Tibet vs. the People's Republic of China - what's China's side of the story?

[WeRSauron]

As someone who lives in the West, I am aware of the claim that China is out to destroy Tibetan culture, religion, arts, etc.

As every story has two sides, what is Chinese version of the issue? What’s the official and unofficial word from the government, and what do the Chinese (Han) people have to say?

WRS

[cckerberos]

From Wikipedia’s article on the Government of Tibet in Exile:

The position of the Chinese government is that the events of 1951 were a merely a re-occupation of land which had been under the dominion of China since at least the 13th century, if not earlier. Chinese commissioners had been stationed in Lhasa since the early 18th century, and periods of independence since then are claimed by China to be the result of externally incited uprisings, not of a relinquishment of China’s claim to sovereignity over the region.

[Apos]

To really understand this issue from the Chinese perspective, you have to understand that they have their own form of manifest destiny. In fact, if anything, they INVENTED manifest desitiny. China has one of the longest ongoing civilized histories in the world, and throughout, at least in modern times, the themes have always run towards seeing China as something that was meant to be, that was steadily being perfected and defended.

Ever see the movie Hero? That’s the sort of passion that many Chinese leaders and popular movements have tapped into throughout Chinese history in appealing to the good of China.

And of course, its certainly not necessarily a GOOD thing. There are many popular intellectuals in China today who skate pretty scarily close to a racialist jingoism that is a little hard to stomach.

[smiling_bandit]

On the practical side of things, I suspect they wanted Tibet for strategic reasons.

[Captain_Amazing]

Right. It’s that Tibet had been historically part of China, and also that Tibet was being ruled by a repressive religious dictator, and Communists aren’t that fond of theocracies.

[Apos]

Right. It’s that Tibet had been historically part of China, and also that Tibet was being ruled by a repressive religious dictator, and Communists aren’t that fond of theocracies.
Reply With Quote

Trading a repressive religious dictator like a Llama for a repressive Orwellian regime that rapes women with cattle prods for yuks. It’s a fair cop, ay!

[CarnalK]

Trading a repressive religious dictator like a Llama for a repressive Orwellian regime that rapes women with cattle prods for yuks. It’s a fair cop, ay!

Not denying that’s likely true but do you (or anyone here) have a good link describing Tibetan society before the “re-occupation”?

[BrainGlutton]

@CarnalK

Not denying that’s likely true but do you (or anyone here) have a good link describing Tibetan society before the “re-occupation”?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet:

Chinese rule

In 1788 war broke out between the Tibetans and the Gurkha people of Nepal, who were encroaching on Tibetan lands. A Chinese-Tibetan army defeated the Gurkhas and invaded Nepal. This brought the attention of the British, who regarded Nepal as being within their sphere of influence. The Tibetans withdrew from Nepal, but they closed the Tibetan border and refused to allow any foreigners to enter the country. Tibet’s reputation as “the hermit kingdom” dates from this time. During the whole of the 19th century no foreigner saw Lhasa, and a number were killed while making the attempt.

Meanwhile the people of Tibet lived under a feudal system run by the lamas. The great monasteries owned most of the land, controlled all education and most economic activity. There was almost no trade between Tibet and the outside world, except a limited amount with India, Turkestan and China. The Dalai Lama was acknowledged as the most important of the lamas, but his power waxed and waned according to his personal abilities. The system of succession through reincarnation meant that there were long periods when the Dalai Lama was a child. During these periods the Panchen Lama was recognised as effective ruler, under overall Chinese suzerainty.

<snip>

Renewed Chinese rule

The Chinese Communist regime led by Mao Zedong which came to power in October 1949 lost little time in enforcing its claim to Tibet. In 1950 a Chinese army entered western Kham and U-Tsang with little resistance, since there was no professional Tibetan army. In May 1951 a treaty secretly signed by representatives of the Dalai Lama and local government, provided for Chinese military occupation and rule by a joint Chinese-Tibetan authority. The Chinese at this time did not try to reform Tibet’s social or religious system, at least not within the zone of control of the government of Tibet: U-Tsang and western Kham. Eastern Kham and Amdo, outside the control of the government of Tibet, were treated like any other Chinese province, and land reform began immediately, sparking discontent among landowners.

The Chinese built highways that reached first Lhasa then later to the Indian, Nepalese and Pakistani borders. The traditional Tibetan aristocracy and government remained in place and was subsidized by the Chinese, some Tibetan aristocrats going shopping in Nepal in their jeeps.

The ninth Panchen Lama got the power granted by the Emperor when the 13th Dalai fled to India. When Dalai came back Panchen had to go to Qinghai . After Chinese army went into Tibet he asked and got approval of the government to come back Tibet and died en route. The tenth Panchen was reincarnated then.

During the 1950s, however, Chinese rule grew more oppressive, at least to the lamas, who rightly saw that their social power must eventually be broken by continued Communist rule. Prior to 1959, Tibet’s land was worked by serfs most of whom were owned by the lamas and were sometimes subjected to cruel conditions, particularly if they tried to escape. Prior to Chinese rule, over 700,000 of Tibet’s population of 1.2 million were in serfdom.

By the mid-1950s there was unrest in eastern Kham and Amdo, where land reform had been implemented in full. These rebellions eventually spread into western Kham and U-Tsang. In 1959 (at the time of the Great Leap Forward in China), the Chinese authorities overstepped the mark, treating the Dalai Lama, by now an adult, with open disrespect. In some parts of the country zealous Chinese Communists tried to establish rural communes, as was happening in China. These events triggered riots in Lhasa, and then a full-scale rebellion.

The Tibetan resistance movement began with isolated resistance to Chinese occupation in the late 1950s. Initially there was considerable success and with CIA aid much of southern Tibet fell into rebel hands, but in 1959 with the occupation of Lhasa resistance forces withdrew into Nepal. Operations continued from the semi-independent Kingdom of Mustang with a force of 2000 rebels, many of them trained at Camp Hale near Leadville, Colorado. In 1969, on the eve of Kissinger’s overtures to China, support was withdrawn and the Nepalese government dismantled the operation. See [1] (http://www.naatanet.org/shadowcircus/map.html).

The rebellion in Lhasa was soon crushed, and the Dalai Lama fled to India, although resistance continued in other parts of the country for several years. The Panchen Lama was set up as a figurehead in Lhasa and China took direct control of the Tibetan government. In 1965 the western part of historical Tibet became a Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China. The monastic estates were broken up, the monasteries closed and secular education introduced. During the Cultural Revolution there was a campaign of organised vandalism against Tibet’s Buddhist heritage, and tens of thousands of Tibetans escaped to India.

Since 1979 Chinese policy in Tibet has veered between moderation and repression. Most religious freedoms have been officially restored, provided the lamas do not challenge Chinese rule. Foreigners can visit most parts of the country and the evidence of foreign rule is kept hidden from visitors. As in China, there has been economic reform, but no political reform. The Chinese have systematically settled ethnic Han Chinese all over Tibet, making the restoration of Tibetan independence almost impossible.

[rfgdxm]

During the 1950s, however, Chinese rule grew more oppressive, at least to the lamas, who rightly saw that their social power must eventually be broken by continued Communist rule. Prior to 1959, Tibet’s land was worked by serfs most of whom were owned by the lamas and were sometimes subjected to cruel conditions, particularly if they tried to escape. Prior to Chinese rule, over 700,000 of Tibet’s population of 1.2 million were in serfdom.

Things were hardly flowers and dancing bears in Tibet before the Chinese communists took over. For those who would argue Tibet went from the frying pan into the fire, the OP asked about the Chinese perspective. To the Chinese communists, they were liberating Tibet not only from economic slavery, but also theocratic rule. Communism tends to see religion as evil. WeRSauron wrote: “As someone who lives in the West, I am aware of the claim that China is out to destroy Tibetan culture, religion, arts, etc.” From the Chinese point of view, getting rid of serfdom and theocracy is a good thing.

[BrainGlutton]

@rfgdxm

From the Chinese point of view, getting rid of serfdom and theocracy is a good thing.

As it should be from the American point of view, shouldn’t it?

[Windwalker]

@Apos

Trading a repressive religious dictator like a Llama for a repressive Orwellian regime that rapes women with cattle prods for yuks. It’s a fair cop, ay!

Cite?

[China_Guy]

to specifically answer the OP, from the Chinese POV, Tibet was and always has been a part of China since the Tang Dynasty when Emperess Wen Cheng was married to the Tibetan King to civilize him. End of story. [It really is this simple of an arguement.]

Nowadays, China is modernizing the feudal backward society and investing serious amounts of money and labor to do so.

OTOH, Tibetans have a different point of view, as does the International Council of Jurists, Amnesty International, etc.

With all due respect, the Wikpedia version of history looks pretty inaccurate to me. Check out Charles Bell, History of Tibet for a more definitive account.

[BrainGlutton]

@China Guy

With all due respect, the Wikpedia version of history looks pretty inaccurate to me.

Wikipedia is an “open-content” source. If you’re not satisfied with an article, you can make changes to it! Anybody can! (The value of that policy is, of course, debatable – see this GQ thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=298205.)

[China_Guy]

Actually, on second read, the Wikpedia piece clearly lays out about 99% of the Chinese historic claim over Tibet.

Tibetans would disagree, but that ain’t what the OP wanted to know.

[Apos]

Sexual assault is a particular form of torture used to punish, humiliate and coerce women. Torturers force electric batons into Tibetan women’s mouths or vaginas, set dogs on them, strip them naked before interrogation and beat them with clubs (Women in the Front Line: Human Rights Violations Against Women, Amnesty International, 1991; p.30). Although women are the main targets of severe sexual abuse, there have been an increasing number of reports of men who have been sexually assaulted.

The Tibetan Women’s Association in Dharamsala collects the testimonies of women who have been tortured for taking part in demonstrations. Statements from these women confirm the abuses described by human rights groups. They also report the laceration of nipples - sexual torture that has not been documented by other human rights organisations, but that was reported in an article which appeared in The Independent in February 1994. Dawa Hansum, a nun who is still in Gutsa, one of Tibet’s most notorious prisons, after taking part in a 1989 pro-independence demonstration, had one of her nipples severed with scissors. The TWA also reports rape, drugging and other abuses of Tibetan women by Chinese army personnel (Devine; p.53). Amnesty International has no reports of rape of Tibetan women by guards, but a report published in May 1992 described the testimony of a Buddhist nun from Shungsep who was “raped with electric cattle prods” (China: Repression in Tibet, 1987-1992; p.41).

http://tibet.dharmakara.net/TibetFacts10.html
They cite Amnesty, but this is a fuller account. Again, though, this is not the Chinese “perspective.”

[Steve_MB]

@BrainGlutton

@rfgdxm

From the Chinese point of view, getting rid of serfdom and theocracy is a good thing.

As it should be from the American point of view, shouldn’t it?

Obviously, the difference between the two boils down to whether or not Maoism is any improvement over (hell, is any different from) “serfdom and theocracy”. :dubious:

[BrainGlutton]

@Steve MB

Obviously, the difference between the two boils down to whether or not Maoism is any improvement over (hell, is any different from) “serfdom and theocracy”. :dubious:

:dubious: And it is an improvement, Steve. Not a great system, but definitely an improvement over what the Tibetans had before. The Tibetan nationalists are not, I should hope, thinking of restoring the old system. What they’re rebelling against is rule by those they regard as foreigners.

[Grey]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious: And it is an improvement, Steve. Not a great system, but definitely an improvement over what the Tibetans had before. The Tibetan nationalists are not, I should hope, thinking of restoring the old system. What they’re rebelling against is rule by those they regard as foreigners.

On the other hand the Tibetans never had great leaps that involved millions dying.

[CarnalK]

That may be true simply due to population sizes, but is anyone here qualfied to actual compare the regimes? I don’t trust the “Well it’s gotta be better than this” line of thought.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Windwalker

Cite?

You want cites? Here are cites:

Abdul Al-Hazred, The Necronomicon, Chapter 4, Verse 12: “Most cursed of all, most dreadfully lost to all sanity and the Mercy of Allah, most obscene of all eldritch horrors, too horrid even for mighty Yog-Sothoth, repulsive even to great Cthulhu, is the monstrous Idiot who makes useless and unnecessary demands for cites.”

Wood Jr., Ed, Plan 9 from Outer Space, Scene 54, inside the flying saucer. Yoxtroth speaks: “Your stupid minds! Your stupid, stupid minds! Such primitives as you cannot possibly understand my demand for cites! Look what you’ve done to my angora sweater!”

The Junior Woodchuck Handbook, Chapter 83: “The Perfect Red Herring: How to Derail a Debate with Demands for Unnecessary Cites,” p. 1018

Berg, Dave, Mad Magazine, No. 84, June 1959, “Mad’s Dave Berg Looks at Jerks who make Pointless Demands for Cites,” p. 22

The Last Dangerous Visions, Ellison, Harlan, ed., Introduction, p. xv, Delusional Press, 2003: “And that’s how Roddenberry fucked up THE GREATEST SCIENCE FICTION SCREENPLAY EVER WRITTEN, and still hasn’t apologized after thirty years! And you Trekkies think he shouldn’t have to apologize to me just because he’s dead!!! At the very least Universal should re-assemble the original cast and re-shoot it EXACTLY THE WAY I WROTE IT because we’re talking about ART AND LITERATURE here, godammit. So what if fans, editors and critics call me a hypocrite and a little tin god because I misled dozens of writers and publishers to produce a science fiction anthology six times longer than *War and Peace * and missed the deadline by twenty seven years? What else can we expect from crypto-Nazi scumbags who voted for Nixon, Reagan and Bush?!?? You want cites?!?? I don’t NEED no stinkin’ cites!!!”

The Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 43: “The great Need to be free and unmolested by impertinent, rude, and imbecilic Louts of low Character who make superfluous and pestilent Demands for Cites, being of crucial Importance to any great Nation, the Right of the People to beat such rude and silly Persons stoutly about the Head and Shoulders with Umbrellas, Canes, dead Cats or any other such suitable Weapons, to pelt them soundly with rotten Fruits and Vegetables, or to wave their Genitalia in the general Direction of such ill-mannered Miscreants, shall not be infringed.”