Ed note: As was the case last year, the issue of Tibet is very much on people’s minds this March. This is a post from March 2008 that I think best summarizes my view on the subject. It began as an answer to questions in a class and morphed into a longer essay. I’m back this weekend, look for new posts starting next week.
—————————————–
As regards the situation in Τibet, I’ve said elsewhere that history is a slippery ally when forced into the service of contemporary political disputes.
Let’s set aside the Mongols for a moment. They ruled an empire that stretched from Korea to Kiev, so one could use the Khans to make all kinds of territorial claims. Yuan (1279-1368) rule was extremely short in duration anyway, and most of the territories outside China proper were beyond Ming (1368-1644) control for nearly 300 years.
The Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) is a good place to start as the Manchus did maintain garrisons on the Τibetan plateau while administering the region through local elites. The Qing rulers, great patrons of Lamamism, consolidated their rule by maintaining cultural and religious ties with Τibet beyond mere military occupation. They also–generally but not always–ruled with a light touch, allowing relative autonomy in religious and cultural matters, which suited the situation quite well. The Qing Dynasty was, after all, a large, multi-ethnic empire, and maintaining order and peace in outlying territories was the utmost concern.
The problem is that the PRC is a nation-state, and the demands a nation-state places on its people are different than those of an empire. It is not enough that Tibetans merely pay taxes and not revolt, they must also identify with the nation-state first and foremost, with other cultural and religious aspects secondary to the demands of modern state building. Empires want to be respected, nation-states want to be loved. That’s a sticky wicket the Qing never had to face.
It’s not surprising that when we look at the world’s hot spots we see the legacies of colonialism and decolonization. As empires give way to new forms of political organization there is resistance and tension. Modern states attempt to preserve the territories bequeathed to them from empires of old, while subject peoples seek greater autonomy and even independence.
Unfortunately, history is a poor arbiter of who gets what, and too often (as in the case of Τibet) history becomes warped and carved, tugged and torn, by states and separatists, to suit the political demands of a contemporary crisis.
My own views on the situation are consistent with my views on China in general: I believe the citizens of Τibet, as with those in the rest of China and the world, should be free to speak and write and criticize without fear of censorship or government suppression, and to demonstrate peaceably if necessary. They should be able to worship and participate in cultural practices as they see fit, to be educated in the language of their choice, and to be able to pursue these rights in free, unbiased, and independent courts. When those are accomplished, whether Tibet remains a part of the PRC, becomes an independent state, or ends up something or somewhere in between, is a matter for the Tibetan people and the PRC government to then resolve peacefully through dialogue and negotiation.
A-Men.
Interestingly enough, I just read a small article that I think is relevant to this discussion. The problem is that your view as a foreigner is perceived as either irrelevant or highly threatening to many Chinese. Getting Chinese people to take your thoughts on history seriously is a chore that you know too well.
This story is about a Chinese student who, in the last few months, wrote an essay in Chinese about the traffic in pirated goods in China. The catch is that he used a foreign name to talk about a problem that nobody can deny. He did this as an experiment to judge Chinese reactions to foreign criticism. You will be able to guess the results, but it is refreshing to see that some people within China do actually see problems in shades of grey instead of in black and white.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2009/03/a-chinese-pirat.html
So indeed, perhaps this lesson/essay did have the effect that you desired. But I think that something important needs to be added. For Chinese history to have any hope of being accurately portrayed within China, Chinese as a whole will have to find a way to change they way they feel about “the other” as well as change the way they feel about themselves. History is intimitely related to Chinese identity, and, as with the development of all personal identities, some soul searching is required to get to the heart.
The problem is that the PRC is a nation-state, and the demands a nation-state places on its people are different than those of an empire. It is not enough that Tibetans merely pay taxes and not revolt, they must also identify with the nation-state first and foremost, ….
I’d say that China is an empire in a nation state’s disguise. That’s why Beijing insists that Tibetans or Uyghurs must not only refrain from revolt, but “love China”. Once people don’t love it, they’ll think about their nationality.
Powerful interests tend to wish to dominate the flow of information.
I think your wish is great but way too idealistic. It sounds like
“When those are accomplished, whether Tibet remains a part of the PRC, becomes an independent state, or ends up something or somewhere in between, is a matter for the Tibetan people and the PRC government to then resolve peacefully through dialogue and negotiation.”
Or through violent means silimiar to the Civil war in U.S.
[...] Jenne wrote a post about how Han Chinese and national minorities were transformed from imperial subjects to national citizens. It was on his blog in March last year (re-posted this month). It’s an interesting thoughtful [...]
“For Chinese history to have any hope of being accurately portrayed within China”
Thomas,
Wouldn’t this “accurate” be a very subjective word? What you consider “accurate” might not be so accurate to me. And likewise.
Does the west have a more accurate portrayal of China’s history? If so, why?
Pfeffer,
I’ll let Thomas respond to your comment directly, but as for me, my largest problem with the way this history is taught and deployed in the CCP is not that it is “inaccurate” (whatever that might mean) but that this particular narrative carries with it the explicit understanding that there are no other alternative perspectives. That’s what bothers me. There are many competing perspectives on history, even Tibetan history, taught in the “West,” there is only one deployed in China, with all others being “wrong.”
ftb,
I have no idea what your point is. I was expressing a wish for the future, are you suggesting you would prefer violence to resolve conflicts?
“Does the west have a more accurate portrayal of China’s history? If so, why?”
In many areas of historical record, absolutely it does. And the reason is, as Jeremiah points out, teaching and discourse is not restricted to a single, intransigent viewpoint.
For example, having visited Tibet and spoken with both Tibetans and Han immigrants to the region, and read literature not banned by the CCP, I certainly know more about the truth of Tibet under Chinese rule than the vast majority of Chinese themselves.
And I’m quite happy to call that a more ‘accurate’ account of history than has been implanted in the minds of a billion Chinese.
@Pfeffer, I am the same as Thomas… I have good reasons for thinking China’s Tibet policy is wrong, including having heard what Tibetans in Tibet think about China and philosophical objections to China’s justifications for its rule of Tibet.
I’m not saying this to change your mind about Tibet. What I’m trying to say is I have good reasons for my views, and I do not hold them out of hostility towards China. If it turns out most Tibetans are happy to be part of China, which is certainly possible, then I think there’s nothing wrong with that and China should be left alone.
As for my own country, I think people should criticize America’s sins, and I know people who do so don’t do it because they “hate America”. In fact, I think such criticism is good, because opposition from allies can prevent the US from abusing its power.
Pffefer, Stuart’s response is along the lines of what I was thinking when I wrote that sentence. In retrospect, I would have added a “more” before the accurate, as I did not wish to suggest that there was one “correct” history of China or Tibet.
However, I do think that by comparing many accounts of any historical situation, you can find points of intersection that allow you fill in pieces of the puzzle that you won’t find by just consulting one account, as many in China do out of necessity or negligence.
My own non-expert opinion of the Tibet situation is that there can be no resolution as long as, within China, resistance remains to admitting the existence of a problem and frankly discussing the reasons Tibetans are unhappy. But in order to openly admit that a problem exists, Chinese have to first be open to the idea that some alternative accounts of Tibet’s history and culture do actually have some or a lot of truth in them. In short, Chinese need to be more accepting of “other” viewpoints, whether Tibetan or non-Tibetan foreigner.
Of course, to be open to the idea of accepting and debating other viewpoints,
Sorry, that last, uncompleted sentence was an editing error.
Jeremiah,
“Competing perspectives on history, even Tibetan history”? What other perspectives are being taught in the west on Tibetan history other than “China invaded and annexed Tibet in 1951″? I am all ears.
stuart,
I agree with Jeremiah and you (to a very limited degree) that in China history (mostly contemporary history) is taught with very limited coverage on alternative perspectives (but again, I am really not sure how pluralistic western teaching of history is, I have been hearing the same stuff about China-Tibet included). However, viewpoints are viewpoints, there are no “better” viewpoints, just different ones on many historical events. People even disagree about what actually happened.
With regard to Tibet, both the CCP and the TGIE spout out propaganda of their own. And it really depends on who you talk to to get an “accurate” picture. See “Sampling”.
Thomas,
I completely agree with you that “Chinese need to be more accepting of “other” viewpoints” and “to be open to the idea of accepting and debating other viewpoints”, I think many Chinese have come a long way in this regard. Equally, I think it is also important for non-Chinese not to conveniently dismiss “the Chinese viewpoint” (if there is one) as “brainwashed”, “propaganda-ladden BS” etc. We see that happening everyday. If you are not open to other “viewpoints”, “perspectives”, why should you expect others to be open to yours, correct?
Pfeffer,
Then you need to spend a little more time in the library/history class.
In every Chinese history class I’ve been a part of (including the one I’m teaching right now) there is an effort made to include the PRC-version of events as well as the version given by Tibetologists such as Tsering Shakya and Robbie Barnett. In addition, you can go into any university library in the US and find books, in both Chinese and English, that give the Marxist interpretation of Tibetan history and/or the Han nationalist perspective on the Tibetan question. The CCP’s own white paper on the issue is widely available, as are any number of books published in the PRC on the subject. I haven’t assigned the white paper on Tibet this term because the airwaves have been so saturated with its basic contents, but I did assign the CCP white paper on the Taiwan question…but that’s another kettle of fish.
“With regard to Tibet, both the CCP and the TGIE spout out propaganda of their own. And it really depends on who you talk to to get an “accurate” picture. See “Sampling”.”
One way to start, I might suggest, is to allow Tibetans the absolute freedom of expression and demonstration without fear of government censorship or suppression. I know, I know…just a pipe dream.
Jeremiah,
The last sentence in your 2008 post is flawed. The future of Tibet should be determined by all Chinese people, both Tibetan and non-Tibetan. Not just the TIbetan people and the Chinese government.
If you accept the modern China as a nation-state and believe in democratic values, then everybody has the right to decide what goes on in his/her own country. Majority rule should be respected.
Jeremiah,
I don’t know what Chinese history classes that you were in, but the one I that was in basically just reinforced the typical western/TGIE line of China invading and annexing Tibet in 1951 (for the first time in history) and China’s alleged “brutal rule”. It made no mention of the so-called “Chinese perspective”. Speaking of Robbie Barnett, I didn’t find his views much different from the mainstream western/TGIE perspective with regard to Tibet.
I am sure you have all those books in libraries throughout the west. They are certainly available to those who want to read them. But, that does not mean the so-called “Chinese perspective” is widely taught or reported. The dominant, the so-called “mainstream” view not only dismisses “the Chinese perspective”, worse, it makes no mention of it.
为人服务,
I guess it depends on your perspective. Should the people of England have been consulted on the decision to grant independence to India or the fate of the Irish Republic? Or, for that matter, to quit the concessions in Shanghai?
For example, if Puerto Rico wants to become an independent country, I’d hardly expect them to consult my fellow New Englanders. Majority rule is important but so is the principle of self-determination, especially in (post-) colonial/imperial situations.
Pfeffer,
Then I feel sorry for your experience in history class. Suffice to repeat, I’ve been involved in a lot of them, and in almost everyone (particularly the ones I teach) the PRC perspective was discussed.
I think moreover, regarding libraries in Europe and the US, alternative perspectives ARE available in multiple languages for anyone who wishes to read them, I wish the same could be said for libraries here in the PRC.
Jeremiah,
The principle of self-determination is important, but where do you draw the line? Down to every and any individual, family, town, city, county, province/state or any group of people who would like to secede?
What I am trying to say is it is certainly wonderful that you have those books in your libraries, even in multiple languages; however, how influential and effective are those books? How many people actually check them out and read them? Probably just nerds like you and me, not that many, right? The point is they do not make their ways to the majority of the classrooms and newsrooms because they don’t fit the mainstream belief that people have on Tibet.
Lastly, keep in mind that China is still a third world developing country, it has more dire and urgent needs than stuff its libraries with a lot of foreign language books.
Oh, I forgot to say those books, as wonderful as they might be, have minimal influence in forming or shaping public opinion when the mainstream view tells you the bad Chinese invaded Tibet in 1951 for the first time, out of the blue, and enslaved the peace-loving good Tibetans everyday.
Jeremiah,
Puerto Rico is not a good example to use, since it is not a state and has an ambiguous status in US. You should make an example, hypothetical of course, like Alaska. Say the Alaska Independence Party, of which I heard Sarah Palin was once a member, seizes power and wants independence. Will the US allow it? According to the US constitution, no state can secede without the consent of other states. The American history of civil war clearly demonstrates how far the country is willing to go to preserve the union.
Moreover, the British parliament did grant independence to India. The British parliament represented the the British people, so in this sense the British people were consulted and they agreed to give India independence. The same argument applies to returning Shanghai concession to ROC and Hong Kong to PRC. There was the 1984 SIno-Anglo Joint Declaration, approved by both countries’ legislatures.
Pfeffer,
I think you’re being a bit disingenuous to suggest the reason that alternative perspectives on Tibetan history are not widely available in PRC libraries is because “China is poor.”
Even alternative perspectives in Chinese on this issue are rather hard to come by.
PPS.
Correct me if I am wrong. If you are interested in finding a non-PRC narrative on Tibet, the books by Melvyn Goldstein should be available in China. If so, does it actually prove that China allows alternative perspectives?
StP,
I don’t know if the US will allow it or not, but as for my own personal beliefs, if the people of Alaska so choose thus then it should be so.
Obviously, there are limits to the principles of self-determination (I can’t declare the Democratic Republic of Jeremiah, as wonderful as that sounds…) but defining those limits has been a major concern in the post-colonial world.
StP,
A couple of points:
You mentioned the British parliament which represents the interests of the British people. I do wish you would read more carefully the original post where I mentioned:
“for the Tibetan people and the PRC government to then resolve peacefully through dialogue and negotiation.”
The PRC government, like the British government, claims to represent the people of that nation.
If you know of a good place to find the Goldstein book in China, let me know. I haven’t come across it and I’m a pretty regular haunt in bookstores and libraries here.
Even if it were to appear in a couple of places, it’s a bit like saying that because Arizona has Lake Havasu, it can challenge Minnesota’s claim to being the Land of 10,000 Lakes.
Jeremiah,
About books, I would try the library of Peking University’s History department, or Fudan University’s library. They should have Goldstein’s books.
You assertion that the PRC’s viewpoint was well represented in the West has no supporting evidence. I have visited quite a few city and university libraries in the US but have not found a single copy of Anna Luise Strong’s
When Serfs Stood Up In Tibet,
or Israel Epstein’s
Tibet Transformed.
Ms. Strong was a well known twenty century American journalist, a progressive early day feminist. You would think that her book on Tibet should be on every bookshelf of an American library. Why not? In stead we see all the crap that claim to be written by the Dalai?
StP,
I’ve been to the PKU library on numerous occasions. I was a student at PKU and actually taught a history class for American undergrads on the campus from 2003-2004. I didn’t see Goldstein’s book in my travels, but I admit, if one place had it, that would be the one.
Nevertheless, I refer back to my Havasu analogy:
In between classes this morning, I ran a quick search through the library catalog of my home institution (part of the UC system) and found both books you mentioned, with 34 works listed under Epstein (including two versions of his Tibet book) and a whopping 96 titles attributed to Strong with four different versions of “When the Serfs Stood Up.” I obviously don’t have the time to search every university library collection in the US, but if you’re looking to borrow a copy of either tome, my suggestion would be that the next time you fly from DC to Cali, check out the campus library of the local UC.
Jeremiah,
So you found 6 copies of pro-PRC books on Tibet in the state of California. And how many books supporting the other side can you find in California? Tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands. Doesn’t your Havasu analogy work equally well here?
Considering the one sided coverage on the Tibetan issue in the West, the anti-CNN phenomenon in China is hardly surprising. Believe me many Chinese are aware of the propaganda put out by the Richard Gere crowd. In the grand coalition China has built to combat the Tibetan separatists, the overseas Chinese are one of most vocal and determined component. You certainly cannot accuse them of being brainwashed by CCP.
Jeremiah,
No, that is not what I was implying. I was simply saying it is not a priority for China, being a third world developing country with a lot more urgent needs, to staff its libraries with foreign language books of any kind, not just the “alternative perspective” ones.
StP,
Sorry, I got you beat. You said:
“I have visited quite a few city and university libraries in the US but have not found a single copy…”
And on a 5 minute coffee break I found plenty of copies. I suspect that if I took the time to check major university libraries throughout the US, I’d get a similar result.
I would also never accuse anyone of being “brainwashed.” But you have to concede that the educational and information environment in the PRC is more tightly controlled than in most other countries.
I also believe, at this point, we are once again talking in circles. It’s a good debate. Let’s have it again next March.
On to other things…
OK, March next year then. It’s a date.
If I find a copy of Anna Luise Strong’s When Serfs Stand Up in Tibet on the shelf of my local coffee shop, I will concede this debate. Before that day comes, I maintain that the Western opinion on the Tibet question is more biased than China’s.
On the off chance someone is still paying attention…
@StP,
Democracy is not just about majority rule, it is also about minority rights. Should the majority of section of the US decide it wants to secede, I would support that section’s rights regardless of my government’s position, just as I support Tibetan’s right to secede from China, if it is indeed the case that they want to do so. I am not able to speak for anyone who is not a New Yorker, caucasian or college educated, just as I feel a Han Chinese is unable to speak for someone who is Tibetan.