geneticists and my own experience.

And who’s to say your acquaintances represent “the Tibetan view”? Who nominated them as the representatives of the entire ethnic group? Oddly enough, the “minorities” I know are all very nationalistic. These are Hui, Mongols, Manchus and Koreans though. I don’t know many from the West. I love how you blabbed about “sipping butter tea” too, as if that gives you true affinity with the Tibetan people. How cosmopolitan.

deleted

January 17, 2009 @ 3:47 pm | Comment

Math, Ferin, STP, et. al.

As a historian and a teacher of a history, I can only shake my head at the kind of simplistic, unexamined historical narratives above. Sadly, they are typical of the crap that seems to appear whenever certain subjects are broached: arguments and analysis so utterly lacking in nuance and subtlety (and so full of the political and emotional needs of the present) as to be almost entirely useless.

Perhaps a quote from one of my favorite historians, Howard Zinn?

“Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any county, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, most often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated. In such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, as Albert Camus suggested, not to be on the side of the executioners.”

By which Zinn means the historian should neither romanticize nor pity the victim but neither should he or she repeat narratives of power, as written by the eventual victor, without remaining profoundly aware of how and why a particular narrative is constructed and then deployed.

History is complex, and historical questions cannot be reduced to soundbites or the kind of cheap sloganeering so often seen in these pages, particularly when dealing with something as complicated as the fate of a subject people in the transition from empire to nation-state.

All I am asking, I guess, is a little more thought, a little more nuance, and a little more necessary complexity in how we use historical arguments and so, possibly, raise the level of conversation a tad.

Thanks.

Ps. I also would like to make a motion that Ferin use that name if he is to continue posting. It would make it easier for new readers to search back posts and see what kind of “mind” they are dealing with before trying to engage him in any serious discussion.

January 17, 2009 @ 3:58 pm | Comment

“I love how you blabbed about “sipping butter tea” too, as if that gives you true affinity with the Tibetan people.”

Translation: “I’ve never been to Tibet. It’s quite unnecessary; my esteemed leaders tell me all I need to know without subjecting myself to the cognitive dissonance of reality.”

How did I do?

January 17, 2009 @ 4:56 pm | Comment

Thanks Jeremiah.

January 17, 2009 @ 5:07 pm | Comment

There is more in the Panchen Lama story I talked about.

At that time the Dalai Lama (that is the current one) did not accept the legitimacy of the 10th Pachen Lama. In 1951, Mao ordered the Dalai to recognize the Panchen. The Dalai then performed an oracle and dutifully confirmed the authenticity of the Panchen.

This is the kind of history that the Richard Gere types do not want you to know. It begs the question why Westerners criticize China for choosing the 10th Panchen Lama’s reincarnate, considering that it was Mao who put the 10th Panchen Lama on the throne in the first place.

January 17, 2009 @ 10:07 pm | Comment

“. In 1951, Mao ordered the Dalai to recognize the Panchen.”

Enough said

January 17, 2009 @ 11:18 pm | Comment

How come I never get taxi drivers who wear a jacket and tie, look like a professor and drive such a sparkling clean car?

He’d be well at home in Japan where if not a majority then a very large minority look just like him.

But I’ve found the more casual Chinese ones are more interesting to talk to.

January 17, 2009 @ 11:22 pm | Comment

Bush was good for China, his Iraq War and War on Terror gave a large diplomatic and political space for China, and the last 8 years were the best 8 years for China in terms of international relations.

I have no personal dislike of Bush. I think he is straightforward, honest, and friendlier to China than Clinton. And his father was also a good man. His mother, Barbara, also had very good memories in China. This is a good traditional American family.

For the Tibet issue. I don’t care what the history is. I care about today. Who occupies Tibet today? The PLA or the US Army? If you have the ability to have the US Army occupy Tibet, then come on baby, try it. Otherwise, stay quiet. CCP should just make Tibet a Tourist Zone, like Disney World. Good monastaries, good monks, good yak milk, clean environment. A great vacation spot. The latest package is 300.99 for 3 nights in the Budala Palace.

January 18, 2009 @ 2:22 am | Comment

As a historian and a teacher of a history

The history majors I know all say they didn’t really learn about much involving the history of the “Far East”. That in itself is a different major, apparently.

There’s nothing “simplistic” about my viewpoints on Tibet. Simplistic is the “Free Tibet” retards with no grasp of anything but warmed over, obnoxious Starbucks liberalism (aka stuart).

Why don’t you see legions of these whiners asking for Manchu identity to be restored and their territories in both China and Russia to be handed back to them? Because the CIA doesn’t sponsor them. America and Hollywood doesn’t either.

Again, stuart does not speak for the Tibetan people. In fact he doesn’t speak for anyone except for other obnoxious cause of the day liberals.

January 18, 2009 @ 6:29 am | Comment

Oops, wasn’t calling stuart a retard there. Just the “Free Tibet” people.

America and Hollywood don’t*

I really will start proofreading more ;p

January 18, 2009 @ 6:30 am | Comment

another thing to add is that it’s laughable that stuart would say something like this:

“I’ve never been to Tibet. It’s quite unnecessary; my esteemed leaders tell me all I need to know without subjecting myself to the cognitive dissonance of reality.”

Yet Americans who have never been to China are free to say whatever they want and believe whatever they want just because their esteemed leaders tell them so!

How many Free Tibet retards have been to Tibet? 1%? Probably less. Oh but I guess they are right because they listen to Richard Gere.

January 18, 2009 @ 6:32 am | Comment

Ferin,

First things first, I’m teaching two classes this semester: one on 20th Century Chinese History and a seminar on Modern Chinese Philosophy. I don’t know, I think we might touch on the “Far East” a bit, don’t you?

For what it’s worth, I also find the “Before the PLA, Tibet was a completely independent country of people living in blissful Buddhist harmony where everybody made yak butter tea, ate Ben & Jerry’s, and listened to Bob Marley” just as simplistic and stupid as the shrill bleatings of the Han nationalist sheep who infest this space like crabgrass. But this is not Stuart’s position, and Richard Gere (so far as we know) doesn’t read this blog, so you’re left making an ad hominem argument against an absent straw man.

Finally, in terms of the simplicity of your arguments and the sophomoric nature of your mind:

“Why don’t you see legions of these whiners asking for Manchu identity to be restored and their territories in both China and Russia to be handed back to them? etc., etc.,

I rest my case. In making this argument, you’re assuming an apples-apples comparison. If you can’t distinguish the historical experiences of the Manchu people from those of the Tibetan people, well…there’s not much hope. Resume blathering.

January 18, 2009 @ 7:10 am | Comment

My god, it is snowing in Hell. I think I actually agree with Hong Xing:

“For the Tibet issue. I don’t care what the history is. I care about today. Who occupies Tibet today? The PLA or the US Army? If you have the ability to have the US Army occupy Tibet, then come on baby, try it.”

Exactly, history doesn’t matter here as much as people think it does. Generally speaking, I’ve found those who trumpet “history says” in contemporary political disputes do so because they are on shaky ground in the here and now. Key term in Hong Xing’s comment: “occupies.”

January 18, 2009 @ 7:17 am | Comment

HongXing is right. I’m also right about America- non-Natives occupy and continue to work against Native interests.

I rest my case. In making this argument, you’re assuming an apples-apples comparison. If you can’t distinguish the historical experiences of the Manchu people from those of the Tibetan people, well…there’s not much hope. Resume blathering.

Enough with the sophistry and circumlocution, ok? When you have these sorts of “right to nationhood” arguments there’s only one thing that matters (aside from power as your friend HongXing mentioned) and that is that every independent people that has proven themselves to have a rightful claim to the area (generally through historical records) should have it. That’s the moral answer at least.

Good enough for Israel who (with the help of their friends) reclaimed their homeland after a few thousand years. Apparently does not apply to America, who gleefully chokes the Native American cultures, languages, and phenotype out of existence.

What’s right for the rest ain’t right for the West.

January 18, 2009 @ 7:50 am | Comment

Ferin,

“I’m also right about America- non-Natives occupy and continue to work against Native interests.”

Absolutely. It’s why I became a teacher and it’s why I chose to do my dissertation on colonialism and resistance: to make sure that the tragedies of history (whether at the hands of the US government, foreign imperialists, or the PLA) are remembered.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to as “sophistry” (that’s actually what I was accusing you of in the quote you cited, are you sure you know the definition?)

January 18, 2009 @ 8:09 am | Comment

Of course, you became a teacher to help people “resist”. That’s why your tax dollars contribute to the steady destruction of Middle Easterners and Native Americans, and why you have misplaced your priorities and sympathies on a lesser form of colonialism. You’re doing the pedagogical equivalent of a doctor seeing a patient come in to a hospital with a geyser of blood pouring out of his aorta only to whisk him away to treat him for toenail fungus.

You take everything and brush some crumbs off of your table for the “less fortunate”.. really noble, I guess.

Are you sure you know the meaning of resistance and tragedy?

January 18, 2009 @ 8:21 am | Comment

I didn’t become a teacher to help people resist, I became a teacher to help people learn about resistance.

There’s a difference.

BTW: not sure what you mean by a “lesser colonialism,” I think the American academic establishment has the Native American genocide/African slavery angle pretty well covered (and if you don’t believe me, you need to spend more time reading in the library). When I chose my program, I figured US students could benefit from also learning about the destruction by (and heroic resistance to) European and Japanese imperialists in China. Sorry to see you dismiss such an important part of history so cavalierly. A bit surprising, actually.

Ps. Only taxes I pay currently are to the PRC. Are you suggesting those are misspent? ‘Cause I would agree. BTW: To which government do you pay taxes?

January 18, 2009 @ 8:31 am | Comment

from also learning about the destruction by (and heroic resistance to) European and Japanese imperialists in China. Sorry to see you dismiss such an important part of history so cavalierly

Hm so now you’re the embodiment of right history and morality in that context? What an unassailable position to take!

How does this relate to Tibet:China as compared to Natives:America again?

Oh right, “we unanimously declare irreversible damage! we have no responsibility towards the survivors of our genocide. it’s a dead culture, relegated to the history books!”

Since some of you like this silly python crap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwsKg6LwAuY

January 18, 2009 @ 8:42 am | Comment

Ferin,

You’ve gone over the deep end, my friend. I never said that Japan:China equals PLA:Tibet, only that both fall along a broadly drawn continuum of colonialism and post-colonialism.

As for the latter half of your comment, I really found it nonsensical blather and as for your link, I abhor Monty Python* so couldn’t be bothered.
——-
*Never made it through a whole Monty Python movie without falling asleep, makes me dreadfully unprepared at grad school coffee mixers.

January 18, 2009 @ 8:48 am | Comment

*Never made it through a whole Monty Python movie without falling asleep

See how I slowly turn you against Raj and ned?

I am victorious.

January 18, 2009 @ 8:53 am | Comment

Out of interest Ferin, and addressing one of the main topics of this thread, what proportion of Tibetans would you expect to participate in the upcoming ‘celebration of liberation from feudalism’ of their own volition?

January 18, 2009 @ 8:56 am | Comment

You’re assuming I was ever with either, and you could not be more wrong. See what I mean by “simplistic.” So, yes: You are “victorious.” You have grabbed the twine! Now take your little ball of string and hide under the couch ’till supper.*

*Random reference to a comment on previous post.

January 18, 2009 @ 8:57 am | Comment

Out of interest Ferin, and addressing one of the main topics of this thread, what proportion of Tibetans would you expect to participate in the upcoming ‘celebration of liberation from feudalism’ of their own volition?

You can probably expect a turnout as big as that present on other government-sponsored BS holidays anywhere else.

You’re assuming I was ever with either

Jeremiah said: Sorry, I’m with Raj here.

January 18, 2009 @ 9:01 am | Comment

http://www.pekingduck.org/2009/01/china-is-the-place-to-be/#comments

January 18, 2009 @ 9:01 am | Comment

Ferin,

Agreeing with someone’s comment doesn’t mean we have some sort of secret alliance to vote people off the island which you need to “turn people against.” I agreed with Hong Xing today. I even agreed with one of your own rambling points earlier. Think, man, think.

January 18, 2009 @ 9:10 am | Comment

Richard,

I’ve had the pleasure of meeting two very professional cab drivers in Beijing. In searching for a driver who would take me to Baoding for a business meeting, my wife approached a spotless Hyundai cab and asked the driver. The driver was apologetic about being busy the next day, but offered to contact his friend. His friend’s car was just as spotless. He showed up on time, drove carefully, smoothly and by anyone’s standards, very safely. We also enjoyed his affable company for lunch in Baoding (the best roast lamb I have ever had, but that’s another story). We wound up calling both drivers again and again as we returned to Beijing over the course of the next 18 months. Every time we rode with them we were aware of their professionalism, the pride they took in their cars and their generally calm and friendly approach to driving. I never heard one piece of profanity nor saw one obscene gesture through some of the most trying traffic I’ve ever encountered.

To this day, we still share the telephone numbers of these gentlemen with our friends who go to Beijing. The experience is always the same; perfect. Here’s hoping that you will have the good fortune of running into more drivers like them.

January 19, 2009 @ 1:50 am | Comment

[…] But I must say that up to now my favourite Obama post has been this one by Global Post. (h/t Peking Duck). I always liked the idea of interviewing a taxi driver, especially the chatty Beijing ones. These […]

January 19, 2009 @ 3:39 am | Pingback

The People’s Republic is the successor of the earlier Chinese dynasties. It inherits all the rights, territories, and obligations under the international law.

The previous dynasties were empires, and the above quote explains why China’s relationship with places like Xinjiang and Tibet is still an imperial relationship.

It doesn’t necessarily follow that those territories all ought to declare independence tomorrow and throw off the yoke of empire, but the relationship between China and Tibet/Xinjiang might be a bit less disfunctional if China didn’t have to expend so much energy pretending it is something other than what it is. Real empires don’t demand that their subjects share the same culture and beliefs or pretend they are all one people.

January 19, 2009 @ 10:26 am | Comment

Peter,

Amen, brother. Though I might also suggest that it is that transition from empire to nation-state (with all the demands the latter places on its citizenry) which is the source of many complications of (post-) colonialism.

January 19, 2009 @ 12:27 pm | Comment

@Jeremiah

Ps. Only taxes I pay currently are to the PRC. Are you suggesting those are misspent? ‘Cause I would agree. BTW: To which government do you pay taxes?

Rich American kids who live off their parents don’t pay any taxes.

January 19, 2009 @ 5:41 pm | Comment

Peter and Jeremiah,

Let us assume that the transition to the PRC from the Qing Dynasty is a transition to a modern nation-state from an empire. This process was complete a long time ago. Some border disputes not withstanding, China has well-defined territories accepted by the international community. Any challenge to China’s territory integrity is an act of hostility and China should answer such challenge resolutely.

Therefore the Tibet question is an issue of indigenous rights. The UN visited this issue in 2007 and passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I will not go into the details of the resolution, which you can learn from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_Indigenous_Peoples

What is interesting is that while China and most of the nations supported it, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand voted against the resolution. These four countries all have large indigenous populations and the US is of course the leader of the free world, a beacon of human rights.

Here are some excerpts of their dissenting opinions.

Australia: There should only be one law for all Australians and we should not enshrine in law practices that are not acceptable in the modern world.

Canada: The Canadian government had problems with Article 19 (which appears to require governments to secure the consent of indigenous peoples regarding matters of general public policy), and Articles 26 and 28 (which could allow for the re-opening or repudiation of historically settled land claims). In Canada, you are balancing individual rights vs. collective rights, and (this) document … has none of that. By signing on, you default to this document by saying that the only rights in play here are the rights of the First Nations. And, of course, in Canada, that’s inconsistent with our constitution. In Canada … you negotiate on this … because (native rights) don’t trump all other rights in the country. You need also to consider the people who have sometimes also lived on those lands for two or three hundred years, and have hunted and fished alongside the First Nations.

New Zealand: Article 26 appears to require recognition of rights to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens, both indigenous and non-indigenous. This ignores contemporary reality and would be impossible to implement.

USA: The U.S. mission also issued a floor document, “Observations of the United States with respect to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, setting out its objections to the Declaration. Most of these are based on the same points as the other three countries’ rejections but, in addition, the United States drew attention to the Declaration’s failure to provide a clear definition of exactly whom the term “indigenous peoples” is intended to cover.

The position of the UK is also worth mentioning: The Declaration was non-legally binding and did not propose to have any retroactive application on historical episodes. National minority groups and other ethnic groups within the territory of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories did not fall within the scope of the indigenous peoples to which the Declaration applied.

In conclusion, had the Tibet question occurred in any of these five countries, the Dalai Lama’s demands, which go far beyond what was covered in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, would be immediately rejected.

January 19, 2009 @ 8:31 pm | Comment

@Serve the People

Yet another cynic attempt to dodge the issue. The PRC government can sign whatever treaty it likes, but unlike the US, UK, Australia and other, it would never allow any of its citizens to claim these rights in court. And it doesn’t matter what the DL demands, or what international treaty or domestic law he or anyone else would invoke to protect the rights on Tibetans, the PRC government would reject it out of hand anyway. It is not up to any Tibetan to decide whether he or she is a separatist, if the PRC has decided that anyone is a separatist, then he is. The bottom line is that Beijing doesn’t want any negotiations about Tibet at all. It want total compliance, nothing less.

January 20, 2009 @ 1:02 am | Comment

The bottom line is that Beijing doesn’t want any negotiations about Tibet at all. It want total compliance, nothing less.

It’s none of your business, frankly. If the international community can’t “negotiate” to give Native Americans only 25% of their land back, you should probably keep your big mouth shut.

The previous dynasties were empires, and the above quote explains why China’s relationship with places like Xinjiang and Tibet is still an imperial relationship.

Accepted. And we also accept that America’s relationship with all the Natives of its territory is an imperial relationship. Now we are left to debate the degree in which either party has destroyed their colonial subjects.

Lets compare- in America, 33% of Native American women are raped in their lives according to Amnesty International; 86% of the rapists are white or black males.

See article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502778.html

Native Americans live in abject poverty and are granted only “philosophical” self-rule. Their life expectancies are low, and their territories are quite small. Nothing seems to indicate that they are moving towards autonomy, independence, and real geopolitical concessions. Their population, especially as a percentage, is declining through consistent rape and exploitation. No news here. In other words, the genocide of Native Americans is continuing to this day despite the fact that President Hope’n’change is being inaugurated tomorrow.

As for the Tibetans, their living standards continue to rise, they are better off than their neighboring Han communities, their population is increasing, and the only real threat to their culture is Westernization- the same story all around the world. China pays a few billion to fund infrastructure and social services in Tibet. You can call it reparations or indemnities, whatever you want.

So why is this relevant? I don’t know, it’s probably the fact that delusional Americans think they have a leg to stand on when they’re talking about genocide. They think the fact that they broke off from the freaks in Britain makes racial genocide A-OK. Kinda like how whites think they are being compassionate by going to the super market to buy meat instead of slaughtering it themselves, which gives them a right to call all Chinese people (including the vegetarion Buddhists) “heartless, soulless Chinks” in millions youtube comments.

So are you sure this whole masturbatory obsession you guys (especially you, Mr. Gere) is really just yet another deflection from the real issues facing your nation and not sincere compassion for colonized people? I’ll answer that for you. It is. Kinda like Christian whackos waving their dicks about “illegals and homos and Jews, o my”.

January 20, 2009 @ 4:39 am | Comment

“As for the Tibetans, their living standards continue to rise, they are better off than their neighboring Han communities”

Go easy on that CCP kool-aid, Ferin.

January 20, 2009 @ 8:23 am | Comment

Go easy on that Richard Gere kool-aid, stuart.

January 20, 2009 @ 8:26 am | Comment

Accepted. And we also accept that America’s relationship with all the Natives of its territory is an imperial relationship. Now we are left to debate the degree in which either party has destroyed their colonial subjects.

Not so. America was not created out of an empire so no matter how destructive it may have been to its native populations they have never been imperial subjects, nor are they today. It’s also pointless to debate about actions which have happened in the past. America may have been far more destructive than China 100 years ago but nothing can change that now. The best anyone can do is be aware of what happened and try to ensure it doesn’t happen again – which is why it does make sense to look closely at China’s actions in Tibet or Xinjiang and possibly criticise them. Criticism may sound hypocritical if it comes from the descendants of colonialists or imperialists, but in the end it’s either warranted or it’s not. If a drunk tells you you have a drinking problem, it may still be in your best interests to listen to him, and a citizen of Canada or New Zealand isn’t automatically wrong about everything that happens in China’s imperial territories.

Really, who has the worst history is irrelevant. What is relevant is what is happening in the world now. I’ll accept that it’s not my business to intervene in Tibet, but as a private citizen without an army I can’t do that anyway. I won’t accept that it’s not my business to have an opinion on it, or express it.

I do agree with Serve the People that the Tibet question is an issue of indigenous rights rather than sovereignty – at the least that ought to be a more productive way to look at the situation.

It does seem a little odd to say that the greatest threat to Tibetan culture is Westernization when they don’t live in a Western country. If Chinese culture is at all influential within China’s territories then the appropriate word would be Sinification surely?

January 20, 2009 @ 11:47 am | Comment

Peter and Jeremiah,

The Tibet question is best addressed within the perimeter of indigenous rights, if a happy ending is desired. Unfortunately the Free Tibet crowd insists that it be a sovereignty issue. China’s response is to treat it as a sovereignty issue. The outcome will be all or nothing, although in my opinion the Free Tibet crowd will get nothing.

The most recent development in Tibet is the impact of globalization, a more accurate word than westernization or sinification.

By the way America was created out of a part of the British Empire. It does inherit its imperial legacies, such as slavery, indigenous peoples, etc.

January 20, 2009 @ 10:43 pm | Comment

@Serve the People (which people are you serving, joker?)

Slavery was abolished in America as in most countries a long time ago. In China it’s a thriving business. What do you have to say to that? Nothing, I suppose. you live snug and safe in the evil US of A, enjoying all the rights, freedoms and privileges people in China are denied. At the same time you defend a system under which you wouldn’t want to live. Are you trying to be funny or are you just plain stupid?

January 21, 2009 @ 12:06 am | Comment

Not so. America was not created out of an empire so no matter how destructive it may have been to its native populations they have never been imperial subjects, nor are they today.

That’s just semantics. America is a colonial empire. If all of China broke off physically from Beijing and decided to hold onto Tibet, nothing of significance would change. Americans can’t weasel out of this one.

America may have been far more destructive than China 100 years ago but nothing can change that now.

This is a cop-out. As long as 500 or so couples exist there is still hope. You can still have mass migrations back to Europe and return the land to the Natives leaving all the infrastructure as reparations. Of course everyone will say “that will never happen, we don’t feel that guilty”.

The best anyone can do is be aware of what happened and try to ensure it doesn’t happen again – which is why it does make sense to look closely at China’s actions in Tibet or Xinjiang and possibly criticise them.

That’s not true. The best you could do is support a worldwide mass repatriation of non-Natives. In fact since so many areas of America are more or less totally unpopulated, it’s even easier for you to simply carve out 2,500,000 square kilometers of territory and hand it back to the Natives. Why don’t you do this? It’s not like Europe is a bad place. In fact it’s probably the most temperate, arable and stable place on the map.

As for Xinjiang, the Han Chinese were present there at *least* 2,200 years ago. This is before Islam or the Uighur even existed as an ethnic group. The simple fact is that Xinjiang belongs to East Asians- be it Mongols, Tibetans, or Chinese. Not Central Asian Turks of mixed heritage.

While we’re talking about this why not mention Eastern Siberia? Russians are even migrating back to European Russia. Why not support their independence? Or is it just not as cool to do?

If a drunk tells you you have a drinking problem, it may still be in your best interests to listen to him

If it’s in my best interests to listen to him, it’s in his best interests for me to tell him he’s a hypocrite.

If Chinese culture is at all influential within China’s territories then the appropriate word would be Sinification surely?

You don’t see Tibetans running around in Hanfu or whatever. They’re wearing Adidas, nikes, listening to (c)rap, etc. The only thing now is that some of them speak Mandarin- just like how the Taiwanese and Cantonese speak Mandarin. That’s just for the sake of convenience- Mandarin is not the “true” Chinese language regardless. Older forms of Chinese are closer to its Sino-Tibetan roots.

Slavery was abolished in America as in most countries a long time ago. In China it’s a thriving business.

Slavery still goes on in America. Illegals from the South are abused, and under-aged sex slaves are imported from Asia and Africa on a regular basis in America. Same goes for Europe.

One incident at Shanxi doesn’t mean slavery is a “thriving business” in China. Especially not in the way slavery was a “thriving business” for your grandparents in Nazi Germany.

January 21, 2009 @ 8:21 am | Comment

@Serve the People:
The Tibet question is best addressed within the perimeter of indigenous rights, if a happy ending is desired. Unfortunately the Free Tibet crowd insists that it be a sovereignty issue. China’s response is to treat it as a sovereignty issue. The outcome will be all or nothing, although in my opinion the Free Tibet crowd will get nothing.

Many of the Free Tibet crowd strike me as naive. In any case, over the last 60 years there have been plenty of ex-colonies who gained their independence and went downhill from there. It’s probably not cool to say so, but there are definitely worse fates than being colonised or part of an empire. Since to gain independence Tibet would have to end up under the thumb of whichever great power gave it patronage I’m inclined to think its chances under Chinese rule are about as good as anything else they are likely to get – but they will have to struggle to keep themselves alive as a nation. Even with the best will in the world I don’t think China will be much help to them in this regard, and I don’t see a lot of good will from China towards Tibet.

The most recent development in Tibet is the impact of globalization, a more accurate word than westernization or sinification.

I agree with you re: globalization. But China’s efforts in terms of education, development etc are intended to make Tibet more and more a part of China. I don’t think anyone can deny this. You could call this sinification or you could call it assimilation, the point is this sort of thing has been tried before by most of the colonial powers. I don’t think it works but it does have many destructive side effects. It will be up to Tibetans to cope with these side effects as best they can by themselves, again I don’t think they can expect Han Chinese to understand or care too much. I guess Han Chinese have their own problems.

By the way America was created out of a part of the British Empire. It does inherit its imperial legacies, such as slavery, indigenous peoples, etc.

America walked away from the British Empire. If you want to argue that they still inherit all the skeletons in its closet, be my guest. It certainly didn’t inherit any political relationships.

@yourfriend:
This is a cop-out. As long as 500 or so couples exist there is still hope. You can still have mass migrations back to Europe and return the land to the Natives leaving all the infrastructure as reparations. Of course everyone will say “that will never happen, we don’t feel that guilty.

Sure you can, and you can have all (Han) Chinese people walk away from the ex-Qing imperial territories and go back to the “real China”. Is it going to happen? You can’t unscramble an egg once it’s cooked.

If it’s in my best interests to listen to him, it’s in his best interests for me to tell him he’s a hypocrite.

It’s in both your interests to listen to each other.

You don’t see Tibetans running around in Hanfu or whatever. They’re wearing Adidas, nikes, listening to (c)rap, etc. The only thing now is that some of them speak Mandarin.

The Mandarin-speaking (as well as the patriotic education, learning of Han poetry and socialist theory) is deliberate policy, the other things you mentioned are not.

To be fair, the Chinese government’s attitude towards Tibetan language is probably better than its attitude towards Chinese dialects. The CCP seems to want Cantonese, Shanghainese etc to just disappear. They certainly don’t seem to give them any recognition or encouragement.

January 21, 2009 @ 12:04 pm | Comment

Sure you can, and you can have all (Han) Chinese people walk away from the ex-Qing imperial territories and go back to the “real China”. Is it going to happen? You can’t unscramble an egg once it’s cooked.

Take a look at the demographics of the PRC. That is essentially what is happening. The Han birth rate is extremely low; and the proportion of “Han” is declining to re-identification as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if the spread of people in China “cringed” back into the heart of Northern and Soutern China while minority populations boom in their native lands. That’s the effect of the one-child policy, at least.

To be fair, the Chinese government’s attitude towards Tibetan language is probably better than its attitude towards Chinese dialects. The CCP seems to want Cantonese, Shanghainese etc to just disappear. They certainly don’t seem to give them any recognition or encouragement.

That would be a shame anyway. Once again though, Mandarin really isn’t really a totally Han language. So people (not necessarily you) can’t make bs accusations of “Han centrism”.

January 21, 2009 @ 4:08 pm | Comment

@yourfriend/Ferin

Slavery still goes on in America. Illegals from the South are abused, and under-aged sex slaves are imported from Asia and Africa on a regular basis in America. Same goes for Europe.

If you know about any case in America where children got kidnapped in order to force them to work for free, please tell us! Talking about sex slaves, this also is a thriving business in China.

One incident at Shanxi doesn’t mean slavery is a “thriving business” in China.

Those incidents that we hear about are just the tip of the iceberg, but you wouldn’t know, because you’ve never been to China. You are just a spoilt American youngster talking about things you know nothing about.

Especially not in the way slavery was a “thriving business” for your grandparents in Nazi Germany.

What do you know about my grandparents? I’ve asked you before to leave my family out of it. If you have to make ad hominems, please direct them at me and only me, you pathetic little yankee troll.

January 21, 2009 @ 11:53 pm | Comment

Peter,

Other than slavery, Manifest Destiny is another empirical concept that America adopted and used to justify the action of Indian Removal, the annexation of California, New Mexico and Texas, and the expansion outside North America (Puerto Rico, Guam, Philippines, and Cuba came to my mind).

January 22, 2009 @ 2:06 am | Comment

Typo: imperial concept, not empirical concept.

January 22, 2009 @ 2:10 am | Comment

Take a look at the demographics of the PRC. That is essentially what is happening. The Han birth rate is extremely low; and the proportion of “Han” is declining to re-identification as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if the spread of people in China “cringed” back into the heart of Northern and Soutern China while minority populations boom in their native lands. That’s the effect of the one-child policy, at least.

The Chinese government certainly doesn’t encourage Han people to leave Tibet and Xinjiang, on the contrary it tries to encourage it with higher wages and salaries. The Han population might be declining overall relative to the minorities, but I don’t think the intention is for the Han to withdraw to the central plains and leave everywhere else for the natives, is it?

But as I said before, mass migrations back to Europe or “China Proper” or anywhere else aren’t going to happen. We can’t put the clock back.

If you know about any case in America where children got kidnapped in order to force them to work for free, please tell us! Talking about sex slaves, this also is a thriving business in China.

Slavery is a criminal offence in both China and the USA, the fact that it might still occur doesn’t compare with slavery as a legal institution. By the way, I understand that African slaves were actually bought and sold in China in the past.

Other than slavery, Manifest Destiny is another imperial concept that America adopted and used to justify the action of Indian Removal, the annexation of California, New Mexico and Texas, and the expansion outside North America (Puerto Rico, Guam, Philippines, and Cuba came to my mind).

There isn’t really any connection between imperialism and slavery. The British Empire outlawed it, and the American example shows how it can exist even in a system built on equality. (It may not necessarily be able to persist in such a system, however).
Expansion into places such as the Phillippines would have to count as imperialistic behaviour, I’m not sure that that is enough to say that America was/is an empire. I just thought it was interesting that China which has always denounced imperialism strongly (for good reason) hasn’t (as far as I’m aware) addressed the fact that its territories were actually imperial territories. Nobody denies that China was an empire, doesn’t this mean that the territories it acquired were acquired through imperialism?
If so, and if imperialism is to be rejected so vehemently, wouldn’t the principled thing to do be to dismantle the empire? Note I’m not saying I expect China to actually do this. I’d rather see it rule itself and Tibet etc more humanely, that’s all.

January 22, 2009 @ 7:39 am | Comment

Peter,

Yes, I do not claim that the US was ever an empire (although the neocons want an American Empire), and certainly many US actions have been considered imperialist.

US imperialism is a paper tiger. — Mao Zedong

January 22, 2009 @ 9:39 am | Comment

I don’t think the neocons want an American empire, they want hegemony through being the only superpower. IMHO the word “empire” is misused today due to Marxist theory which was formulated back in the days when the world was dominated by real empires. Things have changed since then.

January 22, 2009 @ 11:06 am | Comment

US an empire? Where is the emperor?

China was an empire, and use that empire to justify their territorial integrity. By trying to keep their former empire, it is more empire than the US.

One could too consider the current form of government as an appropriation of imperial government structures by the court burocrats (eunucs?) after the emperor is gone.

Mao being the last emperor.

January 22, 2009 @ 3:25 pm | Comment

@Peter

Slavery is a criminal offence in both China and the USA, the fact that it might still occur doesn’t compare with slavery as a legal institution. By the way, I understand that African slaves were actually bought and sold in China in the past.

I didn’t say it’s a legal institution, I said it’s a thriving business. Lots of things are illegal in China, but you can get away with it, if you’ve got the right contacts.

January 22, 2009 @ 4:26 pm | Comment

I don’t think it’s fair to blame the woman’s motivation to have her son murdered on China’s one child policy. This sort of heinous crime happens in other countries, too. The woman was psychopathic.

February 14, 2009 @ 7:22 am | Comment