For many, many years, I was a supporter of "freeing Tibet". My parents and I regularly fought about the oppressive regime in China and the Chinese government's wanton disregard for human, especially religious, rights. When my parents brought up anything about Tibet being not so great itself, I would scornfully reject it as a product of their Communist education. Tibet was the paragon of a peaceful order destroyed by the CCP in its quest for world, or at least regional, domination.
In the months leading up to the Beijing Olympics, Tibet was once again brought to the forefront of the world's attention. There is absolutely no doubt that what China is doing in Tibet is terrible. The authoritarian control of media access to events in Tibet, incarceration of monks and journalists, and general acts of violence and human rights abuses are deplorable. Furthermore, the erasing of an entire culture through "assimilation" is in many ways worse than outright conquest. This tactic of insinuation gives the perpetrators a moral loophole--an excuse of multiculturalism--that allows them to justify what they are doing. I want to be clear that I do not support the current Chinese policies in Tibet.
However, I have problems with what the movement for "freeing Tibet" is actually asking for. I have problems with how the Western media portrays China as the destroyers of a peaceful society, and the attempts to galvanize the world in aiding Tibet to restore proper order and religious freedom to their stolen kingdom. Consider for a moment, what do you actually know about Tibetan history? What was the structure of their society before the Communists came? Why is the "old Tibet" considered a Shangri-la?
I read this article about a year ago. I do not pretend to have followed up on its claims; I have not done the research to validate any of its arguments or statements. What I am concerned with is why the contents of this article, and of the sources (books, journal articles, interviews) it cites, are not more widely discussed. The author, and his sources, claim that Tibet was a slave society, one in which serfs, criminals, and "criminals" were oppressed through systematic torture led by the Dalai Lama and his lords. Why is there not even an awareness of this history of Tibet--even if this awareness was just, "Looney journalists and authors and historians wrote crazy things about Tibet that have been discounted and dismissed as inaccurate"?
The fact that most of the public is NOT aware of this account of Tibet makes me wonder what the true purposes of the "Free Tibet" movement actually are. It seems as if such activism may be more of a symptom of sinophobia than an actual desire for the well-being of Tibetans. I know this will be extremely offensive to many, and I know that many, many people genuinely care about religious freedom and equality. But do people actually know what the implications of liberating Tibet are? Chinese Communism, especially in the 50s, was not categorically evil. But somehow, half a century later, the world seems to believe "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Perhaps I am letting my ethnic biases influence my judgment, and I am the first to concede that possibility. Yet if you look up the entry for Tibet on Wikipedia (true source for all that is factual and holy in the world, of course), there is not one mention of the societal structure of Tibet before the Communists came; Tibetan history consists of a long list of the various powers that have ruled Tibet. This is lack of information is pretty much unique to the article on Tibet (look up France, the United States, or for that matter, China).
Why is there no discussion of life in Tibet before 1951? I'm afraid that this is one question that will remain unanswered because we won't like what the answer will be.
Tibet irritates me too, and while I don't really understand how Tibet formally came to be considered part of China, I'm so annoyed by Chinese attitudes toward Tibet.
ReplyDeleteEveryone in China takes this attitude of "those wayward, poor Tibetans who we need to civilize and protect for their own good"... it's equivalent to nineteenth century American attitudes towards slaves.
I'm also upset Americans still can't visit Tibet because of the riots last year.
What the Tibetans want today is political autonomy, like the Basque and Catalan minorities have in Spain. If you've visited the cities of Barcelona or Bilbao, you have been in an autonomous region just like the Dalai Lama wants for Tibet. The Spanish government controls borders, defense, and foreign policy, but locally there is autonomy and diversity. Your questions, Julia, about the conditions in Tibet in 1950 are good ones, but they are also about another century. The issue is freedom, not the benefits of development. Everyone enjoys both freedom and development, Tibetan and Chinese. If the Chinese people today were free of their authoritarian, one-party, undemocratic government, they would probably choose to let the Tibetans have autonomy. From 1939 until 1975, Spain was a military dictatorship. Like China represses the Tibetans, Spain repressed the Basques and Catalans. But today Spain is a democracy, and there is freedom for everyone -- Spanish, Basque, and Catalan.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be wonderful if China had that kind of freedom, too?
To learn more about the history of Tibet's 50-year struggle, see my website www.FreeingTibet.com. You cannot read it from China, sadly, as the authorities have blocked access to it.
The issue raised in my blog post, actually, is neither freedom nor development. My questions are not just about life in Tibet in 1950, but in 1950 and in the centuries before that. The issue is one of history; I am concerned with public awareness, with scholarship, and with hypocrisy.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I am too much a product of the University of Chicago, but I have never considered questions irrelevant just because they are about another century, or millennium, or plane of existence.
Luckily, this philosophy is not completely impractical when it comes to Tibet: if the Chinese people were to be "freed" today of their authoritarian, one-party, undemocratic government, they would probably choose not to let the Tibetans have autonomy. This is because many Chinese people believe the "other" history of Tibet--the history of slavery and torture and oppression. This is the set of facts that China brings to any discussion of Tibet. Lovely as it would be if people could forget their historical prejudices and biases, kiss+make up, and embrace freedom, this is simply not the case. Until the West is willing to concede that this alternate view exists, regardless of its veracity, I don't see the CCP, much less the people of China, changing their views on "freeing Tibet".
Lastly, yes, it would be wonderful if China had that kind of freedom. It would be wonderful if we had that kind of freedom (I think only those who are incredibly successful at self-delusion would say that everyone in America/Britain/France/Spain has freedom). History, however, has proven pretty conclusively that democracy is not for all peoples at all times (See "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy"). China is not ready for democracy.