Tue 18 Mar 2008
The recent violence in Tibet has been poorly covered by American media, and even more poorly analyzed, if at all. In fact, the only analysis I’ve seen so far is at Boing Boing, where they pay attention to things like this if it involves China blocking traffic to Boing Boing (which is actually probably a pretty good proxy measure of serious human rights abuses). I’ve been looking for anthropologists who have something to say on this, and with any luck, Vincanne Adams of UCSF, who is currently in China, will send us a short analysis on the subject. I and others (including Paul Rabinow, who suggested that we start a discussion here) would like to see this get more sustained, intelligent attention, given how completely dull the US media has been on the subject. I suppose it’s no surprise that the current administration has been silent. However, it’s also demoralizing that the current presidential candidates are, if not silent, weak and ill-informed on the subject (Obama seems to think the Tibetans are angry with the way Beijing is ruling Tibet, not that they are). Clinton, meanwhile, has said next to nothing on the subject.
This is another one of those instances where anthropologists should have something informed to say on this. If anyone has pointers to intelligent analysis, meaningful ways to show solidarity or other ideas, please share.
justaguy says:
http://tenementpalm.blogspot.com/
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/weblog.htm
http://www.zhongnanhaiblog.com/
Have some good commentary. Mutant Palm has been translating Chinese web chatter on the subject, which is interesting. He makes a good point that others have made on related subjects – why not engage Chinese people in conversation? The stereotype that I’ve seen pretty much universally in Western commentary has been that the Chinese people as a whole are brainwashed and blindly nationalistic. I’m not so sure about that.
Well, he gives you a brief tutorial on how to do that on a web based messenger system: http://tenementpalm.blogspot.com/2008/03/engaging-chinese-netizens-fanfou.html
That wont, of course, do anything to stop the immediate violence. But I don’t really know what would accomplish that. There’s talk about boycotting the Olympics, but I would hate to be in Lhasa the day after that decision gets made.
justaguy says:
And some more China focused blogs with good commentary:
http://china.notspecial.org/
http://www.pekingduck.org/
http://www.beijingnewspeak.com/2008/03/16/a-week-in-tibet-journalistic-scoops-cats-paws-and-bbc-blunders/
A photo gallery of protests – some very graphic images:
http://www.phayul.com/photogallery/flash/2008/
Radick says:
For the sake of being the Devil’s Advocate here: Isn’t the entire USA essentially sitting on occupied territory itself, taken from another people who had been here for 10,000 years? It’s not like Anglos were indigenous to North America—prior to the late 1700’s, the vast majority of what’s now the USA had people like the Creek, Navajo, Sioux and others residing on the land. But Anglos came in recent history and took it from them by force, herding them onto dirt-poor reservations.
For that matter, the whole US Southwest was essentially seized in a “Lebensraum”-type land grab under the guise of Manifest Destiny, i.e. the Mexican-American War in the mid-1800’s. Latinos, Mexican-American and otherwise, will soon be the majority there, and the Azatlan notion is hardly a fringe idea. While most Latinos don’t espouse outright irredentism, the notion of cultural autonomy in what’s seen as a Latino/mestizo/Mesoamerican homeland here is quite popular. We could go on—Guam? Puerto Rico? Samoa? Seem pretty occupied to me. The Hawaiian natives never got to vote in a referendum on whether they’d like to be conquered, and they’re still agitating for independence today.
Seems to me that we could easily hoist ourselves on our own petard here, as we’re quite possibly doing by supporting Kosovo—the truth is, the USA is probably one of the countries most vulnerable to such disintegration, not just b/c of the history of civil war here but also because we’re a recent country with a recent people who’ve moved into land that had clearly been resided in by an indigenous people for thousands of years before. Same with Britain—N. Ireland, Scotland, Wales are all looking to break away.
The thing is, it’s hard not to like the Tibetans. They’re a generally peaceful people and really do deserve our respect. I just think that we need to tread carefully here. The idiot French Minister’s suggestion of boycotting the Olympics opening ceremony is just stupid—especially coming from France, this would only reinforce Chinese anger about perceived Western hypocrisy, considering the European powers’ own brutal imperial history in India and elsewhere in Asia.
The best thing is probably continued engagement with China, full participation in the Olympics to show that they’re recognized, but active exhortation toward better human rights controls, release of political prisoners and especially, a demand for transparency.
China is gradually democratizing, but I doubt that it will ever become a democracy in the style of the USA or Western Europe—to them, it just seems way too chaotic, potentially divisive and fraught with all kinds of corruption. (They have a point.) Still, they should be encouraged to provide for further participation by their people, all of them including Tibetans, in the process of making laws and deciding policy.
ckelty says:
JustaGuy, thanks for these, this is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to catch…
Adam says:
Plus of the course the relatively recent history of US intervention in the Tibetan autonomy movement…
Adam says:
Hm, my tag evaporated:
http://books.google.com/books?q=tibet+cia&lr=
Seth Sanders says:
I doubt Obama actually thinks that a nicer Chinese occupation is the best-case. But this opens up a huge can of worms about how even a candidate like Obama, who’s probably the most forthright, least ‘political’ speaker in the race, is constrained to speak. The framework could come from Irvine’s great paper http://www.amazon.com/Regimes-Language-Ideologies-Polities-Identities/dp/0933452616/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205947415&sr=8-1
which pointed out how Bush I was partly done in by a switch in the way his discourse was evaluated, his famous “Read my lips, no new taxes” was initially evaluated according to a discourse of theater (‘this is a smart way for him to be seen talking’) and later according to a discourse of truth (‘he did, in fact, raise taxes’)
Obama’s position here sounds like, well, prudent political speech, which in cases like this cannot allow itself to be straightforward. Chinese rulers would react angrily to talk of ending the occupation, but could be persuaded by veiled threats of boycott that brutality was not in their best interests.
Perhaps his current challenge is to somehow compel gatekeepers to evaluate his speech on race and division according to this discourse of truth?
Adam says:
Seth’s cogent comments about theatricality and truth in political discourse aside, this point (“I doubt Obama actually thinks that a nicer Chinese occupation is the best-case”) doesn’t jibe with what little I know about the situation. That is, as far as I know even the Dalai Lama’s Tibetan government in exile has not in ages demanded an independent Tibet – their demands only extend to “autonomy” within Chinese rule. Now, I think that real independence is supposed to be one of the points of disagreement between the protesters in Tibet and the government in exile, along with the use of violence. In fact I think that “a nicer Chinese occupation,” for better or for worse, is the only accepted option by the international community.
justaguy says:
“In fact I think that “a nicer Chinese occupation,” for better or for worse, is the only accepted option by the international community.”
While it might not be ideal, an greater degree of regional autonomy in Tibet is pretty much the best possible outcome. The majority of the ethnic Han population in China is concentrated in the Eastern coastal region of China. So, while the Han Chinese are the overwhelming majority of the population, they dominate a smaller proportion of the land. Ethnic minorities tend to live in areas with a lower population density – so that minorities occupy a larger percentage of the land mass of China than do the Han.
What does this have to do with Tibet? Even outside of any consideration of Tibet itself, the central government would be wary of setting a precedent that might encourage other succession movements.
That said, expanded regional autonomy in Tibet – a respect for local culture, etc.- is not the way things are heading. There is a massive influx of non-Tibetans into Tibet to make them a minority in Tibet.
Owen Wiltshire says:
Concordia University has a nice history of activism, and one of my good friends Jessica Spanton has been a major organizer for the studentsforafreetibet.org organization. They list a number of campaigns and strategies for getting involved and helping out.
http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/
and the new Tibetan Uprising site they built,
http://tibetanuprising.org/
As I sit back in the classroom living the goodlife, she’s been organizing demonstrations and supporting the Tibetan cause. I’m amazed at how much she has done. Check it out and send them some support if you can. She is currently in Dharamsala helping with a peace march.
It is also interesting to see how they use blogging, facebook, and other networking technologies for fundraising and developing interest in the Tibetan cause.
itsalljustaride says:
justaguy’s links should be of great interest here.
In my dealings with online message boards on the subject of Tibet, invariably what will happen is someone with a Chinese username, or someone who appears to not have English as their first language, will comment with some usually benign rebuttals to Free-Tibet comments. The next course of action after that is usually for someone to call “propaganda!” and inquire as to the nationality of the poster with, “you’re Chinese aren’t you!” then the posts decline into charges of brainwashing and ignorance. Why is there no equally vitriolic response to people shouting “Free Tibet!” (i.e. “you must be Tibetan, you would say that!”)
The site which is translating Chinese blog posts is great, because it makes the point that while Chinese state media is inherently biased, that doesn’t mean that the Chinese net community should be written off out of hand, as they are often more informed about the situation (if only just by their proximity to the issue at hand).
Jen says:
Peter Hessler, a freelancer based in China who is the author of the book “Oracle Bones,” published an outstanding piece in 1999 in the Atlantic Monthly which does a lot to add a Chinese perspective on the Tibet issue. Hessler offers historical background on the relationship between China and Tibet and explains the mixed results of Chinese policies in the territory. And he, too, offers some parallels between the US treatment of American Indians and the Chinese treatment of Tibetans.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199902/tibet-china