tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post8457402950123485258..comments2024-03-22T14:47:42.501+02:00Comments on Tibeto-logic: What Do Tibetans Want?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-24574011959051206842008-06-24T11:05:00.000+03:002008-06-24T11:05:00.000+03:00Dear Anon,Thank you so much for writing! I think ...Dear Anon,<BR/><BR/>Thank you so much for writing! I think your phrase "totally disagree" may be slightly overstated. But do you see their expression as advocating a civil rights style 'freedom struggle' for equal rights as citizens of the PRC? Or for religious freedoms? Or am I not reading your use of the terms 'freedom' and 'autonomy' correctly? And <EM>rtsol-len</EM> is certainly a phrase containing two words that have two different meanings, is it not? Or do I perhaps misunderstand you here, too? So, with the risk of putting words in your mouth, are you reading <EM>rang-dbang rtsol-len</EM> as '[personal or civil] freedom/autonomy struggle' or 'struggle for [personal or civil] freedom/autonomy'? I'm eager to hear a little more clarification on these points.<BR/><BR/>Yours,<BR/>DanDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-87330668171564553462008-06-24T09:26:00.000+03:002008-06-24T09:26:00.000+03:00I totally disagree with the lead article while int...I totally disagree with the lead article while interpreting those slogans. Rangwang -does not necessarily stand for independance in the current context -it should be understood to have more freedom meaning more autonomy. The two words Tso -len should not be presented as if they have two different meanings. It is indeed a phrase meaning struggel or action.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-38484180286761314242008-05-15T17:11:00.000+03:002008-05-15T17:11:00.000+03:00Dear Anonymous,No, actually, you just pointed out ...Dear Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>No, actually, you just pointed out that I wasn't all that meticulous after all now was I? It is very difficult to see in this particular photo of the banner, though you can see it in other photos. I think the [Tibetan form) number '7' is always placed before HH name. I know in Nepal they used to do a similar thing with the king's name in order to multiply the "shree" (a hard Sanskrit word to translate, but something like 'glory'). Do you think there might be a connection?<BR/><BR/>I hope you will help me out and take a close look at the other blog pages and let me know about other things I most probably overlooked. And thank you so much for writing.<BR/><BR/>(I know you meant gongsa chok (gong-sa mchog) instead of gobgsa chok... I just mention it for the sake of others who might find it a reason to get confused.)<BR/><BR/>Yours,<BR/>DanDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-48820320927100595182008-05-15T15:03:00.000+03:002008-05-15T15:03:00.000+03:00I would just like to add that the character before...I would just like to add that the character before the word gongsa, that looks like number '7' is only used when writing gobgsa chok in reference to His Holiness. If there ever was doubt that it meant His Holiness.<BR/><BR/>a tibetan who just discovered your blog and applaud you for the meticulousness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-10506171912133222472008-05-13T23:48:00.000+03:002008-05-13T23:48:00.000+03:00Somebody over at SHADOW TIBET, comment no. 44, gav...Somebody over at <A HREF="http://www.jamyangnorbu.com/blog/2008/05/08/negotiation-nightmare/#comments" REL="nofollow">SHADOW TIBET</A>, comment no. 44, gave a video link to a speech given in Tokyo on May 6, 2008, by the CTA Parliament Chairman of the Tibetan Exile Government KARMA CHOEPHEL TAGLUNGTSANG in which he lists the four main demands of the Tibetan protestors inside Tibet. You can see the video yourself, in both English and Japanese and a very little bit of Tibetan <A HREF="http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=2S26DL-zs8M#fFuELnjpGnw" REL="nofollow">HERE</A>.<BR/><BR/>Here are the four points that they demand:<BR/><BR/>1. Full independence.<BR/>2. His Holiness the Dalai Lama to come back to Tibet and be their leader.<BR/>3. Tibet belongs to the Tibetan people.<BR/>4. Chinese brothers and sisters please go out of Tibet.<BR/><BR/>While fully aware that the Tibetans inside Tibet are not in a mood to compromise, the Dalai Lama has offered a compromise solution, and at the same time offered to use His considerable influence so that it will find acceptance. <BR/><BR/>A good basis for agreement?Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-92162828000787200542008-05-02T10:58:00.000+03:002008-05-02T10:58:00.000+03:00Dear Rich,I agree with you that rangwang is the br...Dear Rich,<BR/><BR/>I agree with you that rangwang is the broader term. It means something like "I'll do things myself for myself" or "We'll do things ourselves for ourselves" or just "We'll handle our own business." I think rangtsen has more of a sense of "We'll rule ourselves ourselves." <BR/><BR/>But I'd also say that the former, being the broader term, includes the latter within its range of meaning. In the end it's rather a subtle point. One would have to take into account the contexts of usage, of course (and even local understandings, perhaps). I'd invite comments from anyone who has any way to clarify this. I do think it's an important point. <BR/><BR/>When used in a political context, as is obviously the context when a demonstration is going on, I don't think there is any reason to award these two words separate meanings, do you?<BR/><BR/>Personally, I'd shy away from the 'freedom' translation, since anyways I'd save it for Tibetan expressions that have to do with 'disentanglement' (<EM>'grol-ba</EM>) or 'free-ranging' (<EM>rgya-yan</EM>), being free from bondage, etc. But I don't want to go far into that now.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad we're having this discussion. I'm glad we're free to have it.<BR/><BR/>Yours,<BR/>DanDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-74002014466698176992008-05-02T05:58:00.000+03:002008-05-02T05:58:00.000+03:00Hmm, I read back to your previous article and I su...Hmm, I read back to your previous article and I suppose my comment about rangzen vs rangwang is a little bit redundant in light of it. Next time I should read better before posting. I still think it's a little bit misleading though - rangwang is a very broad term, and if one translates it as "independence" it's likely in a philosophical sense of non-dependency and self-sufficiency rather than a specific state of being for a nation. Nonetheless I found the citations in your previous article very interesting and I'd look forward to more of that kind of writing.<BR/><BR/>All of this is a great reminder to readers that thoughts and aspirations from one language and culture don't necessarily come in direct correspondence with those in another and that one really has to examine the meaning of people's words in their own language and from their own perspective rather than just blindly throwing around translations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-6626807291271252552008-05-02T04:54:00.000+03:002008-05-02T04:54:00.000+03:00One minor correction - rangwang means "freedom", o...One minor correction - rangwang means "freedom", or more literally "self-power", not specifically independence. The word for independence or national sovereignty is rangtsÃĪn (usually spelled rangzen) and is more difficult to give a literal breakdown for.<BR/><BR/>Don't get me wrong - it's plenty obvious that there's an overwhelming demand for independence, which can be heard well in this video from Labrang:<BR/>http://youtube.com/watch?v=qEWFy7u8Skc<BR/>But it would help to be meticulous on accurate translation and interpretation when the issue at hand is bogus academics' misrepresentation of Tibetans' demands.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-79810201681001724772008-04-30T14:49:00.000+03:002008-04-30T14:49:00.000+03:00The political apsiration of Tibetans inside Tibet,...The political apsiration of Tibetans inside Tibet, as witnessed by the banner such as the one featured in your blog, is for Bod-Rangzen (Tibet Independence). <BR/><BR/>Tibetans gave their lives for that cause during March and April, although if one reads the supposedly informed views of Robert Barnett, we could be forgiven for incorectly concluding that it was a minority of exiled Tibetan 'hotheads' who demanded Tibetan independence. <BR/><BR/>I wonder how the aforementioned lecturer of Modern Tibetan Studies would interpret the message on that banner (alhough I understand he is not at all fluent in written or spoken Tibetan)? Given his previous comments it would be no surprise if Mr.Barnett concluded it read something alng the lines of:<BR/><BR/>'We only seek improved economic benefits and an increase in our religious freedoms'.<BR/><BR/>Apart from the troubling distortions of supposedly expert commentators, it would appear the world, including the cat, is aware of what the vast majority of Tibetans desire, independence for Tibet. Now all we need to do is ensure that the TGIE reflects and honours the common will of its own people.<BR/><BR/>Bod Ranzen Tsangma Yin!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com