John Powers, in his concise and masterful study of the history of Sino-Tibetan relations, HISTORY AS PROPAGANDA, concludes that the hope for a satisfactory resolution to the current problems facing China and Tibet are grim. In the last paragraph of the book, he writes:
The certainty with which most Chinese accept their 'regime of truth' with regard to Tibet should give pause even to the most passionate Tibet activist. Chinese people commonly assert that they have a valid perspective that has largely been ignored by a world that is either ignorant of the facts or deliberately misrepresents Chinese actions in Tibet. They claim that trying to present their case to pro-Tibet foreigners is like arguing with a brick wall--exactly the experience their opponents have with them. In this situation, it seems likely that both sides will continue to argue at cross-purposes, and it is difficult to imagine a resolution in light of the incommensurability of their respective premises and sources of evidence (162).
What Powers has made imminently clear in his book is that each side presents its point of view based on a different, even antagonistic, data set. He even quotes Alisdair MacIntyre, the ethicist whose AFTER VIRTUE is still prevalent in certain philosophical circles. Powers writes:
As MacIntyre notes, when two polarized sides of protestors shout at each other, their messages are primarily aimed at those who already share their imaginings, and so each faction is essentially talking to itself or shouting slogans that are ignored or rejected by the other. Thus, each group ends up talking to itself and those who already agree with it (161).
Powers points out that the Han Chinese, isolated for centuries in the self-imposed splendor of their Middle Kingdom, were shocked when the British arrived at their shores in the 19th century and introduced them to the joys of gunboat diplomacy. A lesser race the British were, but with far bigger guns. And so today, we detect the not-so-faint odor of Han superiority when the Chinese look toward the West, as well as a genuine incredulity that the Tibetans wouldn't leap at the chance to be counted among their number.
Neither side seems on the verge of capitulation. Power, however defined, however levied, will eventually have its say. The Chinese, of course, manifest their power in several ways, all of them totalitarian in nature. The Tibetans are beginning to define power in several ways too, and like the liberal democracies they would attempt to model, their "citizens" disagree on those definitions.
The disagreements break down along traditional lines: old vs. young; religious vs. secular; contemporary vs. traditional. Nothing wrong with that. It's a good sign, in fact. There is criticism being directed now toward His Holiness, and what I've read is responsible and informed. See, for example, this recent interview with Jamyang Norbu, one of Tibet's leading intellectuals, writers, and dissidents (he lives, by the way in Monteagle, Tennessee).
Two things here seem relevant. First, whatever criticism the Dalai Lama bears for his particular brand of foreign policy--which both he and his critics call the Middle Way--it must always be remembered that he has been a central force in putting the Tibetan people on the international map. That Tibetans are discussing the best way to back down the Chinese, and that people in Peoria support Tibetans, is possible only because His Holiness has tirelessly circled the globe for the last half-century, gathering allies from Colombia to Mongolia. Second, while the Tibetans have waged an heroic struggle, both in Tibet and in exile, the international scope of this resistance has afforded the Chinese their greatest stumbling block.
The media coverage, the books, the articles, the essays, the phone calls, the classes, the blogs, the web sites, the bumper stickers, the demonstrations, the protests . . . they're working.
Other related developments of interest: In case you hadn't heard, our State Department dropped China from its Top 10 List of Human Rights Violators. This is the State Department's annual report, and it is significant that the report was filed on March 12, as we approach the Beijing Olympics.
And can someone please tell me how and why this extraordinary woman named
Woeser has avoided house arrest yet?
Pass her name around, read this article, tell your friends. It's the least we can do, in the face of what she's done.
And the by the way: 87.8 of you thought we ought to boycott the opening ceremonies; 12.2 said not. I received votes from Washington, California, Utah, Alabama, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, France (Perpignan), and Hong Kong.
Tibetans in EXile Today, or TEXT, is an oral history project being run out of the University of Arkansas. The project begins this month as Professor Sidney Burris and Geshe Thupten Dorjee travel to India with fifteen students, video cameras, tape recorders, and sound equipment to begin taping and archiving interviews with the oldest Tibetan monks, nuns, and lay people who are currently living in India and have vivid memories of Tibet before 1959. The assumption of the project is simple: as these elderly Tibetans pass away, so too do their personal histories; there is, accordingly, an increasing urgency that this work be undertaken and completed in a timely fashion. The ultimate goal of the project is to build an online archive of these interviews that will be accessible to the general public. While in India, the students, under the direction of Professor Burris and Geshe Dorjee, will begin interviewing a broad range of Tibetans in the three-week period alloted to them, and upon return, they will begin the process of editing the film and producing a promotional DVD, as well as preparing the interviews themselves for the archive. Stay tuned for updates, and please keep these intrepid travelers in your hearts and minds.
Speaking in Dharamsala today
