Tibetan monasteries 'surrounded by soldiers'

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Wezil


Because we can get away with it. Americans don't know their own history.

What, you hold us Euros to a higher standard?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia


The second part of your comment (Sinicization) I have no issue with, and I think in fact you've probably hit the Chinese government's policy right on the head. They're likely hoping that with an influx of Chinese, the area will one day become politically "safe" enough to relax military control, where an assured majority will be in accordance with the central government's initiatives.

The first part of your statement may be factually correct but a few historical terms need to be explained first. Ethnic Han and ethnic Tibetan power struggles are nothing new, and at several points in history, China has been in control of some or all of the Tibetan plateau. (If you take a look at the various temples preserved in Beijing, you can also see the reverse was true from a cultural-religious standpoint - Tibetan Buddhism occupied a high position and several Emperors were adherents, making it at various point the de facto state religion.)

Admittedly, past occupation does not give de jure entitlement to control the area in the present day (any more than Germany has a right to control Qingdao or Britain has a right to control Hong Kong) but it's important to understand that the 1950-51 occupation did not occur in a vacuum. It was not an unprecedented act of occupation, as some might have you believe. It may well have been unwarranted, and that's a separate avenue of debate there.

Secondly, China's modern claims on Tibet (after a culmination of various satraps and suzerains anointed by Chinese emperors with varying degrees of independence) came about during the Great Game, where Britain preferred a buffer state between Russia's Central Asian holdings and its own "Jewel in the Crown" - the Indian Raj. Britain signed a treaty with the ailing Qing dynasty recognizing its purview over Tibet, which by that time the weak Qing dynasty was largely powerless to enforce.

The Communist party came to power on a platform owing in part to reuniting the country against foreign aggression. Having reclaimed Manchuria from the Japanese and the various port cities from American, German, French, and British interests, the Communists then did so to Tibet. From the central government's viewpoint, this was an exercise of reasserting power over Chinese holdings where the Qing dynasty had been unable to do so. While this does not necessarily excuse their actions, it does serve in part to explain them. Many of the sources I read wrongly state that China had no interest whatsoever in the area and that the occupation was purely a vanity move by the Communists. This is not true - even the staunchly pro-western Kuomintang government clearly demarcated Tibet as under its rule.

Further to the occupation itself is the contentious issue of the relationship between commoners and the monk caste in Tibet. Anthropologists are divided on this subject, with some holding the view of a stratified serfdom, and others holding that the monks, though separate from society, was not an oppressive ruling class and instead were a respected class (similar to what you might see in Thailand, Vietnam, or Burma today).

I don't have sufficient information to comment either way on the anthropological findings, but it may at least aid in understanding the Chinese government's actions if you take into account the prevailing goal of restoring social equality throughout the nation. (A goal that later eyes have observed as being misguided - including Mao's own successor Deng Xiaoping - but which at that time seemed infinitely preferable to what the KMT and imperial rule had to offer.) The government, pursuing a Maoist agenda at the time, declined to honor former indicia of social class - dispossessing landlords and other privileged elites. This went equally for former foreign colony as for hinterland, Han and ethnic minority alike. That Tibetan temples should have been dispossessed just like Buddhist and Christian ones elsewhere is regrettable, but not necessarily discriminatory.

All this is not meant as an excuse, just an explanation. China's policies in Tibet are showing their weaknesses far more clearly than elsewhere, and the government needs to institute better ones quickly. But the prevailing view among Western observers that Tibet was an isolated region, invaded by an aggressive neighbor without historical precedent, only serves to muddy the waters. The Chinese government did have some reasons for asserting its authority over the area, and for the policies it instituted. History may well show that these were misguided, but they were made with the judgment of the times - similar, in fact, to the British treaty formalizing Qing control.

Several Chinese academics and scholars I've spoken to privately feel that Tibet deserves greater liberties. In fact, much of the restoration work done on ruined monasteries are funded by private Chinese donors wishing to preserve cultural heritage, now that the cultureless Maoist manifesto is out of vogue. However, they take great issue with the fact that the same nations that criticize China now were the same ones that historically imposed inequitable relations on the Qing dynasty. Britain is especially egregious in their view, not least because of its century-old undemocratic occupation of Hong Kong and its final demand that the colony become democratic under Chinese rule. While they may agree in principle with calls for greater equity of treatment for Tibetans, they're turned off by what they view as a knee-jerk predilection to "blame China" without taking historical reasons into regard.

I am full aware of China and Tibet’s history. And I don’t think they play such a major role, I mean Germans certainly had some right to annex parts of Czechoslovakia by the same reasoning didn’t they? I’m also not discounting the fact that China had always claimed that region, but let us not forget taht the Chinese would still be Chinese without Tibet but the Tibetans can’t be Tibetan without Tibet. Even if the existing Han minority at the time would have been completely assimilated in an independent Tibet, it is a far smaller loss than the eventual loss of an entire people.

True Tibet was backwards, I personally leant towards the rational that the priests were a ruling class, but invading other countries to impose your social order is not right, and I would criticize any country that did that, and in fact I do.

Now if the Tibetans were granted full minority rights and autonomy within the PRC, I would be comfortable to say they are better off, despite the fact that they will eventually loose their cultural identity. But we can’t make that comparison, just as we can’t make a comparison of what Africa might have been like if there was no European colonialism.

Also the desire to reunify China, has caused more problems than it is worth in my opinion, like the desire to unify Germany and Austria has been. I need not remind you of some of the other unfortunate situations that have resulted from this.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
From the Chinese government's viewpoint, the amount of central government spending invested in Tibet is huge and letting it go now would be a massive investment loss,

Now consider that what che says about American efforts to preserve its investments in Latin America

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia


The second part of your comment (Sinicization) I have no issue with, and I think in fact you've probably hit the Chinese government's policy right on the head. They're likely hoping that with an influx of Chinese, the area will one day become politically "safe" enough to relax military control, where an assured majority will be in accordance with the central government's initiatives.

The first part of your statement may be factually correct but a few historical terms need to be explained first. Ethnic Han and ethnic Tibetan power struggles are nothing new, and at several points in history, China has been in control of some or all of the Tibetan plateau. (If you take a look at the various temples preserved in Beijing, you can also see the reverse was true from a cultural-religious standpoint - Tibetan Buddhism occupied a high position and several Emperors were adherents, making it at various point the de facto state religion.)

Admittedly, past occupation does not give de jure entitlement to control the area in the present day (any more than Germany has a right to control Qingdao or Britain has a right to control Hong Kong) but it's important to understand that the 1950-51 occupation did not occur in a vacuum. It was not an unprecedented act of occupation, as some might have you believe. It may well have been unwarranted, and that's a separate avenue of debate there.

Secondly, China's modern claims on Tibet (after a culmination of various satraps and suzerains anointed by Chinese emperors with varying degrees of independence) came about during the Great Game, where Britain preferred a buffer state between Russia's Central Asian holdings and its own "Jewel in the Crown" - the Indian Raj. Britain signed a treaty with the ailing Qing dynasty recognizing its purview over Tibet, which by that time the weak Qing dynasty was largely powerless to enforce.

The Communist party came to power on a platform owing in part to reuniting the country against foreign aggression. Having reclaimed Manchuria from the Japanese and the various port cities from American, German, French, and British interests, the Communists then did so to Tibet. From the central government's viewpoint, this was an exercise of reasserting power over Chinese holdings where the Qing dynasty had been unable to do so. While this does not necessarily excuse their actions, it does serve in part to explain them. Many of the sources I read wrongly state that China had no interest whatsoever in the area and that the occupation was purely a vanity move by the Communists. This is not true - even the staunchly pro-western Kuomintang government clearly demarcated Tibet as under its rule.

Further to the occupation itself is the contentious issue of the relationship between commoners and the monk caste in Tibet. Anthropologists are divided on this subject, with some holding the view of a stratified serfdom, and others holding that the monks, though separate from society, was not an oppressive ruling class and instead were a respected class (similar to what you might see in Thailand, Vietnam, or Burma today).

I don't have sufficient information to comment either way on the anthropological findings, but it may at least aid in understanding the Chinese government's actions if you take into account the prevailing goal of restoring social equality throughout the nation. (A goal that later eyes have observed as being misguided - including Mao's own successor Deng Xiaoping - but which at that time seemed infinitely preferable to what the KMT and imperial rule had to offer.) The government, pursuing a Maoist agenda at the time, declined to honor former indicia of social class - dispossessing landlords and other privileged elites. This went equally for former foreign colony as for hinterland, Han and ethnic minority alike. That Tibetan temples should have been dispossessed just like Buddhist and Christian ones elsewhere is regrettable, but not necessarily discriminatory.

All this is not meant as an excuse, just an explanation. China's policies in Tibet are showing their weaknesses far more clearly than elsewhere, and the government needs to institute better ones quickly. But the prevailing view among Western observers that Tibet was an isolated region, invaded by an aggressive neighbor without historical precedent, only serves to muddy the waters. The Chinese government did have some reasons for asserting its authority over the area, and for the policies it instituted. History may well show that these were misguided, but they were made with the judgment of the times - similar, in fact, to the British treaty formalizing Qing control.

Several Chinese academics and scholars I've spoken to privately feel that Tibet deserves greater liberties. In fact, much of the restoration work done on ruined monasteries are funded by private Chinese donors wishing to preserve cultural heritage, now that the cultureless Maoist manifesto is out of vogue. However, they take great issue with the fact that the same nations that criticize China now were the same ones that historically imposed inequitable relations on the Qing dynasty. Britain is especially egregious in their view, not least because of its century-old undemocratic occupation of Hong Kong and its final demand that the colony become democratic under Chinese rule. While they may agree in principle with calls for greater equity of treatment for Tibetans, they're turned off by what they view as a knee-jerk predilection to "blame China" without taking historical reasons into regard.

Excellent post, Ali.

I think the Tibetans wouldn't have cared if they were part of China, if China pretty much left them alone. Unfortunately, the Communists moved into Tibet and Xinjiang kind of like how the US moved into Iraq, no clue about the societies there and trying to impose their way of thinking. But, as you said, this was a Maoist agenda and it didn't matter if the people of these regions were part of the revolution or not: they had to be reformed. Thus, the resistence to this day, which has labelled Tibet and Xinjiang as "problem areas." This had been a problem for the Soviets as well who tried to forcefully convert Eastern Europe.

[One_more_turn]

Resistance is futile, they will be assimilated.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Now consider that what che says about American efforts to preserve its investments in Latin America

How about our investments and settlement of Northern Mexico?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DaShi


Excellent post, Ali.

I think the Tibetans wouldn't have cared if they were part of China, if China pretty much left them alone. Unfortunately, the Communists moved into Tibet and Xinjiang kind of like how the US moved into Iraq, no clue about the societies there and trying to impose their way of thinking. But, as you said, this was a Maoist agenda and it didn't matter if the people of these regions were part of the revolution or not: they had to be reformed. Thus, the resistence to this day, which has labelled Tibet and Xinjiang as "problem areas." This had been a problem for the Soviets as well who tried to forcefully convert Eastern Europe.

When the Chinese invaded in '52 (?) they were welcomed by the Tibetan peasantry. What occurred in '59 was an uprising by the former feudal lords and landholders, which was crushed not merely by the Red Army but the Tibetan people themselves. An attempted counter-revolution led to the Tibetan revolution.

Fast forward to today and Tibet is watching the rest of China explode economically and is seeing itself fall further and further behind. This will nearly always lead to resentment and calls for independence, as nationalists feel they could have more growth if they were on their own.
To top this off, Han are moving in to Tibet and setting up businesses and doing well. So not only are the Tibetans being left behind in China, they are being left behind in their own land. The ex-apt Chinese community is resented in large parts of Asia, and we've seen results of that resentment with the expulsion of the Chinese from Vietnam in 1979 and the anti-Chinese riots in Indonesia. Look at the most recent expression of Tibetan protest, which was to riot against Chinese settlers. (Of course, settlers are easier to attack than soldiers).

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


How about our investments and settlement of Northern Mexico?

Excuse me, but don't get ahead of yourself. South Texas hasn't been ceded.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
How about our investments and settlement of Northern Mexico?

1) I'm not going to let you sneak "settlement" in when Ali and I both only mentioned investment.

2) I'm not aware of any [significant] movement in Texas et. al. to rejoin Mexico.

3) Even if there were such a movement, its members would retain their First Amendment rights. If you honestly believe the US is "just as bad" as China wrt political rights, you're an idiot and a tool.

[chequita guevara]

Part of the problem in Tibet is the settlement of the Han and the ethnic swamping of the Tibetan people. It's not unrelated to what happened to the Mexicans who lived in the parts of Mexico annexed by the U.S. While it was a hundred and fifty years ago, even today many Mexican-Americans still have problems in this country. And there is a political movement which seeks to rejoin Mexico.

[Kuciwalker]

Funny, when Israel does anything like that, you scream bloody murder. When a nominally Communist government does, you make excuses.

[Riesstiu IV]

chegitz is the Wiglaf of communism expect without the humor.

[chequita guevara]

I support self-determination for Tibet. I also, however, think there is a qualitative difference between the former ruling class agitating for independence and the masses of the population agitating for independence. Monks and priests are a parasitic class. They produce nothing for society and only take.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


When the Chinese invaded in '52 (?) they were welcomed by the Tibetan peasantry. What occurred in '59 was an uprising by the former feudal lords and landholders, which was crushed not merely by the Red Army but the Tibetan people themselves. An attempted counter-revolution led to the Tibetan revolution.

Got any sources to back up this (other than the official CCP line, which this is)?

Fast forward to today and Tibet is watching the rest of China explode economically and is seeing itself fall further and further behind. This will nearly always lead to resentment and calls for independence, as nationalists feel they could have more growth if they were on their own.

This is not really the case here.

To top this off, Han are moving in to Tibet and setting up businesses and doing well. So not only are the Tibetans being left behind in China, they are being left behind in their own land.

They are setting up businesses that compete directly with the Tibetans and are given all the advantages by the government.

The ex-apt Chinese community is resented in large parts of Asia, and we've seen results of that resentment with the expulsion of the Chinese from Vietnam in 1979 and the anti-Chinese riots in Indonesia. Look at the most recent expression of Tibetan protest, which was to riot against Chinese settlers. (Of course, settlers are easier to attack than soldiers).

I don't think the comparison is accurate.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
chegitz is the Wiglaf of communism expect without the humor.

Che doesn't support communism at all. He's just in love with the word "communism." He sees nothing but hearts and flowers when communism is involved. Oh and that communists are victims of capitolist oppression.