For regularly updated translations of Chinese Twitter comments on the ongoing events in Tibet after March 15th, go here and here)
Image from Students for a Free Tibet flickr page, not currently firewalled
Some of you may already heard of the four members of Students for a Free Tibet (SFT) that have been detained for taking photos of themselves holding a banner at Mt. Everest base camp. The Chinese government is getting another taste of what’s to come as the Olympics drawing near: the wrath of Californians (two were from Sausalito, another from Boulder – which any Coloradan will tell you bitterly is full of Californians). Both the IOC Beijing chair Hans Verbruggen (who wants to not “be involved in any political issues”), and Thomas Laird, a journalist who wrote “The Story of Tibet” (in which one Amazon reviewer quips “Laird exhibits the standard Western devotee’s simplistic amazement at having his mind blown by Tibetan philosophy”), agree on one thing: there’s gonna be a whole lot more of these stunts protests.
And I expect everything to more or less continue in the same asanine way it has for nearly five decades. The photo above, to me, says it all: we don’t care about Chinese people. We don’t care what they think, we don’t care what they’ve suffered, we don’t give a damn about them. Sure, we’ll hastily scribble on some Chinese characters (“Oh shit, you mean in China not everybody reads English signs? Get me a magic marker and a dictionary!”), but the only message we care about is the one we get out to the English speaking world. Never mind the hundreds of millions of reasonably intelligent adult Chinese citizens and their opinion – no, the only opinions that matter about the future of Tibet are those of Westerners. It reeks of the condescension of 19th century missionaries and their need to rescue the “Sick Man of Asia”. The numerous Tibet activist websites, not to mention the government-in-exile, don’t have any Chinese language content on their websites, despite the Dalai Lama’s recent claims that he wants to negotiate anytime, anywhere. Of course they’re all behind the GFW, but should any Chinese netizen be intrepid enough to seek these pages out, they won’t find anything there for them. Apparently engaging the sympathies of the Chinese people just doesn’t matter. The misery of other ethnic groups besides Tibetans? That’s their problem. I find it deeply hypocritical that a movement deeply connected to Mahayana Buddhism, in which nobody gets Nirvana until everybody gets Nirvana, should be so narrowly concerned with only the plight of one ethnic group. Han Chinese people are tortured, imprisoned and oppressed for the same reasons as many Tibetans, and had their traditions and cultures abused and destroyed as well. But that’s not really the concern here, is it? Should Tibet ever become an independent nation, there doesn’t seem to have been any consideration for what negative consequences this might have for the rest of the population of the PRC. It’s not unlike the call for the Iraq War; give them freedom, and it will all work itself out. Not bloody likely.
This happened last summer as well. Tim Johnson of McClatchy newspapers blogged about a banner unfurled above a railway station in Beijing. This too was in English, and Western reporters in Beijing such as Tim were alerted beforehand. As he said at the time,
While the issues touching on Tibet are of interest, what troubled me is that the activists are generally Westerners rather than Tibetans. Their banner was in English, not Chinese or Tibetan, and few people in front of the train station took notice or were able to read the banner. So without complicit Western media to document the event, it would have gone unnoticed.
Of course, the Western media has a hard time ignoring a banner when the people holding it get arrested. It’s not clear what the charges are; it is possible, I suppose, that the protesters entered China without a visa from a Nepalese base camp. Tim Johnson recently crossed from the Chinese base camp to two others, risking a “$200 dollar fine, apparently negotiable down to $50.” That’s when you have a Chinese visa, of course. But the Chinese government plays right into the hands of the protesters by arresting them, getting their names splashed across international media. Otherwise the event would have never moved beyond the SFT webpage and a Youtube video. The Chinese government, besides pursuing thoughtless and brutal approach to Tibet (and the rest of the country), pursues a thoughtless and brutal approach to PR as well. And yet, they don’t get alot of flack for it from the Han majority. No one, however, seems to really consider why – they just assume that Chinese citizens are brainwashed zombies.
It’s not like Chinese citizens don’t notice the tone of cries for minority justice. In Xinjiang, where there’s another ethnic minority facing discrimination and oppression (the Uyghurs – not that the Tibetan exile movement has spent any time in half a century pointing them out), numerous Han Chinese complained bitterly to me about Western attention to minorities in China. “What about what we suffer? Minorities get all sorts of special privileges, like more than one child!”, they’d say. I find it incredibly ironic that they can also complain of Western imperialism and yet not show one iota of empathy for the feelings of Chinese minorities who feel their right to self-determination taken away by a more powerful alien society. Yet tactics like English banners inside the borders of the
PRC, which leave the Chinese population out of the conversation, only serve to more deeply entrench this bitterness. Mind you, there a different ways to try and engage the Chinese public, and I don’t recommend the phone spam approach of the Falun Gong/Epoch Times. These are not attempts at peaceful reconciliation or understanding, concepts the Dalai Lama has flogged in countless reams of dead trees – the entire problem is that there is no attempt to engage the other side as human beings, by exiles or the Chinese government. At least the Chinese government, however, makes no pretense at being stalwart defenders of universal human rights or deep spiritual empathy for all human beings.
On the right: Dr. John Powers body checks the movement.
For 50 years, the Tibetan exile movement has fought a propaganda battle with the Chinese government, but never successfully brought that battle to China. Why? Because they’re too busy shouting and congratulating one another for it. And facts, for both sides, are only necessary when they support your side. In History as Propaganda: Tibetan Exiles versus the People’s Republic of China, Powers says (courtesy of ESWN):
Much of the discourse resembles a political rally in which competing factions yell slogans at each other from behind barriers that physically separate them. Our Chinese and Tibetan authors utilize a repertoire of historical simulacra — generally divorced from their context and stripped of the ambiguities that accompany them — that have been accepted by their respective communities as being concordant with the party line, and their conclusions follow from them…
In this situation, it seems impossible that either side could conceivably win its argument; on the other hand, neither can lose. So we are left with a stalemate, in which the two sides shout at each other and accuse their opponents of deliberately obfuscating, while overlooking their own obfuscations. As MacIntyre notes, when two polarized sides of protestors shout at each other, their messages are primarily aimed at those who already share their imaginings, and so each faction is essentially talking to itself or shouting slogans that are ignored or rejected by the other. Thus, each group ends up talking to itself and those who already agree with it.
When I first began this study, my background in Tibetan studies mostly consisted of philosophical and doctrinal studies with refugee Tibetan lamas. During my tenure in graduate school and in subsequent research trips to South Asia, I lived in Tibetan communities and developed friendships with a number of Tibetans. In this situation, my exposure to Tibetan history was heavily conditioned by their perspective, and I implicitly assumed that the authors of Chinese versions of Tibetan history particularly those related to the takeover of Tibet in the 1950s, must be aware that they were lying, distorting, and fabricating and that the Tibetan case for independence was so compelling that anyone with even the slightest exposure to the facts would reach that conclusion. The deplorable human rights situation in Tibet added weight to this conclusion. But in recent years, as a result of speaking with many Chinese, both in China and overseas, and reading a wide variety of publications by Chinese authors (both inside and outside the PRC), my inescapable conclusion is that they do sincerely believe the party line . This is true of most overseas Chinese, as well as residents of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. Their commitment to its veracity is as strong as that of the Tibetans to their own paradigm, and any problemization of it is generally viewed as dangerous, the crumbling edge of a slippery slope that leads to the destruction of the certainties that sustain the Chinese worldview and the Chinese state.
The certainty with which most Chinese accept their “regime of truth” with regard to Tibet should give pause even to the most passionate Tibet activist. Chinese people commonly assert that they have a valid perspective that has largely been ignored by a world that is either ignorant of the facts or deliberately misrepresents Chinese actions in Tibet. They claims that trying to present their case to pro-Tibet foreigners is like arguing with a brick wall — exactly the experience their opponents have with them. In this situation, it seems likely that both sides will continue to argue at cross-purposes, and it is difficult to imagine a resolution in light of the incommensurability of their respective premises and sources of evidence.
And so the yelling from both sides continues, and both sides can fire their zingers at one another and pat each other on the back. Powers examines the English literature produced by both sides, I believe, for a clear reason: because the battle is really one fought on Capitol Hill, not in China. Tibetan activists continue portraying the Chinese public as a swarm of indistinguishable drones incapable of independent thought or political power, even depicting them as foot soldiers in a massive campaign to dilute Tibet with faceless hordes, an outdated Cold War notion that suggests that all that CIA funding until the 1970s has left them in a time warp. No, the Free Tibet movement sees only the power of Washington D.C. and American corporations as capable of swaying China, though 50 years of a failed approach apparently isn’t enough to convince them they’re beating a dead yak. Meanwhile, the Chinese government must think of them as an annoying pain in the ass, constantly disrupting their diplomatic visits or causing PR headaches like this most recent stunt. But make no mistake, as long as the exile movement continues to ignore the Chinese people and look abroad for action, the PRC will be overjoyed. Go ahead and unfurl your banners in English at the Olympics, shout your slogans, treat Chinese people as brainwashed morons – they’ll love the Party even more. But hey, at least you can feel good about yourself back in Sausalito.
That’s a great post Dave. I inevitably have one or two “China is evil, Tibet rocks!” students in my class each year and it often comes as a shock to them 1) how many groups in China are in the same–or in the case of Xinjiang, arguably worse–situation and 2) That all of these situations are far more complex than can be easily put on a bumper sticker.
Should the Tibetans have a shot at self-determination? Absoultely. Does the PRC have a legitimate case for control over Tibet? Of course. The hangover of empire (lest we forget, the Qing state was an expansionist empire) can be long-lived, painful, and messy. We see evidence of this around the world. It is a complicated tangle that won’t be solved by outlandish publicity/protest stunts or the shrill bleatings of the CCP and their cronies in the Chinese academic community.
Anyway, great post as usual.
Thanks J. I thought your line about finding a Lakota to thank/apologize was priceless.
Congrats on the new gig!
To a certain extent what you are calling for with Tibet is already happening with Taiwan. There have not yet been calls for Taiwan independence from within China, but the omnipresence of Taiwanese, even though their political voices are muted, as well as the power of the democracy here, is turning heads, slowly. I think it is possible to foresee the day when the Chinese citizens develop rather more complex views about Taiwan than their government would want them to have, even where they do not support independence for Taiwan, they might at least come to have a grudging understanding of it. Of course, Taiwanese have the advantage of shared language, a certain amount of financial independence and clout, successful self-government, a government with covert links to democracy groups in China, and the termination of Chinese colonialism over their land. And of course, we weren’t saddled with a “great” and “wise” leader who advocated non-violence and accommodation. Tibet enjoys none of these advantages.
It’s one thing to argue that Tibetans should take their case to the Chinese people; it is quite another to actually do it. How would you go about it?
Perfect Dave….
As a native Coloradoan I can attest to the Californicating of Colorado…:-)
I just had a trip to Tibet canceled by administration as they found the thought of going there too politically dangerous for students….The recent arrests did not help…
We were going to see sunrise at Everest, not bungee jump from the temple with hand paintd streamers….
But when I asked the administration what they feared, and ironically most if them were Taiwanese, they were not sure, just that it was bad…
The staff and students here are woefully ignorant of either side of the issues involved in either Tibet or the Uyghur region…And the west, as you well point out, is just as uninformed and seems loathe to learn more thst would challenge a popular notion…
It is like the U.S. interns here at our school for low performing rich kids: They were sent by Grinnell College’s Office of Social Commitment (OSC) to help the poor Macanese and mainland kids here (jeez), few of whom could give two hoots in hell about an education much less social commitment or the need for educational missionaries bent on rescuing them from their futures in dad’s politics or mom’s factory….The same OSC has a director who tauts, on the school site, that he is adopting a Vietnamese child. Well, how generous of him! The kid has no name or heritage on his site, but seems to be employed as a testament to this guy’s charity…Certainly, to the naive and gullible (from Sausalito?) who read about him he is a grand pillar of the social commitment community…Shhh…Don’t tell anyone how he abandoned two interns here who emotionally crashed from culture shock so bad their parents were ready to storm Grinnell….
I yearn for a few weeks with authentically devoted people who want to really help here by volunteering time in worthy,much needed projects like that of Thomas at the Library Project:
http://onemanbandwidth.com/wordpress/?p=334
Sorry, sounds like I should have made this a post of my own…And likely I will…
Thanks!
Great post Dave.
I just find this type of protest so boring – the protesters have become the story, not the issue itself.
All of which would be valid if there were other forms of protest going on.
The Tibetans in Tibet are paralysed by Chinese rule; in India they’re divided, and the DL is, as you say, not having a great deal of success.
Young Americans may be stupid, and they may be invading on turf that we know much more about, but at least they’re doing something.
As to engaging the Chinese… Can you name many incidents in history where a region has won independence through thoughtful engagement of their occupiers?
…
I can’t think of one, off the top.
Dunno about Bangladesh, was that violent? You can go back to the end of the European empires, but that was hardly a smooth path.
The latest independent nation, East Timor, was set up by Australia, essentially. Seeking outside help from a powerful ally has been the standard way of achieving independence.
Asking them to engage with the Chinese is like asking the chickens to reason with the fox. This isn’t a comment on China, it’s a comment on colonial rulers in general.
Actually, Tibet.net has a Chinese version:-
http://www.xizang-zhiye.org/
@MT: “It’s one thing to argue that Tibetans should take their case to the Chinese people; it is quite another to actually do it. How would you go about it?”
I think I allude to this in the post: a good start would be having Chinese language material – the banner, the websites. There’s nothing meant to address the Chinese people. Learn Chinese and start writing. And even more important, listen to average Chinese people. Understand their feelings and opinions before you start telling them what you think.
@Phil: “As to engaging the Chinese… Can you name many incidents in history where a region has won independence through thoughtful engagement of their occupiers?”
I’m making a distinction between engaging the Chinese government and the Chinese people. The Chinese people are not the fox; they are also hens. But the Free Tibet movement has generally acted like your average Han person is either a fox, or the fox’s mindless minion.
Thanks LFC. I take a look at it.
I do think my overall point still holds though. The Chinese public is rarely engaged or considered anything other than dupes or troops.
A valid point in general, but engaging the Chinese population when such strict information controls, particularly political information, exist is easier said than done. Perhaps an answer to this question could elevate your argument.
@Dave: Great post! I agree that there is a huge difference between people and politics. The first is the gas, and the second is the engine.
People assume that the engine is ‘using’ the gas… but no gas, no go. Getting the people to side with your ideology is totally the right way to make progress.
@Anonymous: “Information restrictions” is so 2002. The truth is, the Great Firewall, for all its worth, is crumbling. English comprehension is rising. Media (mostly non-traditional) is expanding. It’s not “there”, but it’s “getting there”.
Anyone with half a brain can get to blocked information. And though there’s definitely a point for needing to know the information exists in the first place… it’s ignorant to assume that many educated Chinese might not guess there is another angle to the more complicated and ‘hot’ issues happening in China.
Hi, Dave, thanks for replying.
“The Chinese public is rarely engaged or considered anything other than dupes or troops.”
This is a rather biased point. Why do you think free-Tibeters think that Chinese people must be dupes? I suspect they actually think the Chinese are fiercely nationalistic, which is true. As someone in your post says, Chinese people really honestly believe they’ve done Tibet a lot of favors. They haven’t been “duped” into believing that, they really do believe it.
As such, engaging with Chinese public opinion on this topic is very unlikely to be anything but inflammatory. Engaging with the government, as the DL half does, would be much better (check out the bizarre reversed reactions to the progressive Koizumi and the conservative Abe as an example of how this works).
It is in general vital to engage with Chinese people, but on this issue I can’t see it being anything but counterproductive.
@Phil: Your comment is confusing to me. First, let me put it this way: free-Tibeters tend to think “the Chinese are fiercely nationalistic” as you put it. It’s the definite article “THE Chinese” that bothers me. There are hundreds of millions of Chinese people. Saying THE Chinese are anything is intellectually lazy and dishonest. Saying this makes it easy to dismiss engaging any Chinese individual, any at all, as “counterproductive”. And I never said engage with Chinese “public opinion” – I said talk (and listen!) to Chinese individuals.
Second, let’s just run with the idea that “the Chinese are fiercely nationalistic”. Nationalism isn’t some disease that some peoples catch and others don’t. Every nation has its sensitive nerves and jingoism. One does not hold that against individuals from that nation. Also, if they are nationalist, then how do you expect them to react to foreigners screaming for other nations to push their nation around? They’ll react the way they always have – by dismissing you. And then you don’t have their support – which the Dalai Lama himself says is essential.
Finally, I don’t know where you’re coming from with the Koizumi=progressive comment. Koizumi groomed Abe, both being LDP boys. China seems to be giving Abe a chance to, basically, not visit the Yasukuni shrine and maneuver domestically away from the more nationalist elements in Japan. But the day Abe goes to Yasukuni, the Foreign Ministry will be very publicly disappointed. If he does it as regularly as Koizumi, it’ll be back to square one for Sino-Japan relations. I don’t see what’s so bizarre about their reactions. If there’s been any real change, it’s that the US press and Congress have been signaling that 1) they’re sick of hearing about Yasukuni and 2) they want the comfort woman issue straightened out. Japan cares about their image in the US, and China is glad to hear such things from the US.
The CCP isn’t going to care about their foreign image as much as Japan does theirs. They care immensely, however, about their domestic image. If they feel that the Tibet issue is pissing off alot of Chinese citizens, they’ll act. But to get them to feel that way means reaching out to them. Not lecturing or condescending, but listening and learning. Only then can you figure out how to sell them on Tibet.
And give up the “Free” part of Tibet. It’s a childish pipe dream, and bloody selfish since it excludes any other Chinese citizens being “free”.
This is a great post.
When I announced to friends and old coworkers in the US that I was moving to China to do research, more than one person mentioned at least 2 of the 3 T’s. Those, forced abortions, footbinding and killing female babies. It seems it is all some people know. And not much about any of those topics at that! Just enough to spew stupid sweeping generalizations.
“Like, dude, how can you go to such a terrible place? I mean, women are having forced abortions on the streets, Tibet is under total like extreme repression and they kill female fetuses and eat them!”
Also, I wish someone who had half a brain would talk to the idiots who are having the Free Tibet concerts. They need to stop wasting their time, get educated on the situation and figure out a way that they could actually help IMPROVE the current situation in Tibet.
Maybe they could, I dunno, donate a few million dollars to one of the many rural development NGOs (that the Chinese govt has allowed in, even if it is difficult, they do grant permission eventually) in Tibet right now? Donate some yaks? Anything remotely realistic!
Okay, sorry for ranting.
@jenn: no, no, go ahead and rant. I ranted about this because I feel there’s a rant deficit on this particular issue.
As for donating yaks or working with NGOs, it’s my impression that some people see any such work as an implicit endorsement of Chinese control. Since ethnonationalism trumps everything else, this is unacceptable.
Meanwhile, Tibetans still don’t get any help.
Sir:
I would like to register some objections to your post.
(1) Your point about the languages on Web sites omits some facts and distorts the significance of others.
The Web site of the government-in-exile may not itself contain Chinese documents, but their home page has a prominent list of links to “sites in other languages” (of which Chinese is the second, and a click would take the interested Chinese reader to xizang zhi ye). The Web site of the International Campaign for Tibet contains, itself, a great deal of material in Chinese: just click on the “zhongwen.” The examples you give of Chinese-free sites are three organizations whose purpose, as far as I can make out, is to inform and coordinate outsiders who want to focus the attention of their own governments on the plight of Tibet. This is a legitimate activity. You suggest that they should instead devote themselves to changing the minds of the Chinese people. That is also a legitimate activity. It is unreasonable for you to disparage the one on the grounds that it is not the other.
Frankly, I think your animosity is clouding your judgment. It is a baffling non-sequitur when you infer from the absence of Chinese-language documents on the CTA Web site that the Dalai Lama’s offer to negotiate with the Chinese government is insincere.
(2) In condemning what you consider the activists’ selective indignation, you disregard the national dimension of oppression in Tibet. “Han Chinese people are tortured, imprisoned and oppressed for the same reasons as many Tibetans….” Han Chinese, to take one example, do not have to leave the country to get an education beyond primary school in their own language; a Han Chinese will not face criminal charges for carrying a photograph of an exiled Chinese in his wallet. What has happened to Tibet is not just another instance of man’s inhumanity to man; it is an instance of one nation, one people, oppressing another. It is not inappropriate for such deeds to awaken special concern, nor does that reaction demonstrate personal indifference to the sufferings which the Party has inflicted on Han Chinese.
(3) You have every right to question the goals of the activists and their chosen means, but when you caricature them you diminish your own credibility:
“Tibetan activists continue portraying the Chinese public as a swarm of indistinguishable drones incapable of independent thought or political power, even depicting them as foot soldiers in a massive campaign to dilute Tibet with faceless hordes, an outdated Cold War notion that suggests that all that CIA funding until the 1970s has left them in a time warp.”
The systematic promotion of large-scale Han immigration into the TAR is well-documented. You will not invalidate this observation by imputing to it silly language about faceless hordes. As for “portraying the Chinese public as a swarm of indistinguishable drones,” most activists are aware of and interested in the writings of an extremely small number of Tibet-focused Chinese writers who do not necessarily agree with the activists, but who contribute a point of view different from that of the State and raise the possibility of a serious discussion within Chinese society itself.
(4) You find it irresponsible for the activists to fail to mention possible “negative consequences” that might follow for China from Tibetan independence. Any autonomy/independence negotiations between the Gov’t in exile and the PRC would naturally address such concerns in detail. Since the PRC refuses to discuss a change in status and criminalizes the very mention of it, I think it is understandable that activists focus on winning international consideration of their goals.
(5) You are right that demonizing the Chinese is not constructive.
You are probably right that people concerned for the rights and liberties of Tibetans would be wise to work harder to engage Chinese in dialogue; though I think you do not sufficiently acknowledge the enormous obstacles which official censorship and unofficial nationalism have posed to such a dialogue.
But you seem to have made up your mind that those who try to keep the plight of Tibet before the eyes of the rest of the world are nothing but fools and frauds. I think you have judged rashly.
@Gray Hat: Dude, about your objections;
1) LFC pointed out the Xizang zhiye page earlier, and so I’m wrong that the Tibetan govt does not have a Chinese language page. On the other hand, you say it’s unreasonable for me to “disparage” the work of groups that focus their governments on issues in Tibet. I disagree. It’s perfectly reasonable to criticize people, particularly if there’s reason to believe that their activities are counter-productive and misguided.
“Frankly, I think your animosity is clouding your judgment.”
It wouldn’t be the first time, and my point all along is that I’m certainly not the only one guilty of that.
2) “Han Chinese, to take one example, do not have to leave the country to get an education beyond primary school in their own language; a Han Chinese will not face criminal charges for carrying a photograph of an exiled Chinese in his wallet.”
Minnan, Cantonese, Hakka – these are all branches of “Han” who cannot get an education in their own languages. You can call them dialects, and they are much closer to Mandarin, but at the same time they are not allowed cultural autonomy. And a Han man will certainly face criminal charges for carrying a picture of Li Hongshi.
3) Re: caricature. Dude, this is a blog. As for my faceless swarm comments, I stand by my assertion that too often Han Chinese are viewed as tendrils of a nation-state. You said earlier: “it is an instance of one nation, one people, oppressing another.” Consider a new perspective: “it is an instance of an oppressive government oppressing certain citizens more than others.” In this case, Han are fellow victims. If you frame it as people vs. people, you just alienated hundreds of millions of potential allies.
4) On repercussions of independence: “Any autonomy/independence negotiations between the Gov’t in exile and the PRC would naturally address such concerns in detail.” You’re missing the point – independence isn’t going to happen as long as the PRC believes that it would be the first domino in a chain reaction to tear the nation apart. Unless you can assuage that, there will never be negotiations (barring some massive war, spontaneous combustion, deus ex machina, etc.)
5) Well, happy to hear you agree with something I wrote.
And yes, I generally assume people like those on Mt. Everest are well-meaning fools, because I honestly believe they hammer a nail into Tibet’s coffin every time they pull off these stunts.
Free Colorado! Stop the Californication of this wonderful state!
Tibetans outside of the PRC can’t speak Chinese.. It is only understandable that most protest and statements are not in Chinese. Also, since the internet is tightly censored inside the PRC, what’s the use? The Chinese population can’t be targeted at this time, unfortunately.
You made a mistake though, the website of the government in exile has a Chinese version: http://www.xizang-zhiye.org/
Tibetans care for Tibet first, of course, there is nothing wrong with that. The discourse about Free Tibet is not so much about human rights abuses in China, but about the lack of political autonomy for the Tibetan people. Let’s not mix every issue together.
I agree with you on the fact that it seems as though the whole Free Tibet Movement is being hijacked by Westerners etc. But keep in mind that there are not many highly educated Tibetans in exile, and at this time, with the PRC absolutely unwilling to compromise on their power, the only recourse Tibetans have to voice their concerns is through Western governments.
@Hanabi:
1) Tibetans can learn Chinese. There are also people called translators.
2) I live in China. There are ways to address the Chinese people directly. This is not North Korea.
3) I know about Xizang Zhiye. It’s a terrible website and it seems primarily aimed at readers in Taiwan/HK.
4) Tibetans caring for Tibet first is a) not very Buddhist and b) guaranteed to fail. I’m talking about results. You need Chinese sympathy, and you don’t get that by looking like selfish racial nationalists.
5) I addressed alot of this here:
http://tinyurl.com/5cfr5w
Tibetans caring about Tibet are not very Buddhist and guaranteed to fail? Wow! what logic mate.
Joseph K – you can call it territorial ‘extent’. Others might call it territorial integrity. It all depends on the angle you look at it from.
I’m sure most Spaniards and French wouldn’t like to see their country carved out by Basques, even if it’s just a small portion. Is it fair on the Basques? Who knows. But just having a cause doesn’t give you a result. Some may say the Basques have autonomy, but if their right to independence is absolute they should have recourse to every tactic to reach that result.
The fact that most don’t agree with that sentiment shows that we are never dealing with absolutes. The Chinese know better than most that things like Tibet hinge heavily on perception, recognition, publicity and – occasionally – distortion. On both sides. We don’t talk about Gujjars, we do talk about Tibet. The Chinese understand this and have learned to deal with it on this basis.
“The Chinese people are not the fox; they are also hens.”
Nonsense. If there’s one thing that unites the Chinese people, it’s their quasi-religious commitment to maintaining the territorial extent of their country. On this issue they stand shoulder to shoulder in complete solidarity with their government.