Tibetan Independence: Testimonies from Two Professors & a Bird

Let's try and be brief, because frankly I'm in a hurry.  And I fear you may not be ready to give me much of your time, either. With the Tibet issue proving it's not going away, there are a lot of people eager to think with their feet, which is understandable given the deep investments we have and have had in Tibet for a very long time. (Don't have the slightest what that talk about 'trendiness' is supposed to mean, do you?) Still, I think we ought to use our heads and consider carefully what we ought to be doing and why.  In internet discussions these days, nothing whips those PRC nationalists into quite as much of a lather as the mere mention of the word 'independence' in the same sentence with Tibet.  Even the TGIE ("Tibet Government in Exile" in Dharamsala, India) is troubled to hear it. It makes them uncomfortable. In the TAR, pronouncing in public the modern Tibetan word for it, Rangtsen/Rangzen (rang-btsan), may be one of your quickest tickets to a long holiday in a place where there won't be any jacuzzis or complimentary massages, believe you me (or if you don't, visit Amnesty International).  

There are those who lay down the groundwork for discussion by saying that the question of just how autonomous Tibet might have been during its long history is an unanswerable one, better avoided.  I would suggest that the situation is hardly all that bleak.  Experts on Tibetan history (and by that I mean experts free to come to their own conclusions and not constrained to repeat the party line) are actually in remarkably close agreement about the general outlines of the history of Sino-Tibetan relations.  To the best of my knowledge everyone agrees that Tibet was in fact (in Latin, de facto) independent from 1912 through 1949 (or 1951).  This means that the Tibetan government in Lhasa believed in its own independence, proclaimed its independence, and conducted itself independently and therefore, for all intents and purposes, was independent.  Maybe you are familiar with the expression "If it walks like a duck"?  It does not mean that any country other than Mongolia recognized its independence in an official way (see Mehra for the classic study). Hmm... Mongolia was also within the Manchu sphere (like Tibet, never ever made into a province of China; yes, OK, Inner Mongolia, but let's not get into that now), but it's an independent country today.  Why might that be?

Historians of Tibet are also aware that Tibet fell within the orbits of power of the Mongolian Yuan and the Manchu Qing dynasties. They differ on the degrees to which Tibetan rulers were beholden to the Mongolian and Manchu rulers of China during those times. Still, not one of them would deny that in certain times and in certain matters Mongols and Manchus were able to exert some influence on the governance of Tibet.

The PRC once claimed (and very occasionally still does claim) that Chinese control over Tibet originated in the Tang Dynasty when a few Chinese princesses were used to seal matrimonial alliances between the two countries.  I understand that it is still very risky for Tibetan intellectuals in the TAR  ("Tibet Autonomous Region") to mention that there ever was a matrimonial alliance with Nepal, which could then lead to a collapse in the logic, since then Tibet would have become part of Nepal, or half part of Nepal... Regardless of all that, it's just the case that securing a matrimonial alliance with China was not a sign of Tibetan weakness or submission, just the contrary.  It was a sign of Tibetan power and influence.

It is generally agreed that Sakya Pandita was the main Tibetan responsible for Tibet's submission to Mongol power, clearly done under threat of an invasion that never really happened, and Tibet was never occupied by the Mongols in the way they occupied China. Interesting that this verse is attributed to Sakya Pandita's authorship:

All independence is happiness.

All dependence on others is suffering.

Common ownership serves as a basis for disputes

while agreements serve as causes for bondage.

rang dbang thams cad bde ba ste //

gzhan dbang thams cad sdug bsngal yin //

thun mong ba ni rtsod gzhi ste //

dam bcas pa ni 'ching ba'i rgyu //

Remember that word Rangwang (rang-dbang) for independence.

But in any case it was not my intent to tell my own ideas on the subject, or even to convince the unconvinced.  What I'd like to do is to send you off first to listen to an audio of an interview with Robert Barnett.  You are already familiar with him from recent Tibeto-blogs, so I will just remind you that he is the director of the Modern Tibetan History Program at Columbia University.  You decide what you think of it. For the moment I'd just like to object to three words used by the interviewer, "tiny mountain nation." Surely she was thinking of San Marino, not Tibet.  

So go now to hear "Tibetan Sovereignty has a Long, Disputed History."  It's on the website of National Public Radio.  It originally aired on April 11, 2008.  It will only take ten minutes of your time.  When you're done, back click your way back here.

Your next step is to go to the web version of the New York Times, the Opinion Page of April 13, 2008.  There you will find Dr. Elliot Sperling's "Don't Know Much about Tibetan History" (schmoogle the title if you can't get access through this official link).  The author is director of the Tibetan Studies program of the Department of Central Eurasian Studies at Indiana University, Bloomington.  He has enviable mastery of both Chinese and Tibetan, both colloquial and literary, classical and modern, among still other languages.  I won't assume everyone in the globe will catch the cultural allusion contained in the headline, which may have been the invention of a newspaper editor, not the author.  I know not everyone is all that familiar with the early history of American rhythm & blues and soul music.  You might have never even heard of Otis Redding or his famous song. (The song was originally performed by Sam Cooke, and the Otis Redding was just a 'cover'... I stand corrected.)  Prof. Sperling's piece is a masterpiece of brevity, so it won't take long to read either. If you are up for it and have some more time on your hands, you can always read the book that stands behind it: The Tibet-China Conflict: History & Polemics.  It's freely available. But like I said, Ya'll come back now.

And, at last, not least, the bird.  In recent years it seems to have become established that the real author of the Story of the Bird and Monkey (Bya sprel gtam rgyud) was not the tragically short-lived Eleventh Dalai Lama (1837-1855).  No. It was an earlier and actually more famous figure named Doring Kalön Tendzin Paljor (Rdo-ring Bka'-blon Bstan-'dzin-dpal-'byor), who must have written it soon after the year 1788.  This was in fact the 'Qianlong Era,' a time when Manchu power in Tibet was at its height, when golden edicts were regularly issued telling Tibetans what to do (so what if they were often ignored or selectively applied?).  In just another few decades, the imperial treasury nearly depleted, the Manchus were unable to afford military ventures.  They could no longer push their weight around in neighboring areas as they pleased.

The context of the dialog (and the explanation for it) is very likely the negotiations meant to end the Gurkho-Tibetan war (see this back-blog) in which our author was himself a negotiator. The bird very clearly represents the Tibetan party, with the monkey representing the Gurkhas of Nepal (I really don't see any ethnic slurs intended in this animal symbolism, although I suppose I could be wrong).  The monkeys leave their homes on the plains and head up into the mountains devouring all the flowers, mushrooms and fruits that were ordinarily eaten by the birds.  Well, since I think neither you nor I have time for it, I won't go into the general story of this nicely told tale in six chapters.  I'll get to the point.  In the first chapter, the bird is responding to an argument by the monkey chief, who wants to say, basically, 'Well, anything goes and we'll go where we like.'

Listen to me oh chief of monkeys.

You see one side, you don't see both.

You see the peak of the matter,

but you don't comprehend the main part.

These down-rolling stones of your misunderstandings,

if they get caught up in the gullies, come back to you.

It may be this mountain came to be through general karma.

But each place has its owner.

Haven't your tiny little eyes seen this?

Or perhaps your ears are hard of hearing?

If we take this realm of Jambu Island* as an example,

it came to be through general karma.

But still each place - India, China, Mongolia and Tibet,

Khotan (Tarim region), Nepal and others -

has its own independence.

India was taken over by the King of Dharma.

China was taking over by the King of Tsina.

Mongolia was taken over by King Chinggis.

Khotan region was taken over by the King Yambu.

Don't you know about them?

{*Jambu Island, an Abhidharmic geographical concept, is said to lie to the south of Mt. Meru.  Although often identified with the Indian sub-continent, Jambu Island sometimes means something more like 'the world as we know it.'}

The word for 'independence' here is not  Rangzen, but the word more likely to be found in old literary writings in its place, but with the same meaning.*  Rangwang (rang-dbang), literally 'own power' or 'power over oneself,' is still very often used, and it has the meaning of taking care of ones own affairs oneself. It is used, too, in the 13th Dalai Lama's declaration of independence.  My point here is only that, understanding the bird to be the author himself thinly disguised, this prominent Lhasa political figure is saying in the clearest possible way that no one can deny the independence of Tibet.  To deny Tibetan independence would be tantamount to denying the independence of China, India and Mongolia.

{*Actually, I do know of one usage of Rangzen in a work that predates the mid-12th century, but please, I don't want to over-complicate matters by discussing such exceptions today.  The word used in the name of the TAR, is Rangkyong (rang-skyong). It means literally 'self-protecting' or 'self-governing.'  The TAR was officially formed only in 1965.  Of course since its leaders are directly appointed by Beijing, it is anything but autonomous [think about the 'autonomous okrugs' of the Soviet era].  I generally agree with Martin (1996: 60): "We should note here also other expressions for independence. Rang-rkya or rang-skya means independence in the sense of being able to stand on ones own two feet. Rang-dbang and rang-btsan are words used by Tibetan nationalists, often rendered 'self-determination.' There is also, nowadays, the relatively innocuous expression rang-skyong, 'self-governance' or 'autonomy' which occurs in the official name "Tibetan Autonomous Region" or T.A.R. All these words begin with the syllable rang, which is used to form reflexive (often self-referential) expressions."}

* * * * *

AFTER WORDS  Here you will find the passage in Tibetan in Roman transcription for the sake of readers of Tibetan.  I use a single version published in an anthology in India, although there have been at least two separate publications in the PRC, one just last year.  I've translated rather freely and of course according to my own lights.  Some graduate student ought to take it upon herself to do a full study of this text within its historical context.  I think the 4th line is intended to imitate the sound of the bird, specified to be a gong-mo bird. This bird is supposed to be a kind of light-colored grouse with a red beak that lives in meadows, although I haven't the faintest idea, really, what its birdsong sounds like.  Some translate gong-mo as partridge, but I believe it must indeed be none other than the Tibetan Snowcock that is speaking these words:

khyod spre'u'i gtso bo tshur la nyon //

khyed phyogs gcig mthong ste gnyis ma mthong //

don rtse mo shes kyang mthil ma rtogs //

ha ma go ha ma go ril ril de //

don nyag la bkag na rang la 'khor //

ri spyi mthun las* kyis grub mod kyang //

gnas so sor bdag po sprad pa de //

khyod phra chung mig gis ma mthong ngam //

thos chung rna bas ma go'am //

yul 'dzam bu gling 'dir dper mtshon na //

spyi mthun las kyis grub na yang //

rgya gar rgya nag hor dang bod //

li dang bal yul la sogs pa //

rang rang dbang re so sor yod //

rgya gar chos kyi rgyal pos bzung //

rgya nag tsi na'i rgyal pos bzung //

hor sog jing gir rgyal pos bzung //

li yul yam bu rgyal pos bdag //

de tsho khyod kyis ma go 'am //

{*The dictionary by Tsepak Rigzin featured in the previous weblog defines, on p. 168, spyi-mthun-gyi las as "Collective karma; common karma, e.g. karma of a society or locality."}

Shakabpa's history in its more detailed Tibetan version contains (Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa, Bod-kyi Srid-don Rgyal-rabs [=Political History of Tibet or An Advanced Political History of Tibet], Shakabpa House [Kalimpong 1976], vol. 2, pp. 219, bottom of the page, through 223, mid-page) supplies the content of a document dated the 8th day of the first Tibetan month of 1913, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama's seal attached, announcing Tibet's independence from China. Already in November 1912, the National Assembly of Tibet had written to the Indian Governor-General a declaration of their intention to act independently of Peking. Mongolia had, with Russian backing, declared their independence already in 1911. It may also be of interest that the official Chinese history of the time does not at all deny that a declaration of independence took place. Quite to the contrary, it says that the Dalai Lama "expelled Chung Ying and proclaimed independence" -- see Josef Kolmas, Ch'ing Shih Kao on Modern History of Tibet (1903-1912), Archiv Orientalni, vol. 32 (1964), pp. 77-99, at p. 99.

Read these if you want to:

Bsam-gtan, "Bya sprel gtam rgyud kyi rtsom pa po'i skor rags tsam gleng ba," Bod kyi rtsom rig sgyu rtsal, vol. 35, issue no. 3 of the year 1986, pp. 53-69. Bsam gtan, "Bya sprel gtam rgyud dang de'i rtsom pa po su yin skor rags tsam dpyad pa," Bod ljongs zhib 'jug, vol. 18, issue no. 3 of he year 1986, pp. 77-94. I don't have this article at hand (I assume the two publications are identical), but supposedly it established the Doring Kalön's authorship over other candidates.

Doring Tendzin Paljor (Rdo-ring Bstan-'dzin-dpal-'byor, b. 1760 CE), Bya sprel gyi gtam rgyud, contained in: Gtam rgyud / kha shags / 'bel gtam / sgrung dang / zlos gar gyis brgyan pa'i rol rtsed sna tshogs pa srid pa'i skyid sdug gi rnam 'gyur rjen char mthong ba'i me long, Blo bzang dgongs rgyan mu tig phreng mdzes series no. 38, Drepung Loseling Educational Society (Mundgod 1999), pp. 100-129.  The part translated here appears on pp. 101-102.  So far I know of at least five publications of the Bya sprel gyi gtam rgyud,  bearing various authorship attributions.

D. Martin, Wrapping Your Own Head: Problems of Context and Individuality as Pre- and Post-considerations for Translating "The Path of Ultimate Profundity," contained in: Enrica Garzilli, ed., Translating, Translations, Translators: From India to the West, Harvard Oriental Series, (Cambridge 1996), pp. 59-73, with its discussion of Tibetan words for independence at p. 60.

Elliot Sperling, Awe & Submission: A Tibetan Aristocrat at the Court of Qianlong, International Review of History, vol. 20 (1998), pp. 325-335.  This is most highly recommended for its treatment of Qing-Tibetan relations, it's account of the involuntary visit to the Qianlong Emperor by our same Doring Tendzin Paljor, and for its bibliographical references to literature on those subjects.

P. L. Mehra, The Mongol-Tibetan Treaty of January 11, 1913, Journal of Asian History, vol. 3 (1969), pp. 1-22.

Sakya Pandita, Good Sayings.  Rje btsun sa skya paṇḍi ta'i legs par bshad pa rin po che'i gter zhes bya ba'i bstan bcos (Treasury of Good Sayings of Sa skya Pandita the Eminent Tibetan Lama, 1182 1251: Development of Awareness and Conduct), ed. by Lozang Jamspal, tr. by Lozang Jamspal and Ngawang Sonam Tenzin (Jared Douglas Rhoton, 1941-1993), Ladakhratnashridipika (Leh 2003), pp. 107, 116 (I've translated based on the Tibetan found here).

Sakya Pandita, Good Sayings.  Sakya Pandita, Ordinary Wisdom: Sakya Pandita's Treasury of Good Advice, tr. by John T. Davenport with Sallie D. Davenport and Losang Thonden, Wisdom Publications (Boston 2000), pp. 141, 147.

Sakya Pandita, Letter to Tibetans.  This is found in the works of Sa-skya Pandi-ta as contained in Sa-skya-pa'i Bka'-'bum, vol. 5, pp. 401-402. This was translated in Giuseppe Tucci's Tibetan Painted Scrolls, pp. 10-12. See David P. Jackson, Sa-skya Paṇḍita's Letter to the Tibetans: A Late and Dubious Addition to His Collected Works, Journal of the Tibet Society, vol. 6 (1986), pp. 17-23.   Tucci's book was very lavishly produced and may be difficult for most people to afford or find, even the more recent reprints.  Anyway, his translation needs to be carefully redone and the question of its authenticity thoroughly investigated and reconsidered. It could be the most important single source in Tibetan language on the question of Tibet's degree of incorporation into the Mongol Empire. It is never mentioned in contemporary discussions about Tibet's independence.  I don't understand why not.  Tucci translated ngo-bltas-pa as 'vassal,' although it literally means 'those who behold the face,' or 'those who are beholden.'  I think it is used to denote the people actually attendant on the Mongol court, including Sakya Pandita himself, and by extension the various peoples they represented.  

A NOTE:  The reason to be beholden to the Mongols in those days was for one thing and one thing only, protection.  Protection from the Mongols themselves, naturally.  All of Eurasia stood in terror of them, the Chinese people not least of all.  Later on in the 13th century, Sakya Pandita's nephew Pagpa ('Phags-pa) would use his religious influence to save the Chinese people from a systematic 'human weeding' (mi-yur) or, in modern terms, genocide. Here is a painting depicting this Tibetan receiving an assurance that no more such genocides would occur in the future.  On the right side you see naked bodies, their limbs flailing against the river current. The Mongol men in their fur-trimmed red hats at the riverside are probably the ones who were taking away their clothes and tossing them in (but they are now stopping this from happening, to believe the label).  This picture, published as part of a series depicting the life of Pagpa, was published in Lhasa in 1987.  The paintings themselves are said to date from the late 15th century, and I think this is correct.  Chos rje 'phags pa'i mdzad thang [Scroll Paintings Illustrating the Biography of Dharma Lord Pagpa], Bod-ljongs Mi-dmangs Dpe-skrun-khang [Tibet People's Printing House] (Lhasa 1987), p. 55. The Tibetan-language description on p. 54 tells us that after Chinggis Khan assumed power in China, there were a lot of revolts, so every year he sent an army that captured many tens of thousands of Chinese who were thrown into the river and killed. Pagpa's heart couldn't withstand this, so he requested from Sechen (Khubilai Khan) as an 'initiation gift' that the practice be brought to an end.  We can thank our lucky stars the Mongolian people have evolved since then into such nice people.

The Tibetan inscription visible here in gold letters reads:

mi yur mi byed par bka'

gnang ba dang mi yur bcad tshul //

The agreement not to perform acts of genocide [on your left]

and the way the genocide was stopped [on your right].

Even those who are good-natured

Will grow malicious when continually abused.

Though sandalwood sticks are cool by nature,

When rubbed together they burst into flames.

rang bzhin bzang po rnams la'ang //

rgyun du gtses na gnod sems skye //

tsandan bsil ba yin mod kyi //

gtsub par gyur na 'bar bar 'gyur //

- Sakya Pandita, Good Sayings (Davenport translation no. 198)

• • •

One last quote, added on (on April 21) just for those who find unintended humor in propagandistic statements.  This is taken from today's article from People's Daily, edited by Xiong Qu, with the title "Tell You a True Tibet: Origins of So-called 'Tibetan Independence'." Overlooking the title for the moment, this article doesn't demonstrate the least knowledge of what Tibetan language sources do say, or acknowledge that they might be worth hearing, or somehow relevant to the discussion of Tibetan independence.  Tibetans never get a voice.  They could never speak.  They never can speak. They just have to shut up.  I'll let you schmoogle for it, since making a link from here to there somehow doesn't seem right to me.  Here's the quote of the day.  See if you can spot the mistake.

"There was no such word as 'independence' in the Tibetan vocabulary at the beginning of the 20th century."

A useful hint for the confused:  Whenever you see the words "true Tibet" or "true Tibetan" you know that PRC propaganda engines are at work.  You know that truth is not what you are getting.

Three Tibetan Voices to Hear

Today I'm blogging for no good reason except to send you off to read a newspaper interview with an extremely intelligent person working in Tibetan studies in Georgia these days. Although he has accomplished many other things, and I mentioned his book about Tibetan festivals in an earlier blog, Tsepak Rigzin (Tshe-dpag-rig-'dzin, born in western Tibet in 1957) is perhaps best known for compiling one of the essential reference works for anyone learning to read Buddhist texts in Tibetan. It was published by the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives in Dharamsala in 1986, with a revised and enlarged version published in 1993. So, without further ado, just go away from here and read the story at the Meyul website. It won't take long.  I'm always on the lookout for testimonies about the Tibet situation by seasoned experts in Tibetan studies, and will keep you posted as I come up with more.

In a category all its own, I vigorously encourage you go to Agam's Gecko blogspot and view the video of a 40-minute Dalai Lama interview by Ann Curry of NBC.

If you have trouble with the video formats, you can read the complete transcript of the interview here.

Then if you have any time left follow Agam's link to the editorial by Isabel Hilton (if you would like to know more about her, look here) in the April 12th Guardian.  It's still worth going back to read one of her older editorials, here.  Rare among journalists writing about Tibet these days, she has actually written an entire book on the subject, even quit her job to write it, The Search for the Panchen Lama.

Today this story by Barbara Demick about "patriotic [re-]education" appeared in the Baltimore Sun.  It quotes from Tibetologist Ronald D. Schwartz (author of the book Circle of Protest: Political Ritual in the Tibetan Uprising), and mentions the open letter to Hu Jintao signed by Schwartz and "more than 200 other Tibet scholars ... calling for the Chinese government to negotiate over Tibetans' grievances." I just went to the webpage a few minutes ago. There were 78 signers of the original petition before it was posted on the internet. With a few exceptions these are professional Tibetologists. That means people with research jobs involving teaching and/or research in the field of Tibetan studies. More people signed online since then. In this second list there is the problem of several duplicate names (some people clicked the button twice), but I simply downloaded the list and eliminated the doubles, coming up with 448 people who signed it online (this number includes quite a few professors, too, but also graduate students and Tibetologists without academic affiliation). This comes to a grand total of 526. This is far more than 200.  

It might not need pointing out, although I will do it anyway, that while nearly if not quite every professor, researcher, language instructor and grad student in the field of Tibetan studies in the globe (regardless of their national identity and personal background) did sign this petition, there is one group that is entirely absent. That group of Tibetanists lives and works inside the Peoples Republic of China. I won't insult your intelligence by telling you why that might be.

Oh, and one last but not least thing.  Here's an opportunity to hear an audio file that includes a fairly long interview with Lobsang Sangay (Blo-bzang-sangs-rgyas; his name could be translated 'Good Mind Enlightened One') about the current situation done for Minnesota Public Radio. Lobsang-laa is very articulate in at least two languages, and manages to make considerable sense of Tibetan discontents and their background.  This program in particular addresses questions not even brought up elsewhere.  I had an opportunity to see him speak in person several years ago, and was quite impressed by what I heard. 

I'm sure we'll be hearing more from him.  He's a senior fellow in the Harvard Law School these days, although he is destined for greater things.

* * * * *

"The Chinese media spin the story as anti-Chinese riots instead of anti-government riots. They try to make it something against the Chinese people. It is not against the Chinese people."

—Tsering Wangdu Shakya, Chair in Modern Tibetan Studies, University of British Columbia

Hearing Disabilities?

Not at all in an April Fools mood, I was doing a little bouncing about in the blogosphere this morning trying to land outside my accustomed blogspots. In recent days there have been a couple of what can only be described as pro-Chinese patriotic anti-Tibetan anti-press demonstrations (although they had to be called "concerts" since they evidently couldn't get demonstration permits in time) in Toronto and Vancouver. There would clearly seem to be an official plan to promote more of these kinds of events in countries along the Olympic torch route. So I started there, with the stories about the patriotic-nationalistic Chinese demos of present and future.  (I assume everyone remembers the patriotic-nationalistic anti-Japanese fury in the PRC a few years back.  Keep it in mind.  It could help our understanding today.)

As a historically oriented researcher, but one with what will seem to some to be scattered objects of interest, I have to confess I have a rather idealistic picture of what a *full* history would look like if one could only be accomplished. It would in the beginning at least resemble the title of Naipaul's famous book on India: a million mutinies daily, a million surrenders to rules and authorities daily, and a million frustrations daily (on a better day I might add, a million triumphs daily).  In short, it would be about what everyone was doing, thinking (I told you I was speaking ideally!) and saying at some particular point in time. 

The philosopher of history Wilhelm Dilthey had the idea that the historical moment is the historian's main anchor, and if you were to plant yourself in that moment and look around yourself the pieces of the puzzle would eventually fall together in your mind (and, I want to add, not just go to serve the interests of a particular sub-discipline of history, like psycho-history, social history, economic history or some doctrinaire theoretical approach to the same). 

If we could only catch the full extent and texture of the woven fabric that makes up our human world as it plays itself out in space and time. If we could only hear all the voices clearly. What an amazing picture it would be. (And if you think voices can't be woven into pictures you just weren't at the same Mozart concert I was last Friday.)

In the last two weeks I've made it one of my themes to criticize news media both east and west for leaving out of the picture Tibetans as active and thinking agents (people ready to think and act on their own, in concert with their next door neighbors), and to encourage Tibet experts to join the public discourse to help out on that point.  Thanks to a potent combination of press restrictions and speech restrictions, the voices of Tibetans inside Tibet are rarely heard out in the world. But due to the same PRC press and speech restrictions, the public in the PRC has never heard Tibetans express their actual thoughts. Periodically the accumulated resentments break out publicly, as they did in a very big way last month, and Tibetans do say what is on their minds for a brief time before getting silenced through arrests, intimidation and 'patriotic [re-]education.' Tibetans know they are risking everything - life, family, livelihood - and of course therefore naturally hesitate several times before speaking out, in that sense resembling just about everyone else in what is still, for some reason that has to do with rhetoric conservation, called the People's Republic.

So you can imagine my dismay when New York Times blogger Nicholas D. Kristof, in a blog entitled "Calling China," invited Chinese to send in their views on the Tibet situation. My immediate reaction, was Oh great, just what is needed right now, still more illusions of insight into the culture of oppression. But I caught myself in the middle of that thought and started thinking overtime.

As much as I want the world to hear what is really on the minds of Tibetans in the TAR and elsewhere in the PRC, and as much as I'm concerned that their concerns not just become political footballs for this or that extraneous cultural-political purpose, I'm also concerned about the Chinese people. What are they thinking? Are they speaking freely in any particular degree? Are we getting an accurate sense of the PRC Chinese street? 

And if in fact there is much popular (and not just populist) anger at the foreign media, some of it is justified. I've seen the news reports that confused demonstrations in Lhasa with demonstrations in Nepal and India. I've been to those places. I do know which is which. I noticed right away.  But where angry patriots see deliberate distortion by the news media, I see simple ignorance and carelessness. News staff that simply doesn't know the difference and probably didn't care until it was brought to their attention. I've heard about the German press apologies, but did the other guilty news agencies apologize or at least admit some of their news people made mistakes?  (Well, have a look here for what I think is at least a reasonable response.)

And of course there does seem to be real popular feeling among Chinese people everywhere (and not just in the PRC) that the foreign press reports have shown a callous disregard for the injuries to person and property, the beatings and burnings to death, of Chinese people in Lhasa. I would just like to ask the Tibet supporters what might seem a provocative question coming as it does from another Tibet supporter. Does it make sense for the short or long term goals of Tibetans to make a billion Chinese angry at you and at them? 

When you unfurl your smuggled-in banners in Beijing, it should be only the police, acting under government orders, that pounce on you and drag you away, and not a billion people. Can you let up on the enemy concept and the polarizing rhetoric for a moment? Can you spare an iota of empathy for Chinese shopkeepers that might have burned to death in their own shops?  Are you claiming that nothing like that happened?

On that note, I'd like to invite you to leave Tibeto-logic, not logic, behind and go read something else. I'm sending you to a blog called Chinese in Vancouver, a blog entry entitled "The Voices of Han Chinese in Lhasa."  If you want to talk about it you can add your comment there, or come back and we'll talk about it here. I'd be especially interested to hear what the Tibet supporters, and of course Tibetans, have to say. The people who are most concerned about the future of Tibetans (as they carry the most admirable of their old traditions into the changed circumstances in which we all are living) will come up with some new thinking about how we ought to best move forward in our efforts to be helpful without inadvertently being harmful, or so I'm hoping. I was thinking that this new thinking ought to come from you, since I'm just sitting here wondering out loud with nothing of use to say and nobody here to listen.

Postscript, April 3:  This story just put up on BBC website, with the title "The Challenges of Reporting in China." Worthwhile to read if you are interested in the discussions about international press coverage of the continuing Tibet situation.*  

(*The Tibet situation has been and is continuing, and will continue whether the press decides to, or is able to, cover it or not.  So don't you Beijing press-people think any amount of TFS can justify your bouts of attention deficiency.  Just get over it, guys.  It's all in your head.  Even the more obvious symptoms.)

Tibet Analyst Robert Barnett on March 14th

You might wonder why I put up this video of what might seem like yesterday's news. But wait. What Dr. Barnett has to say about the events of March 14th is important for people to hear and understand today and in the future.  It helps tremendously to understand the events of that day, and why they unfolded as they did.  It is a video that tells you the story behind all those other videos.  It's only four minutes of your time, assuming you have your computer sufficiently equipped, so what are you waiting for?