Josh Schrei has a phenomenal article up at Dissident Voices wherein he looks at the tendency of apologism for China’s occupation of Tibet by some Leftist scholars. Much of this sort of writing relies on Chinese propaganda and argumentative, anti-historical histories about “old Tibet.” Schrei runs through many of these lines of argument and either disproves them or disassembles their logic. It’s a long, thoughtful piece and one that is tremendously useful for anyone who encounters sophistical arguments about what Tibet was like before China invaded in 1950 and why the invasion was a good thing. Go give it a read.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Hold Fast 
It’s a complicated thing. I’m post-far-leftist enough to have no ideological love for Mao, but I think the truth is that supporters of Tibetian independence are almost as apt to romanticize “old Tibet” as Chinese propagandists are their “revolution” (occupation). It’s not an especially rosy picture either way, even though I’m inclined to think the Chinese are on the wrong side of justice as occupiers.
It leaves me wondering what proper role a person has in this, half a world away.
I’m also kind of pleased to hear that the exile community is not leading the current resistance. Meaningful (r)evolution is ultimately a local phenomena, and real freedom can’t be granted or negotiated externally. It has to be created indigenously, often taken or won through struggle.
LikeLike
Josh, I think you’re creating conflicts where you don’t need to create them.
First, on the pro-independence romanticization of “old Tibet” – I’d argue that (1) this is minimal and (2) it is not relevant to the arguments for independence at their most fundamental level. Yes, Tibet was an independent nation when China invaded in 1950. That alone should beget their independence today. But even if they weren’t, all people have a right to self-determination. Tibetans represent a distinct nation and are geographically connected in an area that is clearly distinguishable as a state. They have a right to choose their own government. As Schrei points out, there is little need to romanticize “old Tibet” and most activists and Tibetans that I know do nothing of the sort.
Second, distance has no relevance on role. When people are not free, when people are murdered for waving a flag and calling for independence or thrown in jail for the thought crime of sharing photos of protests, it shocks the conscience. I’m not saying you have to take up arms and fight for Tibet – but there is nothing improper about supporting freedom and human rights for Tibetans as they try to cast off China’s oppressive rule.
Lastly, Tibetans both inside and outside of Tibet have always sought an end to China’s occupation. Tibetans inside have been the engine of the revolution that is going on now. But Tibetans in exile, including the Dalai Lama, have every right to return home to a free country and to ask for the conditions to allow that to happen. The struggle is happening inside Tibet, but there is nothing objectionable about Tibetans in exile supporting and promoting it from afar.
LikeLike