Japanese Tourist Describes Situation In Tibet
Asahi TV has aired the following report in which a Japanese tourist describes the disorder he witnessed in Tibet:
The tourist claims he saw crowds of rioters destroying Chinese-owned businesses. When the police crackdown began, he and other foreign tourists were restricted to their hotel rooms. From the hotel window he witnessed Chinese tanks on the streets and groups of heavily-armed soldiers who looked like “American SWAT” team members. As he lay in bed in his hotel room, he heard gunfire all through the night.
Some sources are saying that many protesters have been killed by the Chinese security forces, but the Chinese governor of Tibet has denied such claims:
Speaking at a news conference in Beijing, Mr Qiangba said that security forces “did not carry or use any lethal weapons”.
“I can tell you as a responsible official that guns were absolutely not fired,” he said.
The Japanese government has responded to the situation by calling on the Chinese authorities and the Tibetan protesters to “exercise self-restraint.”
Do you support the "Free Tibet" movement?
A Chinese Family That Loves Japanese Stuff
20 Billion Tweets
First Errand Failure
Doorway Monster
Thousands Line Up For Hayabusa Exhibit
Tokyo Sky Tree Beer
Karuizawa Cosplay
Japan Facing a Farmville Invasion
3D Camcorder
Japanese Kid Takes Solo Bullet Train Trip
Spiny Softshell Turtle in Japan
Summer 2010 Beef Bowl Price War
Disgusting.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I don’t know how well freedom of Tibet is considering what the monks treated the people themselves when they had power. Some say that the group had a surf system that gave little to the poorer people. Sure China sucks on human rights, but they have brought education, water, and other things that the monks didn’t give them.
I watched this and got the other side of the argument.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=4328870
Rate this comment:
0 
0
This is a lame argument given the fact that similar arguments listing the creation of infrastructure, systematic education and other features of modernity as reasons to see Japan’s annexation of Korean and Taiwan in a positive light are almost always scoffed at.
The CCP is pushing Han Chinese into Tibet while repressing native Tibetans in their own land. Its a thinly veilled cleansing of Tibet. Tibet culture, religion and other aspects of Tibetan life are being clamped downed upon. Obviously many people are upset by the way they are treated in their homeland. Bringing up things that happened in centuries past has really nothing to do with the Chinese occupation of today, except to legitimize what is in fact a brutal occupation.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“Free Okinawa!”
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Yeah, that is an entire bag of beans in and of itself. Still not related to Tibet and China.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Not directly, but my point is more that (a) Tibet is too trendy and people ignore the other ‘occupied’ lands, and (b) that after long enough assimilation can be very thorough. Not that Okinawa is yet totally ‘mainland’ of course. Hawaii is another example perhaps.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Is this a kind of BS that Chinese are good at? They throw in non-related non-issue to deflect the real issue. Chinese has excuses for everything. Keep focus on Tibet.
Besides, Okinawans don’t have to deal with dictators. They got to deal with American sexual morons, though.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Okinawans don’t have to deal with dictators now, to be sure. Wasn’t always the case.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Which at the end of the video shows lesser evils still are evil.
I don’t think either are right and therefore brings a big question of if they do create there own country, who should run it?
I can’t agree with either major side of the issue.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
With your logic, we almost have to debate who should run the US, British, Ingenious People, French, Japanese, German, Chinese…..? Or let the highest bidder run it.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“Or let the highest bidder run it.”
Like now?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Is it reasonable to compare serfdom from the past with the present? If you do, then perhaps the US needs to be under British control as the US had slavery.
One needs to compare similar periods of time. China had feudalism until recently, so it’s unfair to attack the feudalism in Tibet from the same epoch.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Very good argument. I agree.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The issue is with returning the Dali Lama to power and restoring this serfdom then. He is not exactly a democratically-elected leader (though perhaps better than many who are), and what system would he want restored?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I don’t believe that the Dalai Lama has any intention of bringing serfdom back. Self-determination for his people is what he is fighting for; not for his own return to power.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Besides, Dalai lama is essentially already retired from the Tibetan Government in exile.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Another thing one must remind himself is that China never had unbroken governance or succession over the land in its entire history. Even their territory has never been the same in size depending on whoever was in power at any given time. One power is destroyed, another builds itself up and so it went.
So, there is no legitimacy for the Han Chinese to claim everything was there before their time (1949).
Also, when they say “History”, it means a one single word, not any documented history. I have never seen them arguing any claims with the documented facts.
They never fail to do that with that ” history” word and far-fetching hearsay.
Remember? Mao said “Repeat a lie 100 times and it becomes truth.”
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Agreed. The Mao quote who provided further emphases the type of thinking employed by the CCP.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Which is why the CCP’s claims to rule Taiwan are baseless. Each Chinese empire controlled a different area. In fact you could even say that the Chinese never controlled Manchuria; the Manchurians controlled China. However the CCP does currently control Tibet.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The Chinese also got 3 million ethnic Han Chinese moved in Tibet to pursue “racial/cultural genocide”.
The Chinese built infrastructure of water, education, railways and so on.
But they are not for Tibetans, but for accommodating influx of the Chinese.
Their strategy is always same to saturate the problem with abundance of human bodies.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Out of principle (that I hate the ChiComs), everyone should boycott Chinese products, the Olympics and all the sponsors of the Olympics.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I think, especially, Americans have moral obligation for those soldiers perished in Iraq believing in freedom and those who have been oppressed and believe in America.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
You do realize that if the Olympics were boycotted, there would be severe tension building up between China and the U.S.. For the sake of all those you care about, I’m not sure such a move would be wise.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I intended to mean that individuals, not governments, should lead the boycott. I certainly do not advocate a return to the tit for tat boycotting of the ’80’s.
And why do you and parkmount assume I am American?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Americans a dime a dozen in Japan nowadays, assuming the you are there.
Kidding! I didn’t assume you are. I was referring to American in the context that they are the only bully around we can use against the nuts.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Give the chinese a brek, the Dalai lama is a puppet at the hands of the americans.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Dalai lama is not the issue here, but oppressed Tibetans are.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
How do you figure?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Don’t bother, shazzb0t.
Whatever they say is always right in their mind. Even they say they have ample of facts and plenty of evidences as Wen Jiabao denounced Dalai Lama, they won’t produce them because they just lie to counter your arguments.
I observed that this is how they argue with you in China.
Whatever they say is right and whatever you say wrong or a lie 100 out of 100 times. That’s how it goes in the promising land.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Tibetans’ aspiration is the same that American forefathers had.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
China it is time to give Tibetans their country back to tibetians.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Free Tibet!!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
IMO there is simply too much self-righteousness going on in both sides. Sure, it’s easier just to jump on the bandwagon and proclaim yourself on higher moral grounds by supporting the Free Tibet Movement – because, ohhhh, the Chinese government is sooooo the worst of the worst, and the Tibetans need to separate themselves from The Monster. On the other hand, there are obvious political advantages for weakening the internal structure of China; it’s just that many countries don’t want to admit this ulterior motive.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By the way, that is another way for Chinese to deflect it when they can’t beat the other side of the argument.
If the Chinese can’t make a living unless they steal your panty, they should go naked.
If China can’t live without Tibet, be a little bit nicer to the Tibetans. Nobody tells Chinese that they have to kiss Tibetans axx.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Are you a Tibetan? If not, I don’t see how you can say with such certainty the horrible way the Tibetans have been treated. Sure, there were probably pressures for them to adopt the Han’s way of living, but this kind of thing doesn’t just happen in China. Just ask the Natives in the country you’re living in. While you’re saying that the Chinese “deflect” the argument, you’re doing the same. This is exactly what I mean by my previous comment, that there is too much self-righteousness on both sides.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I don’t have to be Tibetans to have empathy for them. I can say 100% for sure that you are Chinese or one that being brainwashed by them.
Chinese argument and logic are always same as those of little kids. Probably, it’s an insult to the kids for me to say that. it goes like this “Why did you do such nasty things to Nancy, Billy? I am not wrong because John was doing the same to Kate. Besides, I can do anything, but she can’t. I am the only one who can do everything. Why? Cause…..”
Asuka, we in the west don’t decide, out of too much self-righteousness, whether or not we should be able to kill someone innocent.
I think you should get your diaper changed,,,, Also new brain.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Sure, you don’t need to be Tibetan to feel sympathy for them. But do you feel the same sympathy for the Natives in your country? Are you supporting their protests for better treatment or for an independent government? If not, then I don’t see any need for you to be so concerned about another country’s matters. You can call this kiddy logic, but you might be able to better understand it from another perspective: Would you go off and tell your neighbour to clean their house when yours is equally dirty? Such hypocrisy that you people have “here in the west”.
I don’t agree with many of the things the Chinese government is doing, and human rights is definitely something that needs to be worked on. However, I like to stay in the middle ground and look at issues from all sides, rather than adopting this extremist view that you possess. By now I’ve learned that things are never black and white as you are made to believe. You claim that I’m “brainwashed” by the Chinese, but it seems to me that you’re in an equally bad or worse state – believing you’re in moral high ground to the point of delusion. Does it make you feel better to put down other countries (and other people, for that matter, judging from your aggressive comment)?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
And into the fray I go. Haha.
Despite the fact that parkmount seems to be losing his cool, I would still say that what he is saying does have some merit. It does look like the Chinese government does have a penchant for avoiding real arguments. Now that I think of it, it seems as if most of the Chinese responses I have heard for the past few months can be categorized below:
1. The allegations and arguments are baseless and should not be believed (sometimes, it’s followed by adjectives describing the other party as not being credible enough or worth believing)
2. All the blame cannot be dumped on us. You are at fault as well.
3. You should not criticize us because you did the same things (decades/centuries) before
4. We do not meddle in other people’s affairs, so don’t meddle in ours.
5. What happened was a mere coincidence/ accident. It was not intentional.
I think no. 1 is the favorite though. Sometimes it gets a bit entertaining when China liberally sprinkles its statements with words like “evil” and “conspiracy” (ah, wait. Hmmm. I’m not sure if they’ve used “conspiracy yet). Anyway, after making their statements, the entire issue has already been deflected and the matter of addressing it has been avoided.
But if no.1 one doesn’t work out as well as the government wants it to (usually because the Chinese government’s claims aren’t being accepted at all by foreigners), it backtracks a bit, and makes a bit of compromise. It then uses no.2, saying that the fault lies with both parties, and that all the blame should not be dumped on China only. This is sometimes followed by a plea for “assistance”, whether it be a desire for new technology or more cooperation between the parties. I think this probably is the most effective of all their tools. Plus, the real issue sometimes gets addressed as well.
No. 3 is favored as well. I think the technique is called “poisoning the well”. Here, China would attack the credibility and or/ the moral ascendancy of the entity making the argument. I have no idea why a technique like this actually works in international relations. I mean, back in college, people avoided this because instead of attacking the issue or argument per se, the credibility of the person making the argument is attacked instead. The issue is then avoided entirely, even if the point raised is valid.
Both of the above are usually used in “internet comment battles” as well. Haha. So be on the look out for these. Anyway, I won’t belabor points 4 and 5 anymore. I think most people use those anyway, and I don’t think they’ve been used in the Tibet issue as of yet (or have they? I don’t know).
But even if these methods used by China in dealing with Foreign criticism are crude, it’s working for some reason. So, you have to give them credit for that at least. Anyway, hopefully there aren’t any “Chinese internet police” members in here. I hear that they post in foreign forums as well. Haha.
And lighten up guys, this is a Japan blog. Although the Tibet issue is very hot indeed, this probably isn’t the best venue to argue about it.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“people avoided this because instead of attacking the issue or argument per se, the credibility of the person making the argument is attacked instead.”
Incidentally, the popularity of this might be due to its Biblical authority – about casting the beam out from your own eye, or throwing the first stone. People grow up being told this stuff.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Hmmm. Yeah. It’s almost impossible to tell other people off once a person has lost moral ascendancy. Seeing issues and arguments in themselves is still best in my opinion though. I mean, even an idiot can make a valid point (although odds are, known idiots are usually just not listened to). And listening to a thief (if he has reformed) giving warnings about the perils of thievery is probably a wise thing to do (or maybe he just want to reduce the number of thieves competing with him for the goods. Haha). Anyway, it’s up to each individual to form his own opinion, whether or not he truly tackles the issues and arguments. The thing about “throwing the first stone” though is indeed pretty powerful.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Thanks, dood for saving my time. No, I don’t lose my cool. I feel as though I were talking to somebody of “the cuckoo’s in the nest”, though.
I will respond to No.4 and 5. since you did the rest.
4. This is almost none issue when somebody broke into a house yesterday and started claiming it’s his today. Go figure how they call it their own. I heard that thieves are usually more possessive once they steal and own anything. It sounds universally true.
5. Yes, what happened is a mere accident in their notion. The accident happens every so many years in a similar scenario and they are always right and are accused of unreasonably. Just like any other times, they have had all opportunities to show their “ample facts and plenty of evidences of Tibetan conspiracy” to the world. Yet, where are they? Or, is Wen Jiabao too camera shy to show his hemorrhage in the axx?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
China does not need Tibet. Just China’s ego to say they own Tibet. China just give it up.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
You know what? A couple of weeks ago I might have agreed with your comment. Now I see how naive you are, and how naive I had been. This video changed my point of view, and I suggest that you watch it too: http://youtube.com/watch?v=x9QNKB34cJo.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I was kind of hoping that I could learn something new from the video. Unfortunately, the pictures were fuzzy, I mean, I can’t make out any of the details. Plus the arguments (or rather, claims) were not really presented in a methodical or effective manner. I mean, yeah, they were enumerated, but hey, I mean, at least put in some more information, something that actually appeals to reason. I think it takes more than mere statements and fuzzy pictures to convince people. People don’t just take as truth everything that’s being told to them, so you have to convince them. And it kind of felt like the person who made the video presentation was shouting in a very shrill voice. That, and the, erm, seemingly angry nationalistic comments didn’t help at all.
Anyway, that which is happening in Tibet right now is indeed very interesting. It’s nice that there are sources of information regarding it, besides the Chinese sponsored media. Hopefully China would allow reporters in, and allow them to wander around and report freely, that way, we can make better judgments as to what is really happening by comparing and contrasting different news sources. Although, I would admit, it is highly improbable that China would do so.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I agree, dood. They should open everything to scrutiny. Unfortunately, their arguments have never gotten backed by any “facts and evidences” or substantiated with anything in any “incidences”. All we get is their accusations, claims and Chinese media coverage. What would you suspect when somebody isn’t forthcoming to show what they have to claim?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I am for one do not agree to free Tibet….the protestors acted violently…causing damage to the store and all….and Tibet protestors around the world telling China to stop killing the protestors and stuff…witch it was clearly the Tibetans who started the riot they killing innocent pple so did the LAMA’s!!!!!! and the protestors around the world think that they did the right thing by doing “The violent riot protests” ok??? Now i dont know what is right and what is wrong…..=(
I would gather grant Taiwan’s independence more than Tibet….well If they did free Tibet, will Tibet be any better than China now really think about it….seriously think about it who will lead the country….everyone in the world is helping Tibet is because they hate China…Well look at this way if a state in the US wants to be independent will US allow it??? I’m sure they won’t?? and boycotting the Beijing Olympic wont make thinks better then it is now….pple will think I’m wrong but that’s just my opinion
THANK YOU
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Who will run Tibet is none of our Goddamn business or yours. They have run their country before Chinese invaded and is occupying it.
Besides, I am sure there are so many countries that would like to help same as they did to East Timor. I wish no countries had helped China. I remember we all wondered in 80’s how the hell we can help this dirt poor country, China. It looks like we helped their economy, not their brains.
Nobody is helping Tibet just because we hate China. We hate China just because they are stupid enough to not understand that our feeling we have when we helped China is same for Tibet now. Bang your head against wall, will you?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“They have run their country before Chinese invaded and is occupying it.”
Are you referring to the period before the early 18th century? Any time after that the Chinese Empire had it, in varying degrees of control. Their control was perhaps weakest during the warlord era of the early 20th century, which may be where the idea that Tibet was independent came from. But as soon as the Nationalists and Commies sorted themselves out the winners reasserted control over Tibet.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Wow parkmount, at this point you’ve lost all reason. Hope the soon-to-be economic recession can put some sense into you.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Don’t worry, Asuka. You can boast Chinese economy. 10% growth for 15 years sounds great. The magic is that you guys started from nothing. Nevertheless, it seems to me that I am better off with a few percentage increase of $110,000/yr than 15% of $3,000/yr. You should keep and enjoy 15% increase for me.
Let’s see how big your unemployed population is even just for those off from universities. The number I have is over 5 million. The poverty population for those who haven’t seen any benefits from your booming economy is 800 to 900 million people out of 1.3 billion.
I know you guys are so rich that you are entitled to pay yourselves for medical and retirement cost as well as unemployment expense. We are so poor that our government will pay them for us.
By the way, thank you kindly for your concern of our recession. I think we are hitting serious recession this time thanks to our neighbor’s sub-prime mortgage problem. I am sure the unemployment rate will notch up 4-5% from the current 3.9%. Probably, I have to give up dining out every day. I have no choice but doing it every second day instead. Please do not feel sorry for me. I am sure i can make it through.
You, too, take care of yourself, Asuka. Your economy is on its way to even bigger recession along with ongoing inflation because yours are pretty much depending on the Export to US. Please rest assured that I will not call your name even if I see you begging complete naked on a street of Shanghai or Beijing.
Oh, one more thing, please do not send any Chinese foods even if you think we are starving. I don’t want to die in pesticide poisoning yet.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“Asuka” doesn’t sound like a very Chinese name to me….
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Chinese never use their real name. They usually anglicize theirs or adapt a local name when they move overseas. Asuka is a girl name of Japanese. She probably have gotten it when she moved to Japan.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Love that logic. And of course even if Asuka swears black and blue that (s)he is not Chinese, you’ll say that of course Chinese never admit to being Chinese. An utterly unassailable position.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
*shrug*, there are a lot of posters on, say youtube, who use some sort of Japanese name and are actually Chinese. It’s also logical to use a non-Chinese name so that national bias would not be accused of. but who knows, she might be Nigerian for all we know.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Freeeeedoooom!(Braveheart)
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I kind of agree with Parkmount that China government is stupid. They poured tons of money to Tibet each year but are still hated by everybody except most of the Tibetans who currently live in Tibet and used to be the lower class before CCP entered Tibet. What they need to do is to let Dalai Lama back to Tibet and allow western reporters to stay. They have a habit to cover some facts. This doesn’t mean they’re always doing something wrong.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By the way, this isn’t a first time that Chinese mentioned to me that we are getting recession in North America, thinking it in the exactly same context of their recession. As some might agree with me, it is totally a different outlook when you see theirs in Japan. So, Chinese think our recession is like so many kids have to go out in a street naked for begging just like recession in China. Anyway, thanks a lot for your concerns, Asuka.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
No one mentioned if China did not own Tibet, The tebitian don’t have to RIOT!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Probably as that’s completely pointless. China does own Tibet, has done so for a long time, and isn’t about to stop owning it.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
China need to give up Tibet.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
As long as China is worried about internal security and potential secession, it won’t be as much of an external threat. For the safety of the East Asian region, and wider, it is better than the Chinese Army be busy quelling riots rather than looking for excuses to fight. This is why former colonial powers love to divide their old empires – if they fight each other, or among themselves, then they cease to be a worry. This was best stated by the permanent undersecretary to the Minister for Administrative Affairs during the 1980s, Sir Humphrey Appleby, in a comment recorded in the then Minister’s diary of the time.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“Tibet has always ‘belonged’ to China”
This is Beijing’s favorite argument, though the exact moment when Tibet supposedly became “part” of China keeps changing; it’s variously said to have happened in the seventh century, the 13th century, the Qing Dynasty, or simply “always.” It’s hard to do justice to two thousand years of Tibetan history in a few paragraphs, and the suggested resources at the end of this document give much more detail than we can put here:
· The seventh century: Beijing used to claim that the marriage of Tibet’s King Srongtsen Gampo to Chinese Tang Dynasty Princess Wencheng in 641 A.D. marked the “union of the Tibetan and Han Chinese nationalities.” It stopped claiming this when it was repeatedly pointed out that Wencheng was junior to Srongtsen Gampo’s Nepali wife, Princess Brikuti, and that the Tang emperor was forced to give his daughter because of the strength of the Tibetan empire. In fact, the Tibetan army sacked and briefly occupied the Tang capital in 765 A.D., and the 822 A.D. peace treaty forced the Chinese to treat the “barbarian” Tibetans as equals.
· The 13th century: Beijing claims that Tibet became part of China during the Yuan Dynasty in the mid-13th century. The Yuan was actually a Mongol empire, with Chinggis Khan and his descendents conquering China and nations from Korea to Eastern Europe. For China to claim Tibet based on this would be like India claiming Burma since both were part of the British Empire. The Mongols never ruled Tibet as an administrative region of China, and Tibet was given special treatment because Tibet’s Sakya lamas were the religious teachers of the Mongol emperors. By the fall of the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, Tibet had again become in charge of its own affairs.
· The Qing Dynasty (1644-1911): Beijing is opposed to past Western and Japanese imperialism, but sees nothing wrong in claiming Tibet based on the Manchu Qing Empire. This claim doesn’t stand up either. The Manchu rulers of China were Buddhists, and Tibet’s Dalai Lamas and the Manchu emperors had a special priest-patron relationship called Cho-Yon whereby China committed to providing protection to the largely demilitarized Tibetan state. Chinese nationalists may see this as sovereignty, but it wasn’t. As the relationship became strained, China at various times exercised influence and sent armies into Tibet – but so did Nepal during this time. China expanded its influence in Tibet after 1720, as a powerful country dealing with a weaker neighbor. It later tried to occupy Tibet by force, violating the Cho-Yon relationship, but with the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, Tibetans expelled the Chinese and the 13th Dalai Lama proclaimed Tibet’s complete independence. Until the Chinese invasion of 1950-51, Tibet enjoyed full sovereignty as defined under international law: it had a territory, a population, a government exercising effective control, and the ability to enter into international relations (such as the 1914 Simla Convention with Britain, trade delegations to the West, and neutrality in World War II).
· 1951: China claims sovereignty over Tibet from before 1951, but this is an important date. This is when after defeating Tibet’s small army, China imposed the Seventeen Point Agreement on the Tibetan government, demanding that Tibet “return” to Chinese sovereignty (raising the uncomfortable question of why such a surrender treaty was needed unless Tibet was a country independent of China in the first place). This Agreement was legally invalid because of duress, but the Tibetan government had little choice but to try to coexist with China under its provisions. It became clear that Beijing had no intention to live up to its promises, and the Tibetan government fully repudiated the document during China’s brutal suppression of the 1959 Tibetan uprising.
· “Always”: Do we even need to respond to this? Irish Ambassador to the U.N. Frank Aiken said it best in the U.N.’s debate on Tibet in 1959: “Looking around this assembly, … I think how many benches would be empty in this hall if it had always been agreed that when a small nation or a small people fall in the grip of a major power no one could ever raise their voice here; that once there was a subject nation, then must always remain a subject nation. Tibet has fallen into the hands of the Chinese People’s Republic for the last few years. For thousands of years, … it was as free and as fully in control of its own affairs as any nation in this Assembly, and a thousand times more free to look after its own affairs than many of the nations here.”
“Old Tibet was a backwards, feudal society and the Dalai Lama was an evil slaveholder”
Beijing (as well as sympathetic Western scholars such as Michael Parenti, Tom Grunfeld and Anna Louise Strong) asserts that “pre-liberation” Tibet was a medieval, oppressive society consisting of “landowners, serfs and slaves.” Tashi Rabgay, a Tibetan scholar at Harvard, points out that these three alleged social classes are arbitrary and revisionist classifications that have no basis in reality. There were indeed indentured farmers in old Tibet. There were also merchants, nomads, traders, non-indentured farmers, hunters, bandits, monks, nuns, musicians, aristocrats and artists. Tibetan society was a vast, multifaceted affair, as real societies tend to be. To try to reduce it to three base experiences (and non-representative experiences at that) is to engage in the worst kind of revisionism.
No country is perfect and many Tibetans (including the Dalai Lama) admit that old Tibet had its flaws and inequities (setting aside whether things are better under Chinese occupation). But taking every real or imagined shortcoming that happened in a country over a 600-year period and labeling it the “way it was” is hardly legitimate history. Any society seen through this blurry lens would come up short. And in many ways, such as the elimination of the death penalty, Tibet was perhaps ahead of its time. The young 14th Dalai Lama had begun to promote land reform laws and other improvements, but China’s take-over halted these advances. It is instructive to note that today the Tibetan government-in-exile is a democracy while China and Tibet are under communist dictatorship.
The crucial subtext of Beijing’s condemnation of Tibet’s “feudal” past is a classic colonialist argument that the target’s alleged backwardness serves as a justification for invasion and occupation. These are the politics of the colonist, in which the “native” is dehumanized, robbed of agency, and debased in order to make occupation more palatable or even necessary and “civilizing.” China has no more right to occupy a “backward” Tibet than Britain had to carry the “white man’s burden” in India or Hong Kong.
http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=422
Rate this comment:
0 
0
One issue which this article fudges is the extent to which the Yuan and Qing dynasties were “Chinese.” The comparison with India and Burma is spurious, as India was never the centre of the British Empire, the British never moved their capital there, or anything. The Yuan and Qing were non-Han Empires, and took over the existing empires of the time from external areas, but once in control, they set up “Chinese” empires, based in the Han heartland.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Granted, but both dynasties, and especially the Qing, become “Chinese” or “Foreign” to the Chinese depending on the issue at hand. Boxer Rebellion and Opium War? Then the government was “Chinese” as it was standing up to foreigners. Unequal treaties or the handing of Taiwan to Japan? Invalid, as the government was “foreign” and thus not representative of the Chinese. I ran into this all the time when I studied in China – even our professor admitted that the argument used varied according to the issue at hand, and was often contradictory, but that was how people looked at it. Ridiculous though that seems…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“Tibetan society was a vast, multifaceted affair, as real societies tend to be. To try to reduce it to three base experiences (and non-representative experiences at that) is to engage in the worst kind of revisionism.”
Revisionism, or Socialist theory of the evolution of society. China infamously pigeonholes ancient Chinese kingdoms into societal structures that the actual historical record will not support (such as saying the Xia was a society composed almost entirely of slaves) merely because Marxist Socialist theory holds that society must pass through Phase X before advancing to Phase Y.
I have seen Chinese also justify their rule by showing Tibetan objects (such as neckalces) made from human bones. Clearly, only a slave-owning society would do such a thing! Of course, if you look at Tibetan thought, you learn about sky funerals and the concept that the body is just a vessel and has no purpose or value after death. This is an anathema to Chinese thought which long held that the body must be buried intact or else the soul could not get into heaven (hence eunuchs carrying around their severed parts their whole life so they could be buried “intact” – or at least with all the parts in one grave).
There are two ways of doing things in China: the Chinese way, and the wrong way. In the real world, those two are one and the same.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Thanks Lobsang,
I have been hearing so much lately and posted on so many forums lately this claim that “Tibet has always been part of China”. Its nice to hear some counter- arguments, although I still dont know who to believe. It seems to be quite a complicated matter.
Asuka, I can’t believe you fell for that YouTube video “Tibet Was Is and Always will be a part of China.” Maybe you are Chinese? I can’t believe a Japanese person would fall for something like that so easily. There are several other videos showing “Tibet was never, is not and never will be a part of China” on YouTube- did you watch them also?
But this is all rather a distraction from what the real debate should be- what is the nature of Chinese rule in Tibet- and should they be condemned for it? Of course, most Chinese people insist that the Tibetans are happy and that the Chinese have done so much for them- infrastructure, development, etc. What is the truth? How do we know? In my opinion there needs to be some kind of international inquiry to get to the bottom of this. Chinese people dont seem to be open to any opinion other than what is written on the front page of Xinhua…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Lobsang, its apparent that you just copied the information that was fed to you by the Free Tibet government.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Lobsang, its apparent that you just copied the information that was fed to you by the Free Tibet government.
Except that like the PRC government, the Free Tibet web is full of its own political propaganda that is no less ridiculous. As a current scholar on Tibetan history I need to correct you on a few facts.
First off, the PRC never claimed Tibet to be part of the Tang empire, it merely said that the two ethnic groups were like one family, which is indeed propaganda. Also Srongtsen Gampo was actually defeated by the Tang army under Hou Jun Ji, and lost 1,000 soldiers before withdrawing back to Tibet and apologized to the Tang for his action. Srongtsen’s Nepalese wife is now widely believed to be a fiction of the 11th century to model Gampo on the boddhisatva manjusri. Not that this is should actually matter however.
The Qing rulers were patrons of the lama only for political purposes, they were multi religious, not just Buddhist, and above all they were Confucians more than Buddhists. If you read Qing memorials, you’ll find that the emperor critisized the superstitious elements of buddhism more than once. The Qing control of Tibet is much more than just a religious matter, it was hierarchical, with the emperor above the Dalai Lama and the latter had to kneel and kowtow to the former. The emperor had the power to depose the dalai lama at will and even interfered in the selection of the Dalai lama in 1793 through the golden urn.
Rate this comment:
0 
0