It’s such a strange expression — as if History could take sides. A decade ago, President Clinton used these words to scold the Chinese leadership, President Obama used the same phrase last week. There’s a a couple of things that trouble me about the sentiment. For one, it assumes a single track of historical progress. For another “History” in the service of competing claims in the here and now is a tricky ally, when it is used to forecast the future it can be even trickier. At the very least when history is remembered or enlisted to serve the present it requires the kind of gross simplification and eschewing of nuance that makes most historians cringe.
Today YJ and I were discussing for the 1000th time the Τιbetan question and I suggested that my disdain and distaste for the Party line (and its supporters and parrots at home and abroad) had little to do with their opinion or right to hold such an opinion, but rather that the claims this group tended to make were of a different intellectual tradition than my own. The “Τιbet always has been, always will be part of China” crowd are starting from a point of certainty and proceeding to mine the past to create a narrative in support of that predetermined certainty. Complexity and nuance need not apply.
I’m not disputing the assertion “Τιbet is a part of China” or even “Τιbet was historically a part of China,” just that such assertions are built on unstable ground. The problem of Τιbet involves highly complex questions of sovereignty, authority, national identity, (de)colonization, and the evolution of empires into nation-states. Even the very definitions of these ideas, never mind how such ideas were understood in the past, are subject to discussion and debate. Thus the above assertion on Τιbet isn’t “wrong,” but the glassy-eyed certainty with which it is uttered and the narratives which support it deserve to be unpacked and the constituent parts looked at carefully and critically. For me, the counter to “Τιbet is part of China and history says so” is not “Τιbet is not part of China and history says so” but rather “How can you be so sure? Did you look at it this way?”
This is also not to say that a historian is prevented from ever reaching conclusions based on the available evidence or that we can ever fully be free from the chains of their own world view, perceptions, and background. Historians in the US and Europe sometimes go overboard in calibrating their conclusions to overcome these limitations. A quick glance around my field sees dissertation after dissertation on the destruction of colonialism, the horrors of the African slave trade and its legacy, and the brutal genocide of Native Americans. American graduate students in history seem never so happy as when they can find an available vein and let the blood flow. That said, the history being written today is not designed to promote patriotism (a point which makes more conservative talk show hosts and school board members shake their fist and howl at the moon) or to make people feel good about themselves, it’s about exploring the past, warts and all, so that we can reach a greater understanding of who we are and who we were. Research is done, theories posited and proved, always with the understanding that as new sources and methodologies come to light old assumptions and conclusions will be overturned and Authority challenged. That’s a very different intellectual project than history as done in the PRC.
Back to Τιbet for a moment, I singled out the CCP position because that particular narrative has the full power of a state propaganda machine behind it, but I find the starry-eyed wistfulness of the “Τιbet was always independent and the PRC are evil trolls” camp to be annoying as well. (If your whole position on a particular issue can be summed up in a bumper sticker then it’s time to worry.) The problem is, however, that between CCP histrionics and the overwrought emotionalism of the Richard Gere camp there is precious little room left for moderate voices of academic dissent. To say “Well, let’s think about this a bit…” is taken as slap in the face by partisans of both sides: A problem hardly unique to the China field. In his Gaza Notebook last week, NYT reporter Ethan Bronner described the challenges of reporting on the conflict there:
Abroad, people care deeply about this conflict. That should make it easier for a reporter to cover, because the actors and place names and history are familiar. But it turns out that like the actors themselves, the audiences have utterly distinct and contrasting sets of assumptions. Every time I fail to tell the story each side tells itself, I have failed in its eyes to do my job. That adds up to a lot of failure.
What’s more, the competing war narratives are part of a larger narrative disconnect.
One side says that after thousands of years of oppression, the Jewish nation has returned to its rightful home. It came in peace and offered its hand to its neighbors numerous times only to be met with a sword. Opposition to Israel, this side argues, stems from Muslim intolerance, nationalist fervor and rank anti-Semitism, all fed by envy at the young state’s success. Every time I write an article about the conflict that does not mirror this story line — if, for example, I focus on Palestinian suffering or alleged Israeli misdeeds or quote a human rights group like Amnesty International— I have proven myself to be a secret sharer with the views of the enemy.
As one recent complainer wrote, “To read your paper, all the questions and criticism are directed at Israel, and it is all based on a collection of anti-Semitic organizations masquerading as humanitarians.”
The other side tells a different story: There is no Jewish nation, only followers of a religion. A group of European colonialists came here, stole and pillaged, throwing hundreds of thousands off their land and destroying their villages and homes. A country born in sin, Israel has built up an aggressive military with help from Washington in the grips of a powerful Jewish lobby.
Every time I fail to allude to that story — when, for example, I examine Israel’s goals in its Gaza war without implicitly condemning it as a massacre, or write about Israel in ways that do not call into question its legitimacy — I have revealed my affiliation and can no longer be trusted as a reporter.
Since the war started on Dec. 27, I have received hundreds of messages about my coverage. They are generally not offering congratulations on a job well done.
“Thanks to you and other scum like yourself,” said one, “Israel can now kill hundreds and you can report the whole thing like it was some random train wreck.”
“Bronner ,” said another, “you’re back to your usual drivel about only the poor filthy Arabs — who voted for the Hamas people who got them into this predicament — with incessant indiscriminate rocket fire on innocent Israelis.”
Replace a few key nouns and the parallels to the ongoing online blather matches over Τιbet are scary.
Which brings me to my last point: earlier I mentioned why the phrase “wrong side of history” irked me a bit, but I do think there is another side to the saying worth exploring. In contemporary political squabbles, we should be mindful of whether or not our words and actions echo the rhetoric and deeds of the past. In the last decade, more than one commenter has noted the eerie parallels between the ramp up to the Iraq War and Vietnam. James Kirchik writing in the New Majority warned Republicans to change their position on gay rights and gay marriage or “risk going out of fashion.” Indeed, the rhetoric of same sex marriage and gays serving the military disturbingly resembles the rhetoric against miscegenation and mixed-race army units in the 20th century. Similarly, the suggestions that PRC control of the Tibetan plateau was a strategic necessity, a humanitarian mission of liberation, or a benevolent paternalism which brought “modernity” in the form of hospitals, schools, and infrastructure to the benighted locals is fiendishly close to the justifications used by European and American imperialists in centuries past (and recent years).
This is not an attempt to establish perfect historical parallelism or moral equivalency, only that when the rhetoric recalls the words of days gone by, we are behooved to ask ourselves who said it first, and why.
The argument on both sides is actually colored to some degree by anti-colonialism. The Chinese may point to schools or hospitals, but these are just justifications, not root causes. T***t strikes a chord as part of the Century of Humiliation. The British, recall, tried to break off Outer T***t and make it independent of China. (The Russians learned from this and later succeeded with Mongolia.)
There are other examples: not just Israel and the Palestinians, but also Turkey and the Kurds, Turkey and the Greeks, India and its remaining Muslims, Pakistan and the Pashtuns. The last one is several levels deep: India under the British, Muslims in India, Pashtuns in Pakistan.
Mostly, it comes down to whether you identify with Europe or with the Third World. European colonialism has left such a lasting mark on the world that second- or third-level colonialism tends to fall by the wayside when it comes to allegiances.
This was a very thoughtful and thought-provoking post – the best kind. Another sometimes useful approach in talking to Chinese about Tibet [if your goal is to bring up possible alternative narratives to the story] is to bring up Japanese writings from the 1930′s about Manchuria. If you substitute “Chinese” for “Japanese” and “Tibetans” for “Chinese” in these writings they can read like present-day CCP descriptions of Tibet. That can also be thought-provoking.
It might be worthwhile to quote that entire sentence of Obama’s speech:
“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
A further criticism of this passage, in addition to your two, is that it implicitly states that the United States is on the “right” side of history — that it is free of corruption, deceit, and the silencing of dissent. There are a host of American historians and social scientists who would say otherwise, even amid the current upsurge in American patriotism.
Still, Obama doesn’t seem to actually be talking about “history,” but about what “progress” means. The two terms are often conflated, but surely it is heartening to hear that Obama’s vision of progress isn’t about wealth or power, but about openness and the freedom to voice opposing viewpoints.
“Another sometimes useful approach in talking to Chinese about Tibet”
On the strength of my conversations with Chinese on the issue I would describe the practice in terms of banging your head against a brick wall. All you get is the party line (“DL is a terrorist” etc).
I always suggest my students take a trip to the region to speak first hand to T’betans, as I have. But then they have another problem: how many Han Chinese are going to be trusted enough to get an open response when asked to describe the last 60 years under CCP occupation?
If people are interested in historical truth then they have to look deeper for it. Sadly, there is little or no desire for inquiry among Chinese beyond the information already fed to them. That process in itself has a few historical precedents that might lend some legitimacy to the phrase “on the wrong side of history.”
In Obama’s case I think the phrase was no more than a useful sound bite employed by a gifted orator. That said, insofar as history has a tendency to repeat itself in some alarming and self-destructive ways, we could also see it as a veiled warning of where things might be heading without political change in nationalism-fueled dictatorship with territorial ambitions.
Thanks for a very enjoyable post.
I experience similar discomfort when confronted by the blatant use of history in this way (although I’m not a historian so its probably not quite so bad). Not sure if you’ve run into this before, but John Powers’ book History as Propaganda: Tibetan Exiles versus the People’s Republic of China looks at exactly this issue.
Hmm. Interesting and difficult topic here! First of all though, I can’t really see why you spend so much time arguing aloud against the “‘Τibet always has been, always will be part of China’ crowd” as you call them. They are a crowd and thus they have a crowd/hive mentality and so will not be truly willing to listen to (or even able to understand perhaps) your educated, careful, nuanced and, yes, scholarly approach.
That said, as for Obama’s use of “wrong side of history” a quote from the later Wittgenstein springs to mind: “Don’t look for the meaning, look for the use.” By which I mean to say that Obama is using “history” to make his listeners “feel good” that they are free citizens on the right side of the force, or “progress” as Sam says. Understandably, he is more concerned about sounding good and swaying his audience than about uttering claims that would stand up to careful scrutiny. Have you come across the Elias Canetti quote, “History is on the side of what happened.” ? That would be more academic and objective but actually I hope that Obama is right and that those who silence dissent will be yesterday’s news in the not so distant future.
Also, if I got you right, you then mentioned that the phrase “the wrong side of history” also has echoes of “manifest destiny” and “might is right” type of thinking. But if we pick up on Clinton’s comments about the lack of “human rights and religious freedom” in China and add Obama’s “silencing of dissent” then I can also detect an echo back to a much more distant time. Herodotus is sometimes called the “father of history” and “the man who invented the west” and part of the reason he wrote history was to promote a narrative of how the free (Western) Greeks managed to overcome enormous odds to defeat the despotic (Eastern) Persians. This “Orientalising” of “Free West vs Eastern Despots” thinking has been quite a large part of the writing and study of history in the west ever since; and Obama and Clinton are continuing in that tradition I think. I also think they are right to do so. They are not necessarily right in all their claims, but the Chinese/Thai/North Korean/Iranian ruling classes need a kick up the ass every now and again. And I hope and believe that the kind of kick that American under Obama is likely to give will be much much more effective and justifiable than the kind of kicks America under Bush gave.
So, a rather off-the-wall answer to your question “who said it first and why?’ could be that it was Herodotus who said it first and he said it because he was not just trying to write history (to tell what happened to happen) he was trying to promote a way of life he thought was morally preferable.
I believe that…
There are no grand narratives.
Progress is possible but it is a very slippery concept.
History has no ultimate meaning.
Life has no ultimate meaning.
The above beliefs are not that helpful when it comes to making moral choices.
Better stop blathering now. Time for my meds.
I really enjoyed this post. Nice writing.
Pingback: Tibet is, was and always will be…. » The Peking Duck
Pingback: A Ku Indeed! » Archive » Blog Love
Thanks for this great post, totally agree with your approach.
Nice post. But,,, even nicer comment Kim!! damn, that would be the nicest comment on this whole fuss (whatever it is) for years–for me. “History has no ultimate meaning”. To me, politics has no ultimate meaning too.
Thank you, Good post.
What do you think of Elliot Sperling’s article on New York Time, see attached link. He omitted the fact that all major west countries, such as US and Britain, as well as Indian and then Chinese (KMT) government all recognize Tibet as part of China during 1912-1951, which are shown in their official maps published then.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/opinion/13sperling.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=elliot%20sperlling&st=cse
Is he best scholarship in US about Tibet? Is that reason NYT choose him to write an opinion page just after Tibet riots last year?
Pingback: Quotes of the Week or Month « Justrecently’s Weblog
I’m with Richard Gere on this one.
“…mine the past to create a narrative in support of that predetermined certainty. Complexity and nuance need not apply. ”
Worth repeating, I thought, in light of lei’s all too familiar comment above.
Yeah,
Some of the previous comments (and some to come) will probably be left without reading the article carefully, thus proving my point for me.
If only all commenters could be as thoughtful and informed as Kim. Comments like that make writing a blog worthwhile.
I believe some of the frustration felt by writers such as Mr. Bronner stems from the ridiculous way that many newspapers accept c0mments at the bottom of articles combined with the usual presence of comments on blogs.
In the past, when you had to actually take the time to write a letter to the editor when a writer got his/her facts wrong (in your opinion) or when you disagreed with the position of the writer, there was actually pressure to craft a measured composition, and those who responded were typically those who felt especially strongly about a subject. Comment boxes have made it all to easy for the average armchair pundit to get instant gratification by publishing a snotty reply. Comments all too often devolve into the blog/online paper equivalent of flame e-mails.
The fact that there is an increasing number of Chinese internauts who have the same opinion about the Tibet issue actually reinforces the failure to reexamine history by reassuring many Chinese Internet users that the whole country sees the matter like they do and that they must therefore be correct. And any suggestion that Tibet/China history (or Taiwan/China history) be carefully evaluated is instantly shot down.
The same thing happens in the West when it comes to different controversial issues. Try explaining on a blog or in a newspaper article the successes of the Bush administration. There have been many, although they have been overshadowed by large problems. But the masses believe what they hear everyone else say and fail to examine the facts in a balanced way.
So I would say that what you are referring to regarding Tibet is indeed rooted in propaganda, but the problem is amplified by the fact that it is getting easier and easier for the masses in an authoritarian nationalistic country with an inferiority complex to let simple pride get in the way of rational analysis.