TIBETAN ENVOYS HEAD TO BEIJING; TIBETANS DIE IN TIBET; GEORGE ORWELL RETURNS

Since the problems in Tibet arrived on the world stage in early March, I have found myself wishing that George Orwell were still with us and that his keen eye might survey the situation and tell us all what to think.  Totalitarianism, empire, human survival, human dignity, human freedom--these were his subjects, and he wrote about them all of his life.  And he wrote about them with great passion and great clarity, two qualities that most often exclude one another.

But we have Orwell's writing, and so we have the best of the man, and while all totalitarian governments are not the same, much of what Orwell wrote applies directly to the current situation in Tibet.  One of Orwell's most well known essays, "Notes on Nationalism," is directly pertinent here.  It was written in May 1945 on the heels of the Second World War, a period of time ripe for reconsidering the relationship between an individual's freedoms and the demands of the state.

Orwell begins by describing the difference between the terms "nationalism" and "patriotism."  And he does so, helpfully, by clarifying the human--very human--behavior associated with each term.  He begins with "nationalism:"

By 'nationalism' I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classfied like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled 'good' or 'bad.'  But secondly--and this is much more important--I mean the habit of indentifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests.

It is not difficult to see the parallels here between this defintion of nationalism and the   Chinese conception of it as evidenced by their behavior toward the Tibetans.  Patriotic re-education programs, museums designed to bolster Chinese nationalist chauvinism, the imprisonment, torture, and execution of those Tibetans who publicly support the Dalai Lama . . . all of these activities are perfectly in accord with the will to classify human beings as insects, and then classify the insects as good or bad, harmful or harmless. 

But what about patriotism?  Here is Orwell:

By 'patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force upon other people.  Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally.  Nationalism on the other hand is inseperable from the desire for power.

It is a short step from patriotism to nationalism, and the stepping stone is power, the desire for it, the plan to achieve it, and the lack of regard for human suffering that occurs in the acquisition of it.

The Tibetan monk pictured above, whose name is Choetop and who was recently shot and killed by the Chinese, was a patriot who died at the hands of Chinese nationalism.  Patriotism is defensive; nationalism is offensive.  There is a lot of confusion now in our own national dialogue about these two terms, and we would be well advised to examine the American abuse of these terms as well. 

Remember, though, that whenever we go to war to force our way of life on others, this is an act of nationalism and has nothing to do with patriotism.  And a lack of enthusiasm for such wars will be advertised by the administration as a lack of patriotism.  A bait and switch of the highest order and the gravest consequences. 

As the Tibetan envoys head for China, we are witnessing the meeting of Tibetan patriots and Chinese nationalists.  The Tibetans have so far proven themselves unsusceptible to this bait and switch, and they have suffered the gravest consequences for having done so.

Our prayers go with them.  May their vision and bravery endure.