tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post6344475045708475513..comments2024-03-22T14:47:42.501+02:00Comments on Tibeto-logic: Has Always Been a Part of China, Huh?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-22772204586702657372021-08-08T11:58:48.988+03:002021-08-08T11:58:48.988+03:00On May 21, 2021, the Information Office in Beijing...On May 21, 2021, the Information Office in Beijing released a justly much-ignored "white paper" entitled “Tibet, an Inseparable Part of China Since Ancient Times.” If you think you need to see it, schmoogle it. Otherwise just take note that the rhetoric of eternal ownership is still alive.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-53538607067894381502020-04-11T11:57:13.737+03:002020-04-11T11:57:13.737+03:00As proof the rhetoric was still alive on Nov. 5, 2...As proof the rhetoric was still alive on Nov. 5, 2019, see Sun Weidong, "China's Tibet: A Story of Progress," https://tinyurl.com/yxjhtg8s.<br />Here you can read plain as day, "Tibet has been a part of China since ancient times." Are we clear on that yet?Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-48259919277065658852016-11-11T19:43:11.717+02:002016-11-11T19:43:11.717+02:00Just a note to say that the "since ancient ti...Just a note to say that the "since ancient times" position is still taken, as you can see in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/10/chinese-policy-is-modernising-tibet" rel="nofollow">this example</a> from the Chinese ambassador in London, responding to an earlier Guardian piece by Dharamsala Prime Minister Lobsang Sangay. I wonder when this historically silly idea will be found to be as worthless as it in truth is.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-34345268614637328312015-10-05T11:06:51.705+03:002015-10-05T11:06:51.705+03:00It's possible to get a preview of Peter Schwie...It's possible to get a preview of Peter Schwieger's new book here: http://www3.uni-bonn.de/Press-releases/where-did-the-dalai-lama2019s-power-come-fromDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-43366093304655683802015-08-22T18:58:15.029+03:002015-08-22T18:58:15.029+03:00Thanks, P'i-kuo, that helps a lot. It shouldn...Thanks, P'i-kuo, that helps a lot. It shouldn't be too surprising that the Chinese and Tibetan texts of the 'same' document wouldn't exactly match! It does call for some rethinking about all the wishful thinking that was going on. I was also thinking that the words in this blog, "attempting to oversee the selection of recognized incarnations, edicts that by all accounts went unheeded in Tibet by everyone except the Amban and his coteries" might need rethinking after I finish reading Peter Schwieger's new book, as I think I must! Called "The Dalai Lama and the Emperor of China: A Political History of the Tibetan Institution of Reincarnation," it deals precisely with this issue, if I understand correctly (even on a good day never a sure thing). Thanks for writing!<br />Yours,<br />DDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-29499212661919819452015-08-22T18:27:13.209+03:002015-08-22T18:27:13.209+03:00Here's the relevant passage in Chinese (with a...Here's the relevant passage in Chinese (with added punctuation):<br />唐宋以來,雖通中國,未隸版圖。<br /><br />Stein's translation (reproduced by Richardson in <i>Ch'ing dynasty inscriptions...</i>):<br />"Though since T'ang and Sung [times] it has had relations with China, it was not yet incorporated in its [our] territory."<br /><br />"Although had relations" (雖通 <i>suī tōng</i>) looks like the best translation in this context. <br /><br />"Did not yet belong to/had not been incorporated into its territory" (未隸版圖 <i>wèi lì bǎntú</i>) is just as straightforward. <i>Bǎntú</i> is attested with the meaning 'territory' (which it also has in the modern language) since Tang times. (Earlier it had referred to 'maps' and other 'charts'.) The same phrase was applied to Taiwan in a Qing document.<br /><br />My source for the Chinese text is a series of blog <a href="http://blog.ifeng.com/article/4750261.html" rel="nofollow">posts</a> by Zhang Husheng 张虎生 that present an article he published (in an abridged version) in <i>China Tibetology</i> (《中国藏学》) in 2006. Zhang comments that the 'territory' phrase is just He Lin's biased (失之偏谬) personal view, and that it doesn't reflect contemporary historical reality.<br /><br />On an unrelated note, here's another quote from Zhang's article, talking about the 'Tang willow' (唐柳, ཇོ་བོའི་དབུ་སྐྲ) in Jokhang temple, associated with princess Wencheng:<br /><br />"The Tibetan people greatly cherish this willow tree, and they deify it. During the 'Cultural Revolution' the tree was destroyed by fire and today only a stump remains. It is a witness to the history of Tibetan-Han friendly relations."P'i-kouhttp://pigu0.canalblog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-91303078381608307512015-07-17T14:59:12.613+03:002015-07-17T14:59:12.613+03:00There are enough problems with this blog entry I&#...There are enough problems with this blog entry I'm thinking I ought to take it down and try to make it better rather than leaving it up there. I definitely should have read E.S.'s two essays carefully before putting it up, it could have saved me from some inaccuracies in my way of representing the PRC side of things.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-55090101938127402162015-07-17T14:53:28.264+03:002015-07-17T14:53:28.264+03:00Dear D,
What about bgros[-pa]? It goes very nicel...Dear D,<br />What about bgros[-pa]? It goes very nicely with the dang, as in dang bgros, meaning to confer or deliberate with... 'There was much discussion with China...' This spelling bgros (past form of bgro) was actually what I had in mind when I offered my alternative translation.<br />Yours, DDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-78326887547701773462015-07-17T11:09:07.923+03:002015-07-17T11:09:07.923+03:00Hi D, I keep reflecting on this phrase, but I'...Hi D, I keep reflecting on this phrase, but I'm still not ready to settle for any of the alternatives I've heard so far, including Richardson's and including my own. (I was thinking if 'gros was the intended verb here, it probably isn't even in the right case...) I sort of like your 'gras reading, but then doesn't this verb all by itself refer to the ill will that exists between enemies? If so, it doesn't seem to fit very comfortably within the complete sentence as we have it. It does have the virtue of saying something true about Tibeto-Chinese relations during the Tang & Sung times, largely bellicose. But I think we ought to hold off coming to a final decision about the meaning until we hear from the Chinese side. I mean that quite seriously, my reasoning being it is most likely that the original version is the one written in Chinese, and that the Tibetan is 'based' on the Chinese. The meaning of the Chinese could very well force our hands into choosing one possibility over the other in our reading of the Tibetan translation. So, with the hope that someone else will weigh in on this issue, I will leave it at that for now.<br />Yours, D.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-53430476651163103342015-07-16T23:19:18.834+03:002015-07-16T23:19:18.834+03:00Dear Dan,
Although I am ignorant of the intricac...Dear Dan, <br /><br />Although I am ignorant of the intricacies and complexities of the political history of Tibet and China, I am tempted to make some speculations regarding the following: “The phrase dang ’gres che didn’t make sense to Richardson, so he suggested reading ’brel in place of ’gres. I suggest reading ’gros instead.” And then you seem to translate “dang ’gros che” as “had much communication with.” The difficulty with the suggested reading is such a usage does not seem to be known or natural. One might try sgros (as in gsung sgros “discourse, dialogue”) but also this does not sound convincing. I venture to make two completely opposite suggestions, namely, to read (a) dang ’dris che yang and (b) dang ’gras che yang (as in ’khon ’gras and zhe ’gras). (a) “Although earlier during the periods of Tang and Sung, [Tibet] was in closer terms with the great country of China, [she] did not come to be under the rule [of China] (snga sor thangs dang bzungs kyi rgyal po’i dus rgya yul rgyal khab chen po dang ’dris che yang chab ’bangs su ’khod mi ’dug). (b) “Although earlier during the periods of Tang and Sung, great animosity (or resentment) reigned between [Tibet] and the great country of China, [Tibet] did not come to be under the rule [of China] (snga sor thangs dang bzungs kyi rgyal po’i dus rgya yul rgyal khab chen po dang ’gras che yang chab ’bangs su ’khod mi ’dug). Historically, I don’t which of the two would be more plausible. <br /><br />Warmly,<br /><br />DorjiDorji Wangchuk (Kuliśeśvara)https://www.blogger.com/profile/02042613761261634658noreply@blogger.com