From reading Mr. Floyd Rudmin's article and all of the comments. I have come to a conclusion that if you are a white non-Muslim dominated country, "demographic aggression" and "cultural genocide" don't really apply to your action because you are just helping them to advance into a more modern society. Otherwise you are basically screwed if you are not doing something they want you to do.

When the western countries want to impose the so call "democracy" and "human rights" onto Chinese people in China, can this be called "culture genocide" as well? Because honestly I could not find many supporters on those issues in China especially among the more educated class. Most people in know that China has to find itself own way towards democracy and pick what "human rights" is suitable and reflected on the Chinese Culture itself when Confucius values focus more the rights of group rather than of the individuals. So every time when you use "democracy" and "human rights" as a weapon to criticize China, please ask yourself whether you are speaking on the behalf of Chinese people as well.

You might say that is because most people in China are "brainwashed" by all those propagandas. On this I have to clarify that actually most Chinese people(at least those in the more developed area in China) are the least subject to propagandas and brainwashing compare to people in the west, because they know that the government and politicians are not always telling the truth and always has something to hide from the public. So they are always looking for second opinions(normally from the west), then make their own judgment(I wouldn't say that they always make right one thought). State medias in China are more or less a joke to Chinese people, because it is too obvious what they trying to do. They know where to find the truth instead of just take whatever they have been presented with. The slogan "Don't be too CNN" actually is not a new one, it is used to be "Don't be too CCTV(Chinese Central Television)" for a long time. Unlike the people in the west, they know when they are being lied to. This time when the Chinese are furious about the western media bias, I think it has more to do with the fact that they think they have been betrayed by someone whom they had been trusting for a long time, rather than just the Western medias are ganging up on China. After reading the article <> by Xiaoping Li, it really touched me in one way or another.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8635

This article is a superb identification of US hypocrisy. I think that I as an American progressive, should focus primarily on the problems and crimes of my own government, the only one for which I are directly responsible. This article helps that cause.

I'm not perfect so I can not point out your failings.
You are not perfect so you can not point out my failings.

How about we both admit that we are imperfect and since no one likes to look at their own failings, we point out each other's failings with a sense of shared imperfection?

So what do the Tibetans do? Roll over? What is the point? I don't think it hypocrisy as much as ignorance.

Having the greatest military by far, do the neocons care if we piss off our greatest lenders? Not as long as we control the oil our military runs on.

We are being spoonfed our positions by our CIA run media. Never accept any story at first blush. A good rule of thumb: if the corporate media is peddling it, probably the opposite is true.

Fantastic article. It is a shame that more progressive cannot see when they are being manipulated by the corporate kleptocracy as it plays its geopolitical games.

The kleptocracy keeps on telling the useful idiots to "ignore the hypocrisy" and "ignore the man behind the curtain."

China is attempting to become the leader of the non-Western nations in their negotiations with the West and hopes to use the Olympics as positive PR to improve China's global position. The US, UK, and EU are doing all they can to discredit China so that China does not garner the clout to achieve that position, a position with which it could potentially interfere with the colonial plans (modern corporate colonialism) of the Western powers and their corporate masters.

Excellent article. I can't understand why many progressives are swallowing this Tibetan business hook line and sinker. The corporate lamestream media is just trying to get the people's mind off the war of genocide in Iraq as well as other American atrocities. You know the old saying, "People in glass houses..." At least China is not the world's number #1 jailer. America wins that dubious distinction.

True, you make a lot of sense but I wouldn't be too fast to condem and putt all the blame on the protesters. Don't forget that China has their own wrongdoing, they are not choir boy. Dont derail.

I find most Americans pathetically ignorant of Tibet and all too eager to jump on a propaganda bandwagon based on an overly-romanticized view based on what they saw in fictional films like "Seven Years in Tibet" and watched more recently on highly biased western TV. Few have any idea of the history of that region, of ancient ties between the Chinese and Tibetan peoples far older than the links between the U.S. and native Americans, of the British massacre of Tibetans as its well-equipped army forced its way into that land early in the 20th century in order to prevent the Russians from gaining a foothold there (something the Russians didn't know anything about), of the British forcing Tibetans to deal only with China and the British or else, of that army's leader, Major Younghusband's conclusion that "The Lamas ruled the country entirely in their own interests . . . they never preached or educated laity, but kept the latter in ignorance and servitude, with the result that the Tibetans have become the most priest-ridden people in the world . . .sapped of their vigor and spirit." Westerners should read Orville Schell's "Virtual Tibet: Searching for Shangri-la from the Himalayas to Hollywood." Maybe the Chinese government's dealings with Tibet are subject to question, yet it seems to me that before one starts throwing stones at others, one should first take a long hard look at what's going on in their own backyard.

"The height of hypocrisy is this moral posturing about 100 dead in race riots in Lhasa, while the USA, UK and more than 40 nations in the Coalition of the Willing wage a war of aggression against Iraq."

"Why is the news filled with demonstrators about Tibet but not about Iraq?"

There have been plenty of demonstarations against the Iraq War that have gotten media coverage.

"But the last 200 years have not gone well, what with two Opium Wars forcing China to import drugs, and Europeans seizing coastal ports as a step to complete colonial control, then the Boxer Rebellion, the collapse of the Manchu Dynasty, civil war, a brutal invasion and occupation by Japan, more civil war, then Communist consolidation and transformation of society, then Mao's Cultural Revolution. Such events caused tens of millions of people to die. Thus, China's recent history has good reasons why social order is a higher priority than individual rights. Race riots and rebellion cannot be tolerated."

The State knows what is best for the people! Dictatorship is necessary, but only in countries that are criticized in the West.

An act of foreign aggression that ended in 1945 can be used to justify the denial of individual rights today? At least Bush is only going back to 2001 for an excuse to deny us our rights.

It was precisely the emphasis on social order over individual rights that allowed Mao to get away with the Great Leap Forward, which lead to the starvation of millions.

"These demonstrations do not serve Tibetans, but rather use Tibetans for ulterior motives."

That's pretty condescending to tell Tibetians what they need and that expressing their desire for freedom makes them puppets.

I certainly wouldn't support the United States going to war to free Tibet, but how many of the demonstrators protesting against China have also protested against wrongs done by the United States and other Western nations? I've seen quite a few cars at anti-war demonstrations with "Free Tibet" stickers on them. This writer ignores the fact that many younger progressives reject the concept of nation-states entirely, preferring to support alternative methods of social organization instead of hierarchy-based institutions such as national governments. From their perspective there is no hypocrisy in protesting the actions of the Chinese and U.S. governments, since both represent a social structure that has outlived its usefulness.

"The people most oppressed, most needing a nation of their own, are the Palestinians."

Yes, exactly! But guess who gets the most digression? Yup, the Palestinians.

But guess who's our 'special friend'. Why? I still haven't a clue. Maybe because they share our fondness for killing the indigenous 'brown peoples'.

It's not hypocrisy to speak out against oppression and injustice--as long as you can take the truth in the other direction.

A very good article..

Certainly, I think all this media-craze chinese relations with Tibet and Dafur needs to be examined closely. Recently, there has been a highly exersive, even exargerated heighten of the Chinese influence in these places. I think the major reason for this is because the Western-world namely USA, Brittain, France and Germany feel threathened by Chinese economic power and influence around the more. China is Cashing in on some of the money. So they have embarked on a public relation campaign to make China appear as "the evil empire." Its working by-the-way. Not that i endorse the chinese actions in these places, But I think the Western Medias are being hypocritical.

No COUNTRY has created more ETHNIC CLEANSING, GENOCIDE,POVERY than the UNITED STATES, GREAT BRITTAIN and FRANCE. This countries are still highly involve around the world. But their actions have been largely ignored by the MSM

Let's see what we have here. We have a Hypocritical, lying, human rights abuser on one side. On the other side we have a Delusionary snake charmer. They are fighting each other and we want it to stop. So we'll call in a Hypocritical, lying, human rights violating, delusional snake charmer to break it up.

Since writing this essay, I have come across more information that is new to me about the degree to which the free-Tibet movement has been a US operation. For example, there is a history of "The CIA's Secret War in Tibet" published in 2002 by Kansas University Press. See the publisher's ad:

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/concia.html

Then there is an Oct. 2, 1998, NY Times article that "The Dalai Lama's administration acknowledged today that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960's from the Central Intelligence Agency". See:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFD61538F931A35753C1A96E958260

The GlobalResearch site has a new essay by Canadian economist Michel Chossudovsky on "The Tibet Human Rights PsyOp". See:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8673

This is not a simple story about peaceful monks asking for freedom and being beaten by brutal Chinese oppressors.

In Pakistan, there are madrassas where boys from poor families can be cared for while studying religion. Some of them become militant religious fanatics and join Al Qaeda or the Taliban. The training institutions run by the free-Tibet movement are not so different. The US has directly or indirectly funded both movements for geopolitical purposes.

The Tibetan rioters in Lhasa should be called "terrorists". They suddenly, without warning, attacked innocent and relatively helpless civilians, killing some, in order to have a political impact. That describes terrorism. The terrorists have succeeded in this instance.

If China were as thoroughly oppressive towards Tibetans as many claim, then there would be no Buddhist monks in Tibet. But as the recent events showed, there are many Buddhist monks in Tibet, practicing their religion as they wish.

If China were as thoroughly oppressive of Tibetans as many claim, then Lhasa would be a garrisoned city, with large police and military forces. But there were none. They had to be trucked in, over several days. Imagine what would happen in Jerusalem if Palestinians attacked Israeli shops like that. It would take 5 minutes or less for a massive police and military force to stop the terrorists, and not by hitting them with batons, but shooting them with live ammunition.

Still, I think, the greatest danger now is that Chinese nationalism will explode beyond the control of the Chinese government, and Tibetans will become true victims of violence. It would be good if some grass-roots movement could start in China, with people publicly expressing their goodwill toward Tibetans, acknowledging that the vast majority of Tibetans did not riot, appreciating Tibetans as one of the important minority peoples.

The idea that you cant complain about something unless you re perfect basically means one cant do anything about anything until everyone is spontaneously perfect--which means there are no problems.
Great philosophy but not a socially responsible one.

China is wrong in how it deals with Tibet--the Us and any one else can point that out--and China can do the same in the other direction.
It doesnt seem interested in that though.

The idea that the Dalai Lama is a CIA agent is just stupid.
China treats its people horribly--outside of Tibet.
I think Frudmin is a Chinese agent.

"Race riots and rebellion cannot be tolerated, not even when done by Buddhist monks." This baffles me. It seems the monks really are rioting etc, unlike their colleagues in Cambodia (whose repression was far more savage). But by doing so they betray their beliefs. Something has evidently gone wrong with buddhism, which should not be violent or nationalistic, in Tibet. One wonders in whose interests this is. Back in the twentieth century, the British Empire was the super-power whispering in Tibet's ear...

Floyd Rudmin, thanks for speaking up and speaking clearly. Thanks also for your excellent presentation of correct information.

Your perspective of overview is the one lacking from main media debates.

However, wrong is wrong wherever it occurs. That goes for China/Tibet too. This is what Buddhism calls «the absolute truth» which according to Buddhism must be weighed against «the relative truth», like the truth of your presentation.

You ask: «Why is the news filled with demonstrators about Tibet but not about Iraq?». You know very well that's because the «news» owners are in tacit and not-so-tacit collusion with the operators of the Iraq-war and other wars.

So let's simply ascertain of Western «news» (which might more correctly be called not the «news of the day» but the «wrongs of the day» - wrongs according to a project of «right» which is rarely stated because it is too shameful when described openly) that these «news» are indeed «filled with demonstrators about Tibet but not about Iraq». Iraq or Afghanistan-demonstrators don't get nearly similar coverage and encouragement in the «wrongs»-project, aka. «news».

We may criticize our own Western governments, but we're also loyalty-bound and dependent on them. Like it or not, we're in collusion by living well in the West. When we criticise our own governments and life-styles, even our friends get at us for it. However courageous we are, there's a limit to how long and far we can live with such protest. People do get isolated and driven insane for that sort of protest.

So, we protest wrongs where we can. Yes, it's easier to protest China/Tibet than NATO. There's no necessary contradiction. Both can be done, and is done by many of the protesters supporting human rights globally. Demonstrating against China in Tibet is also demonstrating against abuses by NATO-countries by proxy.

I support the demonstrations for Tibet (which is less against China) in the added hope that the attitude of support for human rights everywhere will spread back to the West. I and many others simply use any outlet available, to strengthen humanism and human rights in the global human society.

As for your conclusion that the demonstrations «serve only to distract themselves and others from seeing and correcting the current failings of their own governments», I agree that's a danger. But it's not the «only» possibility. That's a false dichotomy. I know for a fact from myself and other demonstrators that on the contrary it helps us «seeing and correcting the current failings of [our] own governments».

Call me naive if you must, but I think most people sense this connection to our own failings when we protest the short-comings of others. We are each others' mirrors in that respect. In the world today the struggle is not so much country against country, or «the West against the rest», as it is exploitative, ruling elites against fair-sharing, subjected people everywhere.

I'll keep protesting against injustice wherever it occurs, and raise my voice for a peaceful, well-functioning human society globally.

Uniquely in the history of human-kind, a globally fair-sharing society is now within reach, as our thoughts and activities circle the globe at the speed of light (in the "grid" of fiber-optic cables). All it takes now is a change of attitude. And some hard work of systematic adjustment over a few years. Let's bring it on!

Great article. I would like to point out the the '100 dead in Tibetan protests' is a figure pulled out of thin air by the tibetan exile groups with zero independent corroboration. The exiles have been claiming 80 dead since the first day of the riots, and increased their numbers everyday. Whereas the chinese government's story (of the tibetans going on a race riot rampage, and the chinese police acting with restraint) has been well corroborated by all independent western observers. The victims were all identified with names and identity. The tibetan side has come up with 40 names. Of these 40 names, the chinese government could only locate 5 of them- four turns out to be still alive, and one does not exist in the temples he was supposed to be in.

Mr. Rudmin:

Finally, some intelligence and common sense, not insensate criticism pitched at an hysterical high C. Thank you. With all the acute misery and injustice bursting the world at its seams, it had come to seem for at least a few long days that we had Tibet tunnel vision. Not that I don't admire and respect the Dalai Lama, or that I am unaware of the terrible history of Tibet over the past 60 years. But the U.S. has done far worse, in far more places, both to its own people and to others abroad. This supposedly Christian country (a joke in my opinion) never seems to remember little things like "let him who is without sin cast the first stone." That's all fine and well, of course, but our memories are short, and anyway we have so many fine stones here, just waiting to be cast. Be a shame to waste them. They make such a satisfying sound when they hit…

Your essay was well-written, well-argued, and a pleasure to read. I hope lots of people read it. Thank you for writing it.

Is this guy a lobbyist for the Chinese?

In none of the other countries that he cites is the minority told how they can practice their religion as in China.

All that Tibetans ask is religious autonomy and that is not too much to ask. However, the Chinese government insists that it will appoint the next Dalai Lama, they have kidnapped the imprisoned the chosen Panchen Lama and put their own imposter in his place. Such interference is religious matters is intolerable.

Like the Dalai Lama says this is religious and cultural genocide.

Gawd, what a horrible article. He's essentially saying the Chinese can beat up and imprison any Bhuddist monk who dares to object to the occupation of his homeland. Lots of BS reasons as to why we should all just kiss the Chinese and love this.

Sure, there's hypocracy everywhere. But does that mean we should never point out what's wrong?

I lived in Atlanta in 96. And yes, the local government and police passed new laws and rounded up people to remove 'political undesireables' from the city for the Olympics. In America, those aren't Bhuddist monks. Instead, that's the thousands of 'homeless' people our economy has jetisoned and told to go off and quietly starve to death.

Ok, that happened. I live in a country that genocidally removed its native population as a part of its 'manifest destiny'. That's true too. But none of that means that I have to stand aside and cheer the Chinese as they attack and imprison their own citizens.

What a piece of &^#@ article.

I am a Chinese oversea student, belonging to a minority group, Hui. What the author comments about the affirmative actions from the Chinese government are all what I have experienced. And last Saturday, I also got to know that in Tibet, the medical care is completely free for the Tibetan until 2003. And the medical insurance system is introduced since then. And it covers all residence in Tibet. This is a special affirmative action which is even not shared by the other minority groups, not to mention the Hans.

(detail about the insurance system: translated from
http://www.xzlwq.gov.cn/art/Article/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=323
Now for average resident in Tibet, they pay 60 RMB very year, and the government pay 140 RMB for their insurance. For preschooling children, students at any education level, they pay 30RMB, the rest covered by the government. Disabled, low income people, orphans and widow without children don't need to pay for the insurance. Women above 60, men above 65 pay for the insurance only once, and then they will be covered for the rest of their lives.

Just for comparison: people from rural areas in the rest of China gets 20RMB from their provincial governments. People from urban areas in the rest of China covers their own insurance, either by the companies/institutes they work in or by themselves.)

In primary school education, Since 1984, children from rural areas go to schools for free, and their food and living costs are also covered by the government. This policy is also unique to Tibet, and in the rest of China, if a kid is from rural area, the benefit (s)he gets is just paying less than one with a urban hukou.

Not many Chinese knows about these affirmative actions, I am really joyfully surprised to hear a foreigner commenting on it.

The languages about the Tibetan riot from the comments on some Chinese websites by average citizens have been extremely strong. The author's worry is justified, and I sincerely hope the resentment is temporary.

All this discusion started because the Olympics are going
to be held in China If it weren't for that, the problems with the Dali Lama wouldn't even raise one eyebrow. China's
human rights violations would not be in such focus as they
are now.
I maintain that the Olympics should return to Greece, where
they started. The winter games should be canceled for-ever-more.
The only problem is, the Olympics are for sale to highest
bidder, regardless of that countries human rights violations

Thank you for all the info, Huan Di.

Wonderful being able to see through the fog. Nice article..and there's more. Lately, discussing this "Tibet thing" I'm recognizing how easy it is for westerners to bad rap the Chinese in the same racist and otherwise demeaning ways we did when it was in the fashion to refer to them as "Chinks" and blindly red bait the Very Great Proletarian Revolution that transformed China out of colonial times.

Yes, we "progressives" understand that China has since transformed itself to be ruled by the new Capitalists who are using the same divices of Racism and Nationalism to divide the masses. However, the Chinese, being an astute and clever people will understand that the poor Tibtan and Han Chinese peasants and workers have more in common with each other than either of them have in common with elitist Lamas and the seriously narrow Chinese leadership.

And, yes, it would be something else if we could consider our own western take on such issues and see the devisiveness of our own exploitations - this Tibet issue as well as our own closer to home issues.

May I add that I think the distinction between the absolute Truth and the relative truth is common to all philosophies. I naiively thought that's a distinction made only in Marxism for 21 years, until started to learn the 'philosophy of religions'.

There are three main schools of Tibetan Buddhisms, the yellow hats, the red hats and the black hats. Dalai Lama is a top figure in the yellow hats branch.

Tibetan Buddhism is different from the Buddhism in India or that in China and Thailand. Many practices and philosophies in Bon are kept. Heroes (in wars) are respected, priests (Lama, or loosely monks) are encouraged to get married, so that the wives can help looking after the family economy, and the priests can devote themselves better to religion. (Bell, 1928)

In my opinion, none of these is remotely related with the Olympic. Hosting the Olympic is like inviting a group of guests, sportsmen and sportswomen, for a party. The gold medal winners are VIPs. Call me childish, but if any politicians don't want to show up, the world still turns.

A better social welfare system is required in the rest of China. As a Chinese, I believe my countrymen are not idiots. They can judge, they can learn, they know what they want and they are working hard to achieve it.

reference:
Bell, Charles. 1928. The People of Tibet, OUP.

I object to the term 'anti-Chinese.' This suggests that anyone in favor of the Tibetans being given human rights is against China. That is absurd.

The Chinese may want to think that Tibet was always theirs, but that it was merely the case that that claim was difficult to enforce over the last two hundred years. Yes, so difficult to enforce that Tibet had its own political, military, economic, social, and religious systems. When your country breaks down to the point that parts of it gain autonomy/independence without your being able to do anything about it, that is one definition of losing your claim to that region.

Perhaps we're not really independent here in the US. Perhaps it is just that Great Britain has found it difficult to enforce their claim - and is free to invade, should they ever put together a coalition capable of doing so. WATCH OUT, CANADA!! You don't even have the chance of claiming your right to independence based on winning a war.

If the Tibetans are not being pushed out, where are all the incoming Han going? Why are so many businesses owned and run by Han, and what happens to the Tibetans that lose businesses? The author says that the Chinese treatment of minorities has been exemplary, but that is no description of occurrences in Tibet. He goes on to talk of Native Americans, who in many cases they were not slaughtered outright, simply edged out in some places and moved out wholesale in others. What's the difference? That is precisely what is happening in Tibet. I can't accuse him of hypocrisy, as I don't know him well enough, but I can say that that's inconsistent.

As for the claim of hypocrisy, well the author needs to separate government and people. The government is not responsive to the people. How many times has that comment been made? It is possible to protest policies of our own government *and* those of other nations. There is nothing hypocritical about that. To the contrary, when the people protest all instances of human rights abuses, that is consistent. (As for the government: all governments are hypocritical, and the largest are generally the worst.)

The Dalai Lama doesn't deny China's claim? Ever think what a disaster there would be, if he did? (There are riots despite his call for calm.) Perhaps the Dalai Lama is functioning under the belief that half a loaf is better than none. Perhaps he is being pragmatic: just save the Tibetans and their culture right now. Worry about all other matters later. If the people are (effectively) wiped out now, all questions regarding autonomy/independence are rendered moot. Does the author wonder why the Chinese (government) are claiming that the Dalai Lama wants full independence? (That contradicts his claim about the Dalai Lama.)

Let's see... Why the Tibetan uprising now? Perhaps because of that damned high-speed train that is allowing the (mostly Han) Chinese to overrun the Tibetans. A few years of accelerated economic and social devastation may be the cause of those riots.

Listen to what western observers say? Well, the Christian Science Monitor published an interesting article on the train and the expected negative consequences to the Tibetans about two years ago. Good reporting at the Christian Science Monitor. Insightful enough to have predicted that it would mean a major calamity for Tibet. What do other objective observers say? If I remember correctl, westerners were expelled from places where rioting was ongoing.

The mainstream/corporate media? They are the propaganda arm of the government: they merely look for and focus on anything that will distract Americans from Iraq and the rest of the government's viciousness and stupidity. Bread and circuses. (With bread becoming so expensive, they'll just bring on more circuses!)

Yes, we need to be concerned about Chinese reaction to the protests; and, yes, increased Chinese rancor can be disastrous for the Tibetans. However, that does not mean that nothing should be said. We need better 'diplomacy' than we had with Iraq - and diplomats without the blood of a million on their hands.

The Indian devastaions were a century and more in our past, but no one seems to want to hesitate to complain about them - despite the fact that it's useless: there's nothing that can reverse history. In Tibet, on the other hand, the devastation is occurring now, and something can be done. The question is not whether it ought to be stopped, but, rather, How?

Brilliant article! Very factual and persuasive.

The author is certainly not suggesting that there be no criticism of the Chinese. He's merely trying to put that criticism in its proper context. He implies that the criticism is over the top given the facts, and that the western media seem to be taking an over zealous interest (if not delight) in reporting it compared to reporting the historical persecutions of their own countries. He's right!

The question is why? The answer, which every Chinese now know, is that the major western powers don't want a powerful China (racism, anyone?) And their mouthpieces, a "free, unbiased media" (heh!) is singing that song.

The U,S. doesn't want its hegemony challenged and only a rising China challenges that. England is still rankled that the Chinese dared to take back Tibet and Hong Kong from its grasp. Germany, under Merkel, is probably still struggling with remnants of Aryan superiority started by Hitler who sent his agents to Tibet way back when. (To what extent was the the Dalai Lama, a boy then, was influenced by the nazis 'superior race'? Hence his 'cultural genocide' charges). As for the French, well...they're probably rankled by the fact that Chinese cooking is better than theirs.

The poor Tibetans are tools for the west in their drive to contain China. And the Dalai Lama? Well, he's discovered the virtues of democracy. Too bad it doesn't include his being 'elected' to his position...

When the state is run by religous leaders, religion becomes a tool of oppression, as it was in Tibet. Most of the evil done in this world is done in the name of religion.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

"Religions have had a close relationship not only with violence but with economic exploitation. Indeed, it is often the economic exploitation that necessitates the violence. Such was the case with the Tibetan theocracy. Until 1959, when the Dalai Lama last presided over Tibet, most of the arable land was still organized into manorial estates worked by serfs. These estates were owned by two social groups: the rich secular landlords and the rich theocratic lamas. Even a writer sympathetic to the old order allows that "a great deal of real estate belonged to the monasteries, and most of them amassed great riches." Much of the wealth was accumulated "through active participation in trade, commerce, and money lending." 10

Drepung monastery was one of the biggest landowners in the world, with its 185 manors, 25,000 serfs, 300 great pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen. The wealth of the monasteries rested in the hands of small numbers of high-ranking lamas. Most ordinary monks lived modestly and had no direct access to great wealth. The Dalai Lama himself "lived richly in the 1000-room, 14-story Potala Palace." 11

Secular leaders also did well. A notable example was the commander-in-chief of the Tibetan army, a member of the Dalai Lama's lay Cabinet, who owned 4,000 square kilometers of land and 3,500 serfs. 12 Old Tibet has been misrepresented by some Western admirers as "a nation that required no police force because its people voluntarily observed the laws of karma." 13 In fact. it had a professional army, albeit a small one, that served mainly as a gendarmerie for the landlords to keep order, protect their property, and hunt down runaway serfs.

Young Tibetan boys were regularly taken from their peasant families and brought into the monasteries to be trained as monks. Once there, they were bonded for life. Tashì-Tsering, a monk, reports that it was common for peasant children to be sexually mistreated in the monasteries. He himself was a victim of repeated rape, beginning at age nine. 14 The monastic estates also conscripted children for lifelong servitude as domestics, dance performers, and soldiers.

In old Tibet there were small numbers of farmers who subsisted as a kind of free peasantry, and perhaps an additional 10,000 people who composed the "middle-class" families of merchants, shopkeepers, and small traders. Thousands of others were beggars. There also were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned nothing. Their offspring were born into slavery. 15 The majority of the rural population were serfs. Treated little better than slaves, the serfs went without schooling or medical care, They were under a lifetime bond to work the lord's land--or the monastery's land--without pay, to repair the lord's houses, transport his crops, and collect his firewood. They were also expected to provide carrying animals and transportation on demand.16 Their masters told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. And they might easily be separated from their families should their owners lease them out to work in a distant location. 17

As in a free labor system and unlike slavery, the overlords had no responsibility for the serf's maintenance and no direct interest in his or her survival as an expensive piece of property. The serfs had to support themselves. Yet as in a slave system, they were bound to their masters, guaranteeing a fixed and permanent workforce that could neither organize nor strike nor freely depart as might laborers in a market context. The overlords had the best of both worlds.

One 22-year old woman, herself a runaway serf, reports: "Pretty serf girls were usually taken by the owner as house servants and used as he wished"; they "were just slaves without rights."18 Serfs needed permission to go anywhere. Landowners had legal authority to capture those who tried to flee. One 24-year old runaway welcomed the Chinese intervention as a "liberation." He testified that under serfdom he was subjected to incessant toil, hunger, and cold. After his third failed escape, he was merciless beaten by the landlord's men until blood poured from his nose and mouth. They then poured alcohol and caustic soda on his wounds to increase the pain, he claimed.19

The serfs were taxed upon getting married, taxed for the birth of each child and for every death in the family. They were taxed for planting a tree in their yard and for keeping animals. They were taxed for religious festivals and for public dancing and drumming, for being sent to prison and upon being released. Those who could not find work were taxed for being unemployed, and if they traveled to another village in search of work, they paid a passage tax. When people could not pay, the monasteries lent them money at 20 to 50 percent interest. Some debts were handed down from father to son to grandson. Debtors who could not meet their obligations risked being cast into slavery.20

The theocracy's religious teachings buttressed its class order. The poor and afflicted were taught that they had brought their troubles upon themselves because of their wicked ways in previous lives. Hence they had to accept the misery of their present existence as a karmic atonement and in anticipation that their lot would improve in their next lifetime. The rich and powerful treated their good fortune as a reward for, and tangible evidence of, virtue in past and present lives.

The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation--including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation--were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: "When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion."21 Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then "left to God" in the freezing night to die. "The parallels between Tibet and medieval Europe are striking," concludes Tom Grunfeld in his book on Tibet. 22

In 1959, Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, breaking off hands, and hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling. The exhibition presented photographs and testimonies of victims who had been blinded or crippled or suffered amputations for thievery. There was the shepherd whose master owed him a reimbursement in yuan and wheat but refused to pay. So he took one of the master's cows; for this he had his hands severed. Another herdsman, who opposed having his wife taken from him by his lord, had his hands broken off. There were pictures of Communist activists with noses and upper lips cut off, and a woman who was raped and then had her nose sliced away.23

Earlier visitors to Tibet commented on the theocratic despotism. In 1895, an Englishman, Dr. A. L. Waddell, wrote that the populace was under the "intolerable tyranny of monks" and the devil superstitions they had fashioned to terrorize the people. In 1904 Perceval Landon described the Dalai Lama's rule as "an engine of oppression." At about that time, another English traveler, Captain W.F.T. O'Connor, observed that "the great landowners and the priests… exercise each in their own dominion a despotic power from which there is no appeal," while the people are "oppressed by the most monstrous growth of monasticism and priest-craft." Tibetan rulers "invented degrading legends and stimulated a spirit of superstition" among the common people. In 1937, another visitor, Spencer Chapman, wrote, "The Lamaist monk does not spend his time in ministering to the people or educating them. . . . The beggar beside the road is nothing to the monk. Knowledge is the jealously guarded prerogative of the monasteries and is used to increase their influence and wealth."24 As much as we might wish otherwise, feudal theocratic Tibet was a far cry from the romanticized Shangri La so enthusiastically nurtured by Buddhism's western proselytes""

Our leaders upport for the Dalai Lama and a return to their pre-1949 independence is not surprising, since this is the life they wish to duplicate for you, in the world of globalization.

Floyd forgot to mention that for the past several years, the Chinese gov't and the Dalai Lama have been talking about more freedoms and the DL's return--and then suddenly this? Could this really be self-destruction, then?

We have US dogma and propaganda; we have Chinese dogma and propaganda; but nowhere is there Dalai Lama dogma and propaganda. All three are hypocritical.

Xuan Di

What kind of schools do Tibetans attend? Do they have a Chinese or a Tibetan curriculum? Are the Tibetans taught Chinese only, or Chinese and Tibetan? Whose history, philosophy, and religion are they taught?

You may not know enough about American history to know that many native children were sent to boarding schools, at no cost to their families. No other group of people received that consideration. Unfortunately, at those schools, they were forbidden to wear tradtional clothing, speak in their own languages, practice their own religions. Those children who were younger were forbidden to learn anything about their own culture. The goal, essentially, was to westernize them as fully and quickly as possible. For some native peoples, this was most responsible for the loss of their culture.

I am not saying that that is what China is doing, but I am asking. I am also thinking of China's re-education camps.

Oh, medical insurance: how many Tibetans can afford it at that price? It may seem like a good deal, but it has to be seen in terms of the local economy: is it still a good deal? (For example, with the same amount of money, I could live much better in a small town than I can here in Chicago.)

I would be interested to know and understand details like these.

Ascott tries to excuse the genocide of the Native Americans by saying that is is ancient history and that nothing can be done to reverse history. Actually this is not true at all. Thre is a lot the US can do. For starters, the US can honor all the treaties with the Native American tribes that it had broken. This is not an unreasonable request. This is merely asking the US to honor the terms of its own treaties.

InjunTrouble,COMarc, and Ascott say it perfectly. What a bunch of Chinese propaganda crap! To say that we need never protest a wrong because of all the other wrongs is just... well, WRONG. The Chinese are in Tibet to take as many natural resources they can from the land to fuel their giant industrial machine. In the meantime they oppress the people and destroy their culture-- But gosh, they even offer places at Chinese Universities for Tibetian students so they can brainwash them! Oh Glorious State!. This is such classic Chinese defensive posturing; point out all the other wrongs in the world and try to divert attention away from your own atrocities-- all the while with the subtle threat of just how bad things are going to be for the Tibetians if the protests go ahead. Very, very ugly stuff.

And I'm really surprised to read the posts here and see how many are falling for it. And that a progressive site like Common Dreams is publishing propaganda garbage like this.

WTF????!!!! I could only get halfway through this. Race riots? Is that what fighting for your own freedom, autonomy and cultural preservation is? Hell, that's what's happening in Iraq then. Can any empire tolerate race riots? With this logic, the US is justified in its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Empires need their subjects to behave. If not, they must be imprisoned and tortured.

It is a terrible mistake to say "Anti-China" Protesters, by both demonstrators who call themselves that - and critics who thing "anti-China" is the essence of such protests across the board.

As for the assumption of Tibet into China, it is very fair to ask: How long does a thief have to wait before what they have stolen is considered to be theirs? I look to the USA and see that the Indian Nations are Historically invisible now. All talk of reparations or restorations are moot. They are a destroyed continuity of culture.

One can say "What is done is done". But we must speak up against the devouring of small peoples by greater peoples - why? Because this devouring of cultural diversity and rendering of minority people into 3rd class humans is a World Wide crisis. China is doing nothing other nations are not doing. China is a great and ancient Civilization.

But We must deal with Human Beings who see themselves as a unique people with the eyes of the heart... or lose our own Humanity

It seems to me that the article is incomplete. The Chinese national narrative has shifted from the early period of the Chinese Revolution and the idea of the Chinese as the victors in the struggle against imperialism and exploitation by domestic enemies of the people. The new narrative is China as victim who now looks to regain prestige and honor on the world stage and nothing will prevent that from happening. Of course the Chinese govt sees the utility in this--the CCP is ideologically bankrupt and corrupt with nationalism as its sole source of legitimacy. On the other hand there exists a strain of popular nationalism in China that the government frankly thinks it can control.

In 1978 Edward Said wrote that the West has created an "other" in visions of the East, but fashioned these images in a way that assigned the west all manner of superiority--socially, culturally, economically. Ultimately this reduction of the east allowed for its conquest and colonization. So, how does this work in the circumstances of Tibet? Orientalism becomes a critique of the behavior of many on the left, a critique of "liberals" and the Chinese as well.

Michael Parenti, who I happen to admire, recently wrote an article on Tibet called Friendly Feudalism. Basically he critiques those in favor of Tibetan self determination by pointing to Tibetan history as Buddhist clerical feudalism and that in as much as the Chinese are certainly not good guys at present they HAVE brought modernity to Tibet. Self detemination would only open the door to the restoration of clerical feudalism. He also notes that the CIA supported the Dalai Lama from the early 1950's to the mid 1970's. The problem? Well there are many. Lets start with the heart of the matter: Parenti is engaging in a kind of orientalist paternalism where the Tibetans "needed" to be brought into the modern world. This smacks of the same mentality that the colonial powers used to justify conquest. It is the imposition of a western perspective of what constitutes modernity. Look what modernity has done for the native Americans. Heaven forbid we let them restore their barbaric cultural patterns. Second is the persistence of orientalist thinking in the perception of how Tibetans are in the present; how is it possible for Tibetans to think of any other way to structure their society? Why, they are just going to restore the theocracy that existed prior to the Chinese invasion/liberation of Tibet. Thats right, Tibetans' collective thinking has remained static. The classic orientalist notion that that the East is unchanging. No matter the large community in exile or the fact that for better or worse the Chinese HAVE opened the door to potential and possibility. As for the CIA, I do recall something called the Cold War. Tibetan officials, anxious for support from some corner of the earth, accepted CIA support including the Dalai Lama. Its documented. However, this was a wholly instrumental relationship--the CIA sought a thorn to place in the side of the Chinese leadership an they found it. Somehow I don't see how this connection delegitimizes Tibetan aspirations. Ho Chi Minh received funds from the forerunner of the CIA for assistance during WWII. Did that delegitimize the Vietnamese anti-colonial struggle? In any case the relationship was instrumental and certainly did not last. By the way, what if we were to look at modern Thailand--Buddhist state with a constitutional monarchy. Far from perfect, but hardly run by monks led by a King played by Yul Brenner.

As for "well meaning", liberal Americans, their brand of orientalism is rooted in the exotification of Tibetan Buddhism. This is an inverted kind of racism where all Tibetans are smiling, happy folk who spin prayer wheels and really don't mind have their photos taken. How could those horrible Chinese treat them like that? Ultimately, the way I see it, is that Tibet quickly became a surrogate for any anger and resentment resulting from the invasion of Iraq. What I mean to say is that these "well meaning" folk: 1. Haven't done anything in the way of protest against the war in Iraq, but find it quite easy to express outrage toward the Chinese, 2. By remaining silent in the face of events in Iraq they have revealed a variety of orientalism in their attitudes toward Iraqis--they are Arabs, not quite as charming as Tibetans.

As for the Chinese, they have alot to answer for. Chinese ethno-nationalism so very much resembles American knee jerk, aggressive, nationalistic posturing that its frightening. In the case of Tibet the irony is fascinating: "orientals" (sic) engaging in orientalism. The Chinese narrative in Tibet smells so much like American Manifest Destiny it ain't funny. "Tibet has always been a part of China" If that were the case then the Tibetans would've been sinocized long ago like so many of the minorities in China whose culture is now paraded around for Chinese tourists in a fashion that Disney would certainly approve of. The geographical space of Tibet is the cultural homeland of a distinct people with a distinct culture. The Han claim to Tibet is based on a political claim to the country; that the Chinese had annexed the territory. Never mind the social and cultural history. Perhaps more significant is the Chinese claim to having brought modernity to the backward Tibetans. The colonial trojan horse for conquest--the British could not have said it any better. (Or wasn't it George Bush who said that the US would bring democracy to Iraq). If the Chinese elevated material standards for a certain number of Tibetans, that is to their credit. But that positive spin on the colonizing of Tibet is quickly erased when it becomes clear that Han settlement benefits (shock and surprise) HAN PEOPLE. So indeed the Chinese engage in an irony--their own brand of orientalism. The deaths of Han Chinese folk at the hands of Tibetans was unfortunate. But I can't help but think that when you settle in a place where tensions are obvious and your presence is essentially predatory then, well, you know what I mean. The west of the United States was not "won" without a few settlers finding themselves terminated with extreme prejudice as the expression goes. Sometimes I just marvel at the parallels between Chinese westward colonization and the "settling" of the American west.

Finally, its worth noting that the USA, France and the UK are historically expected to engage in colonial/imperial adventures. The Chinese were century long victims of these same countries and they have a revolution under the collective belt. Does this allow the victim to become the persecutor?

So many comments here on this subject - an interesting side-effect of this cyber-war over Tibetan self-determination. The article itself is, how shall we say, a bit crude and an interesting, but ultimately disappointing counterpoint to Peter Tatchell's CommonDreams piece "Not Just Tibet, China Too." I note that the Chinese leadership is so worked up about this issue that they've now funded an entirely new party in the U.S., the new "Party for Socialism and Liberation," complete with attractive Che Guevara logo. Undoubtedly many on the left will buy the message of an ultimately benign and beneficial Chinese leadership. Strange times. Of course, many of the criticisms of western imperialism (the take-over of Hawaii, Diego Garcia, etc.) are used as excuses for what has been taking place in Tibet - nah, nah, nah - you did it, now it's our turn to be the dirty little imperialists. Isn't that an immature and unsatisfying response? What about the attack on Tibet's feudal past and those nasty old serf-owning Lamas? That kind of hatchet job can be levelled at nearly all pre-industrial cultures world-wide . . . hardly just a Tibetan historical problem. Enough said. It will be increasingly difficult to keep a clear message about the need for compassion for Tibetans and Chinese in these waters of the cyber-war, but if you can survive the onslaught, hopefully at the end of the day, some positive changes for the better will emerge for the Tibetans in terms of self-determination and for the Chinese in terms of broader democratic dialogue. I remain optimistic, once the fires of passion and anger die down from the new cyber cops of China. Peace.

This tu quoque defense of China's aggression is disgusting. If we followed its logic there would be no speaking out on human rights anywhere, ever. No progress would be possible. I suspect the author is a paid propagandist.

icemilkcoffee

Do you make it a habit to misrepresent people's statements? Or do you simply find it impossible to stop repeating old mantras?

No, actually, I didn't try to excuse anything. I didn't even try to explain it. What I said was that the accomplished devastation of cultures simply cannot be reversed. People cannot be brought back from the dead. Remainders of cultures can be encouraged, no more. What is lost, is lost.

I agree that honoring treaties is important, but that can only address current problems. It won't change what's already been done. Do you really think that honoring treaties will change history? (Read a lot of fantasy stories, do you?)

Put simply, just for you: time is essential. Protesting past genocides cannot reverse them. Protesting current ongoing gonocides at least has the possibility of stopping them.

I think someone has a jerky knee.

Montreal 1

Yes, I agree about Tibet's essentially feudal system. What that has to do with wanting China to give Tibet back to the Tibetans, I cannot see.

I believe that it is for the people themselves to decide when to abandon a system, and for what. If free Tibetans believe that they fare no better than feudal peasants and decide they want to throw off the shackles that the monks place on them, then I believe that we ought to help them in their efforts.

First things first, however. Freedom from foreign invaders first. Freedom from internal oppressors can follow.

By the way, I am an atheist. I prefer no brand of Buddhism. In fact, I would like to see all airy-fairy superstitions abandoned. However, outlawing a people's beliefs and punishing them for practicing their religion is not conducive to garnering their support for your changes. Dictating change is not an effective means of engendering change. When outsiders dictate anything, their efforts are bound to be resented and resisted.

Change is a natural process, and individuals and societies change in their own ways and in their won time. You can encourage it, but you ought never force it. Just as an individual must be prepared to embrace change, so must a society.

The Chinese government helped the dictators of Burma harm Buddhism there. Theravada (Southern) Buddhism is closer to the original ethical and meditative form of Buddhism than the Tibetan sects but the spirituality of both are threatened by the authoritarian materialist Chinese government. I'm a long term peace activist against US militarism yet US authorities are not attacking US meditation centers & beating up and imprisoning the meditation folk. Not long after the trouble in Burma and a little before the demonstrations started in Tibet I lucidly dreamed of dark clouds gathering over Asia yet the clouds clearing over the USA with beautiful forest and green meadows below. One aspect of the meaning was that a spiritual awakening is beginning in the USA. An Austin friend from India said there's a higher per cent of meditators in California than in India. Some who excuse China are what we Buddhists call Annihilationists, materialists who view body as self in contrast to the opposing delusion that there is some unchanging eternal individual self. Mind is an ever-changing process, the river is constantly reborn until the ocean of Nirvana. "Progressive" materialists lack the true heart of compassion that comes from seeing beyond ego.

The logic of the author, Mr. Rudmin, appears to be:

All persons who are against Chinese actions in Tibet but who do not protest similar actions by the US government are hypocrits. American protesters do not protest similar actions by the US government. Therefore, the protesters are hypocrits.

Rudmin's argument is only valid if he proves that the protesters do not protest similar actions by the US government. There is ample proof that the protesters do not support the actions of the US government in Iraq and elsewhere. Thus, Rudmin's reasoning is flawed.

So going along with this Floyd's logic, its perfectly reasonable and ethical for a larger country/state to physically occupy another state by force. We are fully justified in occupying Iraq and destroying its people. I can now heave a sigh of relief and go to bed with a clear conscience. Thanks Floyd.

It appears that Floyd Rudmin is Professor of Social & Community Psychology at the University of Tromsø in Norway.

It seems that the University of Tromso has considerable links with Chinese universities. Thus, Mr. Rudmin may be subject to a conflict of interest here.

It's very important that authors disclose any conflicts of interest in their articles.

Thank you Floyd for an article that explains the Chinese viewpoint.
I have been educating myself about Tibet in the few weeks since the 'riots' have been in the news and have learned much. I respect the Chinese Government's right to maintain order in land it claims under its control (and it appears that unlike Taiwan this is not in dispute) but I worry that the Tibetan culture will be 'cleansed' as a consequence.
As with anything dealing with China I am sure I have much to learn and look forward to reading other articles about this topic. Unlike some here I am ignorant on this topic.
But I worry more that in an era of 'pre-emptive' wars China will one day reach a level of prosperity and military power that they are going to become our Government's next 'threat' - and this one will test our newest nuclear toys

Since Mr. Rudmin does not support the Tibet protests, in order to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, by his own logic, he must support similar actions by the US government in Iraq. Alternatively, Mr. Rudmin can argue that Tibet and Iraq are not similar situations. But if he makes such an argument, then he undermines his charge of hypocrisy against the protesters.

When we do it, it is OK.

When they do it, it is no good.

It is the rule of the world.