Tuesday 17 November 2009

Tibet Will Rise Again

The Chinese government have high hopes for Mao Obama (there is a t-shirt!), who is about to descend on them for a visit. He of all people should understand their position on Tibet. Why? Because he is a black man, of course, one who has praised the great liberator, Abraham Lincoln.

You see, according to Qin Gang, a spokesman for the foreign ministry, Tibet under the Dalai Lama was the equivalent of the ante-bellum South, and that those calling for Tibetan independence are no better than the slave-holding secessionists of the Confederacy. The Mighty Qin continued;

He [Obama] is a black president and he understands the slavery abolition movement and Lincoln’s major significance for that movement. Lincoln played an incomparable role in protecting the national unity and territorial integrity of the United States.

So, there you are. I find it difficult, I have to say, to think of the dear old Dalai Lama as a kind of Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States of America, just as I find it difficult to conceive of Hu Jintao, president of the People’s Republic of China, in the role of Lincoln. But, my goodness, how this bizarre comparison gives insight to the mentality of the Chinese leadership, their lopsided understanding of freedom and their condescending, slightly racist, view of Obama.

Yes, why would a ‘black president’ not understand their position on Tibet, a country they ‘liberated’ much to the gratitude of the local people? No matter that the said ‘liberation’ was accompanied by the wholesale destruction of Tibetan culture and the further ‘liberation’ out of life itself by those who offered any objection. Chinese Communist liberation by anyone else’s standard gives all the appearance of being the most brutal and arrogant form of imperialism. Tibet, one hopes, will rise again.


  1. Eh.

    I wouldn't exactly compare the Tibetans to my glorious South (may it rise again... just joking... I would be in quite a racial predicament if it did!)

    However, I must agree that Buddhism is not quite the happy-go-lucky lifestyle religion that one finds in the "West" amidst the affluent "intellectual."

    Many Han Chinese see themselves as the saviors of the Tibetans (and other racial minorities). Until recently, a very strong caste system divided Tibetans into slaves, landowners and religous devotees. Now, all have their own sliver of land and "equality" (well, as equal as a minority can get) under the law.

    Tibetans (and other minorities) now enjoy a much higher level of living, but at definite costs - which I won't go into... I seem to see them everyday in the paper...

    Zhong Yang Minzu Daxue in Beijing is a university institution dedicated to the education of ethnic minorities - they have less stringent entrance standards than "Han" Chinese and enjoy high campus-living standards.

    After studying there for 6 months, I had the please of meeting many students from many different parts of China - Uighurs, Kazahks, Dai, Tibtans, Miao, Mongolians...

    These students (for the most part) are divided in loyalties to their peoples and to the Republic. As minorities, they enjoy benefits that millions of Han do not - they can have more than one child, they have lower taxes, they can smoke pot if it is part of their culture...

    Granted, perhaps these are superficial benefits. But I must say that the government is making an honest attempt to seduce/ make ammends with all the ethnicities in it's borders.

    As a person of faith, I very much value my freedom to worship as I please. It pains me to see others who do not enjoy these freedoms.

    That said, I do not believe that a free Tibet will exist, not as long as the dual concepts of China and Chinese "Nationalism" (broad encompassing term...) exist... Tibet is too good of a buffer zone to neighboring India. I wouldn't doubt that fortresses full of warheads dot the border.

    PS I find Presiden Hu's comments to Obama ironic... I don't believe Obama has any ties to the American South...


  2. The word "liberation" took on an ominous meaning in the 60s, especially in regard to spreading Communist ideals. (Of course, Napoleon used the same pretext when spreading his Republican ideals.) Usually, it means forcing people to do something for their own good against their will, even at the cost of killing or maiming them for life..

  3. Thanks, Sarita. My final sentence was, of course, really intended for ironic effect.
    :-) 'Liberation' for the Tibetans has effectively meant a steady process of cultural extermination. I have no doubt that if given a free vote on their future destiny Tibetans would not choose to be part of the People's Republic.

    NP, that was profound. :-)