In an earlier discussion, reader Naqshbandiyya responded to this comment by Otto Kerner. He was in fact commenting on the exchange between Otto Kerner and Raventhorn2000. I want to repeat his point that for the most part, U.S. and China are interested in creating a tolerant society at home. They prize harmony. We all should watch out for those pushing for ethnic nationalism, for that is what divides us. I simply liked how Naqshbandiyya articulated this view:
When I first read raventhorn2000′s comment, I thought that he was going to compare the Chinese to the Jews, in that both the Chinese and the Jewish diasporas experienced (and in some places, still experience) centuries of violent persecution and forced assimilation by their host countries. Alas, he turned it into a moralizing lesson about how Tibetans should “save their culture” themselves instead of relying on Tibetan exiles.
The “unnamed others” I refer to are those Tibetan exiles, who while relatively well-integrated in the West, self-segregate themselves in India into tightly controlled communities that are bound by poverty, religion, and an essentially anti-Chinese nationalism. (Dissenters are viciously persecuted within the Tibetan exile community, as the Dorje Shugden episode tells us, but you can find some criticisms of this unhealthy insularity from Jamyang Norbu.) According to these exiles, everything the Chinese do to promote Tibetan culture is attacked (like you attack it), because an “independent or autonomous Tibet” could supposedly do it better; i.e., because the Chinese are doing it. Build a train from Qinghai to Tibet? China’s planning to send hordes of Han settlers to Tibet! Don’t build a train from Qinghai to Tibet? China is keeping Tibetans poor. Are the Tibetans rioting now? Chinese socialism has failed! Are they not rioting? China has imposed a brutal reign of terror over Tibet! These are not strawmen; these are the rhetorical staples of an exile population that receives through the National Endowment for Democracy, Radio Free Asia, and other programs a blank check from the U.S. government to stoke the flames of anti-Chinese sentiment both within Tibet and outside of it.
And the rhetoric gets very tiring, because it fundamentally hasn’t changed in 50 years. Tibet is always in some “crisis”, some “tragedy”, or to quote the Dalai Lama, “some kind of genocide”. When is the Han population going to overwhelm the Tibetan population in Tibet, after all of these warnings from exiles of mass population transfers? When is the Chinese language going to eclipse the Tibetan language in Tibet, after all of these warnings from exiles of the perils of compulsory schooling? The answer to both questions is never, because both propositions are based in the fantasy of a fossilized Tibet with zero Chinese influence, and not in Tibet’s reality (which is still somewhat stunted, thanks to the political pressure that exiles create). Moving forward, China has changed a lot in 50 years; have the exiles changed? Despite much talk about “democratization”, another Lama (this time Karmapa) is making the rounds in Washington, scheduled to become “leader of the Tibetans” upon the Dalai Lama’s death.
The audience for the exiles’ alarmist warnings of cultural destruction, which you happily regurgitated in comment #14, are strictly Westerners, who miss no opportunity to let the Chinese people know how they feel about China—whether by assaulting a wheelchair-bound Chinese torchbearer on the 2008 Olympics torch relay, or by simply disrupting China blogs by bringing polemics about Tibet into every discussion. The exiles have no genuine interest in dialogue with China or Chinese, as meeting basic preconditions to show good faith (such as to stop distorting history to create the legal fiction of an “independent” “occupied” Tibet) would be impolitic. Maybe it’s just politics, but the behavior of the Tibetans-in-exile and their western supporters are completely inconsistent with the ideals of the multicultural nation-state to which Singapore, China, and the United States strive. Indeed, the Free Tibet movement is a regression towards the Bad Old Days of hysterical, exclusionary, and eventually genocidal ethnic nationalism.
If you are interested in reading more about ‘Tibet,’ I suggest heading over Raventhorn2000’s recent post, “2008 ‘Olympic Debate’ over Tibet on American Bar Association China Law Committee.”
Click on the ‘Tibet’ tag below for more thoughts from Allen and others on this blog.
raventhorn2000 says
1 point I brought up in another thread, which I emphasize now, is the often neglected consideration of the Hui Chinese in the Media.
Hui Chinese are the bulk of the population that have migrated into Xinjiang and Tibet in recent years. Western Media tend to arbitrarily call them “Han Chinese”, simply because many Hui’s speak some Chinese dialect and have some bloodline relationships with “Han Chinese”. (Several descendants of Confucius have married Hui Chinese and converted to Islam in Chinese history).
Hui’s are an unique culture on their own, and they are devout Muslims.
The fact is the Hui’s have been able to take advantage of the Chinese development policies in the remote provinces, to make themselves successful, and build Mosques along the way.
That fact alone suggests that those development policies do not favor “Han Chinese” over the minority ethnic groups.
But rather, some ethnic groups in China are able to compete more effectively than others under the same policies.
And the Hui’s religious practices are absolutely flourishing in Western China is another point that Uighur and Tibetan Exiles’ movements are absolutely political, and have NOTHING to do with preservation of culture or religion.
Allen says
Standard narrative in the West has Xinjian to be the “home” of the Uyghurs, with the Han Chinese invading and taking the land away.
The history is much more nuanced. As an example, here is what looks to be like a brief but fairly account of the history of Urumqi.
Source: http://archnet.org/library/places/one-place.jsp?place_id=2536&order_by=title&showdescription=1
Ray says
I might also add that the Hui Chinese is a very diverse group in itself. Some of whom are descendents of Arab merchants, some are Persian, some are from other ethnic groups. The PRC presently do not recognized Jewish Chinese as a seperate group and is usually classified under Hui Chinese too.
Former Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi’s grandfather is a Hui from China, so is Abdurrahman Wahid former President of Indonesia. Most Chinese would have heard of Hai Rui 海瑞 as he is imortalized in the opera 海瑞罢官 but few realized that he is also a Hui. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hai_rui
Modern Nationalist Guanxi faction General 白崇禧 is also a Muslim but he like to tell people that he is a Chinese Muslim. His descendents are now mostly in Taiwan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%99%BD%E5%B4%87%E7%A6%A7
I think everybody know that Zeng He is a Muslim but few know that the 2nd Sultan of Brunei could have been a Hui Chinese http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huang_Senping
Ancestor of Jose Rizal also came from Jinjiang, Fujian. My point all along is, if there is any group that try to pretend there is such a thing as racial or ethnic exclusivity, they are going to shoot themselves in the foot.
raventhorn2000 says
http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=170&catid=5&subcatid=88
Tensions Between Tibetans and Hui Muslims
Muslim Huis Tibetans and Muslims, mostly Muslim Huis, are arguably the most bitter enemies in China. They get along even worse than Tibetans and Chinese. Animosity between Tibetans and Muslims was a major contributor to the tensions that produced the riots in March 2008. Many of the shops and restaurants that were attacked in Lhasa were Muslim owned.
Tibetans and Huis have often lived in close proximity and they have a long history of fighting, competing, intermarrying and collaborating. Muslim have traditional done butchering and tanning for Tibetans who eat meat and wear furs but are restricted by Buddhism from killing animals. The Huis also have a reputation for seeking their fortune in remote places that Han Chinese would never go and serving as intermediaries for illiterate Tibetans in markets.
Animosity between Muslims and Tibetans in Qinghai dates back to the 1930s when the Muslim warlord Ma Bufeng tried to establish an Islamic enclave in Qinghai. Tibetans were pushed off their land. Some were killed, or forced to convert to Islam. After the Communist takeover tensions were repressed.
Clashes Between Tibetans and Muslims
In recent years their have been dozens of clashes between Tibetans and Muslims in Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghai provinces as well as in the Tibetan Autonomous region. Most of the incidents go unreported. Neither the Chinese or the Tibetans want the incidents publicized. The Chinese don’t want their claims of a “harmonious society” undermined and the Tibetans don’t want their international image tarnished.
In the mid 1990s, Tibetans in Lhasa began boycotting Muslim restaurants and calling Muslims cannibals after someone reportedly found a finger in a bowl of coup. Rumors also began spreading that Muslim cooks urinated in the food and added their bath water to it. Seemingly ridiculous or trivial concerns set off biter clashes.
In February 2008, an altercation involving thousands of people began after a Tibetan child complained of the high cost of balloons sold by a Muslim peddler. In 2003, a Tibetan and a Muslim died, with the Muslim being stabbed to death with a kebab skewer, and Chinese troops were called in, during a riot that began with a dispute over billiards game.
In the summer of 2007 Tibetans rioted in the town of Guojia in the Golog area of Qinghai Province after a dispute in a Muslim restaurant. The incident began when a Tibetan customer complained that was a tooth in her soup. The owner of the restaurant insisted it was just a piece of lamb bone. By that time a crowd of Tibetans had gathered. When someone screamed, “Let’s trash this restaurant” the crowd did exactly that—tables, chairs and a television were tossed and kitchen equipment was smashed with bricks—before the crowd moved onto other restaurants and did the same.
After that incident Tibetans refused to eat in Muslim restaurants and Muslim taxi drivers feared going into Tibetan parts of town. After the riots in Lhasa in March 2008 about 800 of the town’s 3,000 Muslims moved out. Of those that stayed, many men stopped wearing skullcaps, women wore hairnets rather than scarves and the religious-minded prayed at home because the nearest mosque had been burned down.
Twenty Tibetans were arrested in connection with the Guojia clash, including a senior monk fingered as the ringleader who was sentenced to death.
Reasons for Tensions Between Tibetans and Hui Muslims
A Tibetan doctor told the Los Angeles Times, “To be honest the Tibetans don’t have the business savvy of the Hui. The Tibetans have to sell their products to Hui. The Hui have to buy it from the Tibetans. I suppose because we are interdependent we resent each other.” It doesn’t help that the Huis often side with the Han Chinese in disputes involving Tibetans and support Chinese repression against Tibetans.
In some ways the Tibetans take their frustrations of being a minority on the Hui, another minority. London-based Tibetan scholar Andrew Fischer told the Los Angeles Times, “It is the dark side of Tibetan nationalism. It is as though the Tibetans are diverting their anger over their own situation towards another vulnerable minority.” A Muslim shopkeeper in Lhasa, said “they are used as a scapegoat for their grievances against the country.”
The increased mobility of people brought about by easing of travel restrictions have brought Muslim and Tibetans into contact with each more than ever before, creating more opportunities for tensions to rise compared to the Maoist era when travel restrictions kept them separated.
In Lhasa, many Muslims have bought Tibetan businesses and now own the majority of souvenir stands. Tensions over lost business opportunities are seen a major force behind the riots in 2008. A Tibetan businessman told the Los Angeles Times, You hear these stories about Muslims putting stuff in soup. But I think its all about business competition and economics.”
raventhorn2000 says
London-based Tibetan scholar Andrew Fischer told the Los Angeles Times, “It is the dark side of Tibetan nationalism. It is as though the Tibetans are diverting their anger over their own situation towards another vulnerable minority.”
Otto Kerner says
You are quite right about this, Allen. The northern half of Xinjiang and the southern half are different regions with very different historical developments over the last few hundred years. Uyghurs come from southern Xinjiang. Ürümqi is definitely part of the north.
raventhorn2000 says
Somehow Otto manages to take snippets from others and miss the whole point.
HISTORY of the REGION is “nuanced”, not just Urumqi (which was only 1 example).
Otto Kerner says
The history of literally everywhere on Earth is nuanced. However, the recent history in northern Xinjiang is considerably more nuanced than southern Xinjiang. Southern Xinjiang has been majority-Uyghur for a long time, and it still is. Northern Xinjiang has seen major population shifts in the late 18th century, during the course of the 19th century, and in the 1950s/60s.
raventhorn2000 says
Define “a long time”, because Chinese history is over 4000 years old.
You better have a pretty LONG time to match that one.
Al says
Otto, u forget to say that Uigur arrive well after many other ethnic group in Xinjiang, Han included…
Allen says
@Otto Kerner #6
I did not intend this to be a history discussion. I thought what I wrote to be fairly straightforward, but since I was curious, too, I dug up this more comprehensive history of Xinjiang – North, South, East, West…
It’s a fairly objective piece, not a political piece…
From http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/showthread.php?t=557.
Ray says
Otto also forget that the US only has 13 colonies in 1776.
raventhorn2000 says
The incidents of race hostilities between the Hui and Tibetans is an interesting case example of race relations, also interesting analogy for relationship between China and US.
As 1 link I provided above: “A Tibetan doctor told the Los Angeles Times, “To be honest the Tibetans don’t have the business savvy of the Hui. The Tibetans have to sell their products to Hui. The Hui have to buy it from the Tibetans. I suppose because we are interdependent we resent each other.””
I think this “interdependency” he spoke of is analogous to the relationship between China and US, and also relationship between US and many third world countries.
US outsources many of its jobs that its people doesn’t want to do for the little pay, and then complains about “loss of jobs”.
It is in some way analogous to the way Tibetans have “lost” some of their jobs in selling their businesses to Hui Chinese, and then complaining about it.
“In Lhasa, many Muslims have bought Tibetan businesses and now own the majority of souvenir stands. Tensions over lost business opportunities are seen a major force behind the riots in 2008.”
Ray says
The affirmative action in place in China means that most traders or business people who run the stores have to rent them from local Tibetan. I remember in the 2008 riots, most actual shop lots owners turned out to be well off local Tibetan, but tragedies transcend boundaries, as not only Han, Hui were killed or burned to death, the victims include a Tibetan young lady too.
raventhorn2000 says
It should be pointed out as a clear point of contrast, for example, Israel’s policies of segregating their own citizens from Palestinians.
I personally think that physical barriers to provide security between ethnic groups is a dangerous policy. And China’s policy at least allows some intermingling of the populations, even if it raises some ethnic tensions due to competition for jobs and resources.
As a comparison, I think Israel is headed toward a dangerous cliff where the ethnic tension that eventually boils over the physical barriers will be far greater than they can deal with when it becomes unbearable.
Ray says
@raventhorn2000
So in a sense the Singaporean model of forced intermingling is probably the model China should learned. Although this create a funny real estate situation where an ethnic Indian or Malay house in HDB estate (govn’t built) can only be sold to the same respective ethnic group. In politics, the system also requires that a certain number of seats contested in certain electorate must be from multi-ethnic combination.
Although in Israel proper, Arab citizens of Israel comprise just under 20% of the country’s total population but is the fastest increasing group. The Arab-Israeli wars is just another tragedy as ethnically both the Jews and Arabs are descendents of Abraham.
raventhorn2000 says
Similarly, Chinese government requires a set number of seats in parliament for minority ethnic groups, as well for women.
But I don’t think they need to go that far for real estate. (the bigger problem is to curb extravagent spenting by the wealthy, which simply flaunts inequality in the face of the poor, regardless of ethnicity).
*As for Israel, they are currenting experiencing Protests because of economic inequity situation, and lack of housing.
1 Analyst said on NPR last night that the protest threatens to bring in the old problem of Palestinian State, (UN General Assembly is due to vote on Palestine statehood status in a few weeks, and US may veto the result).
Additionally, even with Israel’s continual refusal to deal effectively with the Palestinian Statehood question, Israel may not have a choice much longer, as its own Arab citizens are becoming a sizable voter block in Israel (as you indicated, Ray).
Bottomline: Multi-ethnic integration may require some harsh laws, and long time, but it’s better to make people deal and confront the problem head on early on, instead of just accepting that “we are too different”, give up, and starting building borders and walls
(which says every thing about Gandhi’s mistake with India and Pakistan, as well as Israel’s mistake).
Ray says
@raventhorn2000
Compare to China, Singapore is tiny, so representation there is even more effective. In SG, the ethnic requirement for electorate might cover just a small city block (by China’s standard) and the candidates must be from that respective area making it very hard for the small opposition party to field suitable candidates.
The Chinese system, let’s take Xinjiang for example, might on theory have representation from each ethnic groups, gender and even social class (worker, businessman, farmer, professional etc). However, some specific areas might have no representation at all (an oversight in the present system). Which I believe meant that some local voices are not heard in the congress. I must admit that China face a huge task simply trying to figure out a representation system that is effective and is always a work in progress.
As for real estate, I think some compromise have to be made. For example, if a new govn’t low cost housing project come up in Kashi, how are the tenants selected, is it based on income, ethnic groups, new comers, or late comers. Either way there will be resentment because somebody will lose out. I remember when an old section was abolished, there are some who feel that they are not aptly compensated, and some who feel that the new housing should not be given to new comers, and new comers feel they have also been slighted in the allocation. That’s why I don’t envy those having to run the show in China, it is almost mission impossible.
Compare to China’s problem, Israel/Palestine is like child’s play. India’s demographic and georgraphical conflicts are much worse than China. The religious aspect alone split the same people into political enemies. I ranked India as the most difficult country to run.
raventhorn2000 says
Ray,
I think for large countries like China, “representation” cannot be equated to Numerical quantified per capita voices. (Nor should we confuse “Representation” to “accountability”. They are completely different concepts).
The point of large nations is that there simply won’t be enough seats in the government to ensure absolute numerical representation. Thus, the challenge is to ensure “representation” of the People (not just the majority), by process of continuous improvement and feedback.
*Again, here, INTEGRATION is important, because even if a small population group is NOT numerically represented, INTEGRATED living quarters would ensure that the small group’s issues would be noticed by the larger group, and shared.
*Here, I find ironic that the new Tibetan Exile Prime Minister (Kalon Tripa) Lobsang Sangay made a point about his past record of reaching out to Chinese scholars about Tibetan concerns, and yet the Exiles also made a point to separate themselves from the Chinese as a measure of preventing their own cultural erosion.
It would have been far more logical for them to make their concerns known by the Chinese if they were actually living among the “Han Chinese”.
So, I don’t know what Lobsang could possibly get across that ordinary Tibetans in China cannot get across to the Han Chinese. (Of course, if majority Han Chinese are “racists” as they imagined, then I doubt a few Chinese Scholars would make a difference).
xian says
Eh, their nationalistic reaction is normal. Any group who feels they’re slighted/oppressed will react that way, it’s just human nature. The only real answer is to “integrate” the area until the residents consider themselves fully Chinese.
Otto Kerner says
xian, I agree completely. PRC rule in Tibet will never be stable unless the locals are “integrated” good and hard over a long period of time until eventually it is inhabited by people who think of themselves as Chinese.
There might be a third way that has some chance of working, but the government has no interest in pursuing it.
raventhorn2000 says
“but the government has no interest in pursuing it.”
your conclusion mistaken lack of practical impossibility to lack of interest. For example, I know some things, such as time travel, me getting an MD degree, me becoming the US President, etc., are practically impossible right now, thus I do not waste my time trying to pursue it right now, NOT because I’m not interested.
Otto Kerner says
I agree with you that it’s a longshot and that’s why the government doesn’t want to pursue it. The alternatives are independence or “integration”.
raventhorn2000 says
@Otto Kerner
No, no, I “agree” with you that it’s a practical impossibility and that’s why the TGIE and DL put it out there, knowing that only fools would pursue it.
Otto Kerner says
It’s kind of six of one/half dozen the other, raventhorn. The exile community’s options are:
1) surrender
2) advocate independence
3) advocate a compromise
Options 2 or 3 both appear to be all but impossible under the state of things, so if that’s your point, then it really just means that they have chosen not to surrender. I guess the difference of opinion between us is that I think they have chosen not to surrender out of idealism (which is selfish to the extent that they think all Tibetans will be happier in a free Tibet, including themselves) whereas you perhaps think it is cynically motivated to cause trouble for China under orders from the CIA. I don’t know how to prove which is which, really.
Given that they aren’t going with Option 1, the choice of compromise over independence appears to be because they think there is some small chance of compromise working, now or in the next few decades, as opposed to independence being completely impossible. From your perspective, maybe that just means that they think it is a better propaganda tool for fooling the world.
raventhorn2000 says
“out of idealism” is easily an euphemism for “out of slogans”.
Then, what’s the practical statistics of human being who do anything out of “slogans” and “ideals”?
You may choose to believe any specific group’s actions are “out of idealism”.
I do not suffer such delusions.
I have met the “idealistic” in real life, and watched their idealism extinct in years.
Otto Kerner says
Perhaps “idealism” was the wrong word for what I meant. What I meant was that they are acting on the basis of political goals that they are unwilling to abandon. You are correct that people rarely act on the basis of political ideals that they perceive as being contrary to their interests, but they often act on the basis of political ideals that they perceive as being in concert with their interests. For instance, Chinese nationalism is an ideal that is a powerful motivating factor in Chinese politics, because many Chinese people see it as being in concert with their own interests. I am suggesting that Tibetan nationalism is the main motivating factor in Tibetan exile politics.
raventhorn2000 says
“Tibetan nationalism”, eh?
Well, I would say a “Nationalism” without much of a history is empty as “idealism”.
Chinese nationalism has had a LONG LONG history, as a proof positive of Chinese perception.
Tibetan “nationalism” may be idealistic as the Hollywood movies that portray it.
Otto Kerner says
I get it. My ideals are based on something real, but his ideals are mere fantasies.
Look, all mass nationalisms are modern phenomena. Loyalty to kith and kin and the local culture is universal and always has been.
raventhorn2000 says
You speak as if China’s 4000 year old nationhood was some kind of tribal culture.
Please, that’s just further showing your fantasies.
Otto Kerner says
I have no intention of denigrating Chinese nationalism. You, however, are insisting on denigrating Tibetan nationalism. Nationalism does not require a sovereign state. For example, Irish nationalism developed during the period when Ireland was part of the British empire. Arab nationalism began to develop when the Arabs were still ruled by the Ottoman empire. Indian nationalism was at first largely a reaction to British rule.
And, yes, I think all nationalism is fundamentally a tribal sentiment, i.e. it is an emotion that evolved to support loyalty to a clan and has now been reapplied to modern political groups.
raventhorn2000 says
“Nationalism does not require a sovereign state.”
Never said it did. But if you don’t have a HISTORY behind it, it’s rather “IDEALISTIC” by comparison, ie. it exists ONLY as an IDEAL!
raventhorn2000 says
“You, however, are insisting on denigrating Tibetan nationalism.”
If you consider the FACT of Tibetan nationalism LACKS history and is rather IDEALISTIC, as “denigration”, then you are SOL. It’s FACT.
Some Nationalism are IDEALISTIC, more than others. DEAL with it.
“yes, I think all nationalism is fundamentally a tribal sentiment”.
Well, my “tribe” is bigger than yours. DEAL with it.
raventhorn2000 says
“For example, Irish nationalism developed during the period when Ireland was part of the British empire. Arab nationalism began to develop when the Arabs were still ruled by the Ottoman empire. Indian nationalism was at first largely a reaction to British rule.”
And Tibetan Nationalism is a reaction to what? CIA funding? Hollywood movies?
Not all IDEALISMS are the same, obviously. I see no “denigration” on my part.
Some IDEALISMS stood on their own, and succeeded. Others, glamorized and failed. (ODDLY enough, those that are glamorized often do fail).
Gandhi didn’t need “Indian Nationalism”. The Indian Nationalists before Gandhi all failed rather miserably, because their IDEALISM were out of touch with the REALITY of their people.
See the difference?
Otto Kerner says
I think this is the crux of your argument. You could pretty much just skip all the explanations and defenses and just cut-and-past “Well, my ‘tribe’ is bigger than yours. DEAL with it.” in response to whatever.
raventhorn2000 says
“You could pretty much just skip all the explanations and defenses and just cut-and-past “Well, my ‘tribe’ is bigger than yours. DEAL with it.” in response to whatever.”
Hey, I’m not the one who wanted to turn the issue into our respective “tribes”.
If we are all JUST “tribes” in your concept of “nationalism”, then what else do you want me to compare??
OK, my tribe is also a LOT older and less “idealistic” than yours.
raventhorn2000 says
“You could pretty much just skip all the explanations and defenses …”
Ditto on your “idealism”. That’s the crux of your argument. 🙂
Otto Kerner says
Proto-nationalist sentiment in Tibet is a thousand+ years old and developed as a result of the Tibetan cultural situation, for example the shared literary tradition in Classical Tibetan. Modern nationalism per se in Tibet is obviously a reaction to Chinese imperialism, from Zhao Erfeng to the present.
Actually, no, but I’m curious as to what point you’re making. I would say Gandhi was clearly an Indian nationalist (his core goals were Indian self-rule and Indian political unity. He tried to avoid the partition with Pakistan but he most definitely wanted to avoid breaking India up into numerous regional states and principalities). He was a more successful nationalist than others, although clearly the earlier Indian nationalists laid some of the groundwork that made Gandhi’s success possible.
What do you mean by “out of touch with the reality of their people”?
raventhorn2000 says
“Proto-nationalist sentiment in Tibet is a thousand+ years old and developed as a result of the Tibetan cultural situation, for example the shared literary tradition in Classical Tibetan.”
I doubt it, and citation. And what the hell is a “proto-nationalist sentiment”? Is that supposed to be EVEN more idealistic than idealistic??!
“Modern nationalism per se in Tibet is obviously a reaction to Chinese imperialism, from Zhao Erfeng to the present.”
Or reaction obviously to British encouragement.
“Actually, no, but I’m curious as to what point you’re making. I would say Gandhi was clearly an Indian nationalist (his core goals were Indian self-rule and Indian political unity. He tried to avoid the partition with Pakistan but he most definitely wanted to avoid breaking India up into numerous regional states and principalities). He was a more successful nationalist than others, although clearly the earlier Indian nationalists laid some of the groundwork that made Gandhi’s success possible.
What do you mean by “out of touch with the reality of their people”?”
I doubt it, again.
He may “wanted to avoid breaking up India”, but he was no ardent “idealistic” Nationalist. (IE. he was practical enough to accept REALITY of politics and REALITY of co-existence and imperfect partition, which is something that DL and his “nationalists” are not).
“out of touch with reality of their people”: Gandhi himself in his 1st speeches in India, criticized the Indian leaders for being out of touch with the reality of the Indian People, while making “speeches”.
Gandhi’s “core goals” are clearly grounded in REALITY, not some mythical idealism of some “Greater Historical India”.
Hence, the obvious contrast. Gandhi is about practical reality of his time, whereas you are talking about some “proto-proto-proto idealism” that has little historical basis of reality while the concept itself claims some “Greater historical” basis.
What is “Great Historical Tibet” but some dreamed up self-contradictory concept?! Seriously, I can claim “proto-nationalism” of myself as a Nation, but that’s just foolishness.
You are just trying to stretch the words further and further, “proto-” plus “proto-“, until the words are pretty much meaningless!
So are we back to defining us based upon “tribes” now? If so, “Nationalism” would mean nothing at all.
Otto Kerner says
I’m not sure why you’re referring to “idealism” here. I’m talking about sentiments, i.e. how people feel and what they care about. It’s like if I said, “I love my mom” and you replied, “Quit being so idealistic!”
By “proto-nationalist sentiment” I mean the kind of local and tribal loyalties plus tentative broader sense of similarity on the basis of which genuine nationalism is later formed. Genuine nationalism is a very recent phenomenon.
That’s a judgment to be made on the basis of how you think people act. I don’t see how the British could encourage nationalism very effectively among people unless they were already inclined to feel nationalistic. Consider the case of Manchukuo. The Japanese tried to develop a sense of nationalism around their puppet state, but it doesn’t appear that anyone actually cared. Puyi wanted them to restore him to the throne of China, and he took the “Manchurian throne” only as consolation prize.
I disagree. Gandhi’s whole political life was devoted to creating a strong, independent state to represent the Indian nation. He was an Indian nationalist as a first principle. That’s an ideal.
The one thing that Gandhi would not compromise on during his life was the idea of a self-governing India free of unaccountable British rule. He called for independence to achieve that end. You call that realistic rather than idealistic. When the Dalai Lama refuses to compromise on the idea of a self-governing Tibet free of unaccountable Chinese rule, but he even agrees to compromise on independence and try to achieve a free Tibet under home rule within China, you see that as dangerously idealistic and unrealistic. You want him to just accept the status quo, as if that were the approach that Gandhi would have taken.
This is a good example of your trend toward sophomoric hostility toward me. You didn’t understand what I meant by “proto-nationalist sentiment”. Fine. Sometimes I don’t understand what you’re saying. Not a big deal. Did you respond by trying to find out what I meant by that, or by saying, “I don’t think that makes sense, and here’s why”? On the contrary, you tried to make it into a joke and ridicule me with it. However, I think it makes you look silly because you are really just making a joke out of your failure to understand.
Can you expand on that? I’m not sure what you mean.
raventhorn2000 says
@Otto Kerner
“I’m not sure why you’re referring to “idealism” here. I’m talking about sentiments, i.e. how people feel and what they care about. It’s like if I said, “I love my mom” and you replied, “Quit being so idealistic!””
But you are not saying “I love my MOM”. Your “mom” would be REAL, you didn’t make her up as a concept. You are talking about sentiments about something “proto- proto-” of something based upon what?
“By “proto-nationalist sentiment” I mean the kind of local and tribal loyalties plus tentative broader sense of similarity on the basis of which genuine nationalism is later formed. Genuine nationalism is a very recent phenomenon.”
Like I said, you are stretching the word to meaninglessness.
“That’s a judgment to be made on the basis of how you think people act. I don’t see how the British could encourage nationalism very effectively among people unless they were already inclined to feel nationalistic. Consider the case of Manchukuo. The Japanese tried to develop a sense of nationalism around their puppet state, but it doesn’t appear that anyone actually cared. Puyi wanted them to restore him to the throne of China, and he took the “Manchurian throne” only as consolation prize.”
Just because the Japanese failed in Northern China, doesn’t mean that others failed. (AND I note again, Japan did encourage your “tribal nationalism” in Tibet, by arming them, even designing the current TGIE flag for them). So there.
And that’s a good analogy, British did in Tibet, what Japan tried to do in Northern China. Thanks for proving my point. 🙂
“I disagree. Gandhi’s whole political life was devoted to creating a strong, independent state to represent the Indian nation. He was an Indian nationalist as a first principle. That’s an ideal.”
That’s your abstraction of his “sentiment”, but his actions speaks otherwise. He was willing to sacrifice “nationalism” for the practical. That makes him NOT so much a “nationalist”.
“The one thing that Gandhi would not compromise on during his life was the idea of a self-governing India free of unaccountable British rule. He called for independence to achieve that end. You call that realistic rather than idealistic. When the Dalai Lama refuses to compromise on the idea of a self-governing Tibet free of unaccountable Chinese rule, but he even agrees to compromise on independence and try to achieve a free Tibet under home rule within China, you see that as dangerously idealistic and unrealistic. You want him to just accept the status quo, as if that were the approach that Gandhi would have taken.”
Oh please. DL’s “compromise” is about 50 years too late, and he’s still singing the tune of “uprising” to it. DL is the one keeping his old status quo. Who is he to talk about “compromise”, when EVERY symbol of his movement is from his old days??
“This is a good example of your trend toward sophomoric hostility toward me. You didn’t understand what I meant by “proto-nationalist sentiment”. Fine. Sometimes I don’t understand what you’re saying. Not a big deal. Did you respond by trying to find out what I meant by that, or by saying, “I don’t think that makes sense, and here’s why”? On the contrary, you tried to make it into a joke and ridicule me with it. However, I think it makes you look silly because you are really just making a joke out of your failure to understand.”
NOPE, as I said, you are stretching words into meaninglessness, as every comment you make, you try to change your own terminologies further and further, JUST so to worm around the critical issue, Tibetan “NATIONALISM” is idealistic.
Not my failure to understand, I can see clearly what you are doing with “proto-“, “tribal”, “nationalism”. (perhaps “neo-lithic”, or pre-historical, next?)
How about just stick to PLAIN OLD “NATIONALISM”? No? Wanna trace back to perhaps “sophomoric Nationalism”??!
Otto Kerner says
What is one thing that Gandhi ever compromised on that the Dalai Lama has not also agreed to compromise on? Did Gandhi ever apologize for earlier acts of Indian resistance to the British? Gandhi was consistent: British rule in India was unjust and illegitimate. The Dalai Lama is consistent as well: Chinese rule in Tibet as currently practiced is unjust and illegitimate. Resisting injustice is something to be celebrated. The Dalai Lama has gone further and has suggested policy changes by which Chinese rule in Tibet could become just and legitimate if those policies (democracy and autonomy) are implemented.
raventhorn2000 says
“Did Gandhi ever apologize for earlier acts of Indian resistance to the British?”
Why should he apologize for something he himself had no part to? (UNLIKE THE DL on his own “uprising”).
“The Dalai Lama has gone further and has suggested policy changes by which Chinese rule in Tibet could become just and legitimate if those policies (democracy and autonomy) are implemented.”
Yeah, right, DL is the authority on “legitimacy”.
Funny part, China has rotated through many leaders in the past 50 years (and changed its policies many many times in reforms), and DL is always there (like the Great Leader of North Korea).
That should tell you who is the “status quo”.
Otto Kerner says
Fair enough, but the act of resistance is not wrong, so there’s no reason for the Dalai Lama to apologize for it or stop celebrating it. In fact, however, the March 10 Uprising Day is celebrating events that happened before the Dalai Lama was involved in the resistance, anyway.
It doesn’t take a genius, a specialist, or an authority to figure out that a democratic and autonomous Tibet would be more legitimate than the current government.
The Dalai Lama is certainly the status quo in the exile community, but I was talking about the status quo of the power structure in Tibet itself. The status quo in Tibet since 1959 has been the CCP government.
Al says
“The Dalai Lama is certainly the status quo in the exile community, but I was talking about the status quo of the power structure in Tibet itself. The status quo in Tibet since 1959 has been the CCP government.”
WEAK WEAK WEAK point…..
The status quo in US since 1959 has been the american government, the status quo in Japan has been the japanese government…etc etc. “CCP government/Chinese government” has seen many different faces and people taking the leadership and governing…Governments as structures remain, people in charge change…that’s called normality.
The Dalai Lama is still there, even MORE than the great leader of North Korea
raventhorn2000 says
“Fair enough, but the act of resistance is not wrong, so there’s no reason for the Dalai Lama to apologize for it or stop celebrating it. In fact, however, the March 10 Uprising Day is celebrating events that happened before the Dalai Lama was involved in the resistance, anyway.”
Yeah, well, you can justify Hitler with that kind of general argument. YEAH, Hitler was just acting to protect his own People, right??
“It doesn’t take a genius, a specialist, or an authority to figure out that a democratic and autonomous Tibet would be more legitimate than the current government.”
No, but you certainly like to pretend that DL and the TGIE are the authority on “legitimacy”, and yet they didn’t bother to change DL’s leadership for over 50 years. How “democratic” was that?
“The Dalai Lama is certainly the status quo in the exile community, but I was talking about the status quo of the power structure in Tibet itself. The status quo in Tibet since 1959 has been the CCP government.”
Hey, that’s just the Kettle calling the Pot black. CCP certainly has had a lot of reforms in Tibet itself. That’s no status quo. So, don’t bother with that TGIE “narrative” slogan. That’s just ridiculous idealism talking. It’s obvious that TGIE won’t acknowledge any amount of changes in Tibet while in PRC control, while insisting that the Exiles are “democratic” until DL for over 50 years. That’s frankly ridiculous argument from hardline DL fanatics.
Yeah, OK, DL stands for “Dear Leader”, and it was always “democratic” under his “highness the holiness” for over 1/2 of a century! 🙂
I honestly don’t understand how rational people can put out such self-contradictory arguments, while blindly ignoring what’s REALLY happening in China and in the TGIE community.
(Ie. China is about as “Communist” as TGIE is “democratic”, for MANY MANY decades!)
Otto Kerner says
Yeah, well, I think your point is WEAK WEAK WEAK WEAK. I think I’ve won the argument at this point because I put down one more WEAK.
You seem to think it’s not the “status quo” because it’s “normal”, as if those things were mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the “status quo” is normal by definition. The fundamental governing system in Tibet hasn’t changed much since 1959, and it has hardly changed at all since the 1970s: the Politburo in Beijing sets policy which is implemented by their handpicked representatives, anybody who doesn’t like it is vulnerable to harrassment, and anybody who makes a stink about not liking it goes to jail, even if they are non-violent. It is indeed normal for systems like that to not change. The mere fact that it’s “normal” and “the status quo” doesn’t make it good or bad.
raventhorn2000 says
“The fundamental governing system in Tibet hasn’t changed much since 1959, and it has hardly changed at all since the 1970s: the Politburo in Beijing sets policy which is implemented by their handpicked representatives, anybody who doesn’t like it is vulnerable to harrassment, and anybody who makes a stink about not liking it goes to jail, even if they are non-violent. It is indeed normal for systems like that to not change. The mere fact that it’s “normal” and “the status quo” doesn’t make it good or bad.”
Yeah, well, “hasn’t changed much” is better than 1 “Dear Leader” “Highness Holiness” DL for over 50 years.
And “handpicked representatives”? Better than the 100% DL loyalty rate in TGIE. Be still my bleeding Democratic heart.
Otto Kerner says
You might be the most defensive person I’ve ever talked to. This all started when I mentioned that CCP rule in Tibet is the status quo. “Status quo” would mean that it is established and stable. Since the PRC is clearly the established ruler of Tibet, to say that it is the status quo would seem to be totally non-controversial. But you still want to try to turn it around by saying, “Oh, yeah, well, if I’m a status quo, then so are you!”
I would suggest that neither the CCP nor TGIE should rule Tibet. Limited CCP rule to the same extent as in Hong Kong would be okay.
raventhorn2000 says
“You might be the most defensive person I’ve ever talked to. This all started when I mentioned that CCP rule in Tibet is the status quo.”
Speak for yourself. I’m not the one starting to huff about “denigrating” people’s “nationalism”.
raventhorn2000 says
“I would suggest that neither the CCP nor TGIE should rule Tibet. Limited CCP rule to the same extent as in Hong Kong would be okay.”
You can suggest all you want. Your current suggestions are no more legitimate than the 50 year old “highness” “Dear Leader” you previously tried so hard to legitimize.
raventhorn2000 says
“This all started when I mentioned that CCP rule in Tibet is the status quo. “Status quo” would mean that it is established and stable. Since the PRC is clearly the established ruler of Tibet, to say that it is the status quo would seem to be totally non-controversial. But you still want to try to turn it around by saying, “Oh, yeah, well, if I’m a status quo, then so are you!””
No, you were speaking of “status quo” as a bad thing that needed to be changed, rather than being accepted.
In that context, CCP rule in Tibet had MORE change than “Dear Leader” DL’s rule in Exile.
Otto Kerner says
The status quo in Tibet is a bad thing that needs to be changed, but not because it’s the status quo. Since the status quo-iness was an incidental comment rather than part of my argument, you can’t make a cogent rebuttal by disputing it. Even if it had been part of my argument, the appropriate response would have been “that’s irrelevant”, rather than your response of “no, you are.”
raventhorn2000 says
“You want him to just accept the status quo, as if that were the approach that Gandhi would have taken.”
That was YOUR rebuttal of my comparison of Gandhi to DL. I see nothing “incidental” about it.
“Even if it had been part of my argument, the appropriate response would have been “that’s irrelevant”, rather than your response of “no, you are.””
You brought up the issue, why complain when others follow your line of discuss?!
If you want to say it’s “irrelevant” now, then go ahead. But you are not saying it’s “irrelevant”, you are stretching your own arguments again, by calling it “incidental”.
Well, how “incidental” is it? “Incidental” enough where you can make the statement, but others can’t criticize it??
That’s your “sophomoric” response. Ie. putting up an imaginary fence, and say, “Oh, that part of my statement was merely incidental, so don’t touch it! If you touch it, you can’t make a cogent rebuttal”.
Ridiculous logic! You brought it up, You made the “incidental” argument as your rebuttal to My argument! You are the one who can’t make a cogent rebuttal, by bringing in all these “incidental” arguments.
Otto Kerner says
I think you were implying that the Dalai Lama should accept the status quo, which you call “THE REALITY”, because that’s what realistic people do, and so I pointed out that that’s not what Gandhi did. Doing a “so are you” on the phrase “status quo” does not address my point. What if I rephrased it as follows:
“You want the Dalai Lama to just accept reality as it is now without trying to change it, as if that were the approach that Gandhi would have taken.”
raventhorn2000 says
“I think you were implying that the Dalai Lama should accept the status quo, which you call “THE REALITY”, because that’s what realistic people do, and so I pointed out that that’s not what Gandhi did. Doing a “so are you” on the phrase “status quo” does not address my point. What if I rephrased it as follows: You want the Dalai Lama to just accept reality as it is now without trying to change it, as if that were the approach that Gandhi would have taken.”
Well, I thank you not to “IMPLY” what I wrote. (Well, See, you didn’t bother to ask ME what I “meant”! And you say I was going after your “incidental” comments??!!)
The REALITY I was talking about was SIMPLY that Tibetan “nationalism” didn’t have much of a history behind it, and DL was still claiming “Greater Historical Tibet” as his basis of claims ALL these years (and still do).
That’s the REALITY DL obviously is not dealing with (I didn’t even say he had to “accept” it. DL doesn’t even bother to address the OBVIOUS inconsistency!)
NOTE: I didn’t IMPLY DL had to do what Gandhi did. I only said Gandhi was practical, because Gandhi accepted the reality of his situation, and went on from there, and did NOT make up some “Greater historical India” to cover up the reality of history.
Otto Kerner says
People who are trying to understand each other do this all the time, because it is a useful way to try to understand someone better. I restated what I thought you meant, which gives you an opportunity to see if I have understood you correctly. You could have said, “no, that’s not what I meant”, and that would have been much simpler and more direct.
How so? The Indian state that Gandhi and Congress advocated was larger than any Indian state which had existed before it. Isn’t that a “Greater Historical India”? Furthermore, Gandhi was totally against the partition of Pakistan; he couldn’t stop it. By the same logic, you could say that the Dalai Lama is “practical” because he “accepts” Chinese rule in Tibet; in other words, he can’t do anything to stop it.
Gandhi succeeded in his primary goal of achieving independence for all of British India, including what’s now Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Burma. He failed at his secondary goal of forming as large of an Indian state as possible, although it was a partial success because he did succeed at creating a very large Indian state.
I think you apply a double standard to the Dalai Lama. Maybe Gandhi is equally worthy of your criticism.
Al says
“Yeah, well, I think your point is WEAK WEAK WEAK WEAK. I think I’ve won the argument at this point because I put down one more WEAK.
You seem to think it’s not the “status quo” because it’s “normal”, as if those things were mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the “status quo” is normal by definition. The fundamental governing system in Tibet hasn’t changed much since 1959, and it has hardly changed at all since the 1970s: the Politburo in Beijing sets policy which is implemented by their handpicked representatives, anybody who doesn’t like it is vulnerable to harrassment, and anybody who makes a stink about not liking it goes to jail, even if they are non-violent. It is indeed normal for systems like that to not change. The mere fact that it’s “normal” and “the status quo” doesn’t make it good or bad.”
Wow, u managed to distort any single word I wrote….quite an accomplishment I would say
I understand that “weak weak weak weak” is the most u can do, but no…it’s not like that u can win debates (if there such a thing as “winning”, which I would say it’s quite a teenager way of looking at a discussion)…
raventhorn2000 says
“People who are trying to understand each other do this all the time, because it is a useful way to try to understand someone better. I restated what I thought you meant, which gives you an opportunity to see if I have understood you correctly. You could have said, “no, that’s not what I meant”, and that would have been much simpler and more direct.”
Or, this was your sophomoric response, by introducing your “incidental argument”, that you just implied out of your own assumptions.
It certainly was not what I said. You were just trying to go tangent.
“How so? The Indian state that Gandhi and Congress advocated was larger than any Indian state which had existed before it. Isn’t that a “Greater Historical India”? Furthermore, Gandhi was totally against the partition of Pakistan; he couldn’t stop it. By the same logic, you could say that the Dalai Lama is “practical” because he “accepts” Chinese rule in Tibet; in other words, he can’t do anything to stop it.”
Nope, they partitioned based upon REALITY, not any assumption of “history”. You can “imply” all you wish, but that’s NOT what they advocated based upon. EVEN assume Gandhi couldn’t “stop it”, he didn’t bother to argue his opposition to Partition AFTER it, UNLIKE “Dear Leader”. (That’s what one calls PRACTICALITY, vs. DL’s “2 faced-ness”).
“Gandhi succeeded in his primary goal of achieving independence for all of British India, including what’s now Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Burma. He failed at his secondary goal of forming as large of an Indian state as possible, although it was a partial success because he did succeed at creating a very large Indian state.
I think you apply a double standard to the Dalai Lama. Maybe Gandhi is equally worthy of your criticism.”
Nope, You just want to boil down their similarities too casually. We are all human beings, doesn’t mean that Gandhi is equal to Hitler.
raventhorn2000 says
“By the same logic, you could say that the Dalai Lama is “practical” because he “accepts” Chinese rule in Tibet; in other words, he can’t do anything to stop it.”
Yeah, I’m sure that would fit your definition of “accept”.
You “accept” today and renege tomorrow. Oh, did Gandhi “accept” the partition and then just renege it the next day?!
Well, I guess we know why China won’t trust “Dear Leader”‘s “acceptance”.