Being "Better Than"

I have to say, it sometimes amazes me how people can fail to recognize how offensive and racist they are being.

I occasionally read a blog called Angry Tibetan Girl (warning: NSFW Language), and she reads OT as well (thanks for the blog shout-out, ATG.)  We have the same opinion about each other's blogs. To quote her: "I'm not down with every post, but I like it for the most part." We also express ourselves very differently, specifically since she's angry Tibetan girl, it's a lot of ranting.  But a lot of her stuff is interesting and on point, even if we don't agree all the time.

Now, other than pointing out an interesting blog, why is this here?  A western reader on her blog sent her quite a diatribe (linked here and copied below) in response to another post.  We've seen our fair share of diatribes here, so it's rare that one actually surprises me with it's venom and racism.  This one did.  It seemed to come down to two overwhelming points:  White people are better than Tibetans.  Tibetans are lower than white people.  How is this not racism?  Read it for yourself below:

Response to Hypocritical Tibetan Poster Girl: Don’t see her point. She doesn’t address what I said at all, only hurls insults. She brings up the “ungrateful” bit but doesn’t comment on how it’s not true. To wit: “failed at living in their own community..” — Angry Tibetan Girl clearly fails at living in the West, in fact her blog is a good example of that.

And many Tibetans fail at living in Tibet, India, and the West, in a myriad of ways, I certainly didn’t fail at anything,

I would be great either in the West or here in India. In fact,

I sacrificed a nice life in the West in order to preserve Tibetan culture and religion.

“Feel important and valued” — same idea, the racist and hypocritical Tibetans like ATG want to believe that they are somehow superior and special based on their ethnic background and that they are inherently better than everyone due to their race, and resent the people that help them, how much help they and their community has received from the West and how much they themselves actually know about Tibetan culture and religion

(probably not much, who wants to bet I can read Tibetan better than ATG?).

“Helped individuals perpetuate their ‘entitledness’” — maybe by acting like jerks like her and thus making us realize just how unsophisticated some Tibetans can be.

“Whiteness” — just a clear example of her racism.

This girl is the Tibetan equivalent of an Alabaman KKK member.

Proves my point. Unless, she’s jealous of “whiteness and entitlement/ privilege”… “Enji” —

it’s spelled Inji,

and it’s a totally retarded and inaccurate word anyway. That she doesn’t realize this shows the depth of her lack of deep thinking about the issues.

Of course we can forgive most Tibetans for using the word, but someone who is fluent in English and lives in the West?

“I’m not saying all Injis are crazy” —

I like to joke that to some Tibetans “Injis” seem crazy because they can hold a logical argument together without resorting to superstitions and stereotypes, and are capable of having more than 10 original thoughts in their heads a day.

This girl must have had some pretty redneck backward parents to talk this way, unfortunately not uncommon in the Tibetan community,

as I am saying. Her response proves all my points quite nicely.

According to this writer: Westerners are better at living in the west and east, and we shouldn't forget his brave sacrifice in coming here! He is better at reading Tibetan! He knows more about Tibetan culture! He is more sophisticated! He has better spelling of phonetic interpretations of Tibetan words which are based on individual dialect and accent. He is a deeper thinker! He can hold more thoughts in his head than a Tibetan! He doesn't believe in superstitions or stereotypes!  And here's the clincher: the Tibetan community is full of "redneck, backwards" Tibetans.

And of course there is the whole "they resent me for all the help I give when they should be grateful" mentality.  Regarding that, I want to leave the last word to a Tibetan in Tibet, who may have summarized it best:

"We don't need your 'help', you are not here for 'helping' us. You are here to benefit yourself as well. We don't want you guys to 'save' us.  We are developed in our standard, you are developed in your standard. No one is lagging behind or backwards."

Using Tibetan martyrs for shameless judgmental self-promotion

Wow. I'm nearly beyond words on what I found today, which was enough to make me write my first contribution to this blog in over a year. I was looking on Facebook for updates on Jamphel Yeshi's condition after his self-immolation, and I found this:

Not only does this person find himself entitled to judge Tibetans' political actions, but he's made a very emotional space that was intended to be for those following and praying for Jamphel Yeshi-la's condition into an advertisement of his own pet project, delusions of grandeur, and patronizing claims that he can teach Tibetans to "speak to the world" better than their direct action and acts of extreme self-sacrifice have already done.

Wow, I really don't know what to say beyond this...

More on the immolations...

The ongoing immolations seem to be bringing the worst out in foreign "supporters." I know we talked about this before, but I am seeing it again. Specifically, I've seen several foreigners on forums like twitter and facebook, demanding that Tibetans not only stop the self immolations but stop showing any respect for the immolators, such as calling them Pawo and Pamo (hero and heroine) or martyr.

I use the word "demanding" for a reason. These aren't requests or advice, but demands. These people will quote lamas such as HH Karmapa completely out of context in order to "prove" that they have the right to demand Tibetans follow their ideas of political activism. In addition, these are almost uniformly people who have few, if any, deep connections within the Tibetan community. Needless to say, not one of them could communicate successfully in Tibetan if they tried. None of them, to my knowledge, had ever set foot in Tibet.

But even if they had, even if they had lived in Tibetan communities for years, spoke fluent Tibetan, had dozens of very close Tibetan friends who were practically family: they would still not have the right to demand Tibetans conform to their ideas of correct activism. How many times does it need to be said? Tibet is a Tibetan issue! Tibetans are the only ones who should decide how to take it forward. We are supporters. Our job is to support.

In a case of violence, such as a bombing killing civilians, outsiders would have the right to object to the violence and stand in defense of the victims. However, in the case of immolations the victims are the perpetrators. These young men and women have decided to take their own lives in a form of protest that shares a long history across many cultures.

Does that mean outsiders should condone the immolations? Not necessarily. Tibetans are the ones who decide how to take their activism forward. We, as foreigners, can try to be respectful supporters and voice our opinions, but we can make no demands in either direction whether saying "you must do this" or "you must not do this." And everyone, Tibetan or foreigner, has the right to their own opinion. Therefore, it is absolutely okay to choose not to condone the immolations. But the difference is this: If we, as foreign supporters, do not agree with the actions of Tibetans; we must recognize that it is not our country, not our lives and therefore not our choice. As abhorrent as one might find the immolations, and as many do, we are not the ones who need to deal with the Chinese on a daily basis.

So it comes down to this: We can accept that we support Tibetans and their rights to decide their own future for their country and their rights to decide how to achieve that, even if we find a certain tactic distasteful, or we can walk away and give up our self declared, innacurate title of "supporter".

If you truly believe that your right to object is more important than the Tibetan people's right to self determination, whether for their country as a whole or even just in terms of deciding how to protest, then you object to Tibetans' rights to decide for themselves. The whole goal is for Tibetans to regain that right to self governance. If you object to that, you have no business here.

Aaaand we're back!

Sorry, guys. The past few months the authors of this blog have been scattered in different locations, and with commitments, life and the amazing ability to procrastinate, no posts have been published. BUT, we're back. Seriously. There is absolutely no shortage of inspiration for posts (sadly.) That said, if you want to talk about something that we haven't covered, by all means, contact us!

Common Misconceptions: The Panchen Lama and the Dalai Lama's Rebirth

On this blog, we usually address actions by non-Tibetans that harm Tibetans. For many of these actions, the cause is ignorance. Today, rather than talking about behaviors, I want to try and clear up a very common misconception shared by many, if not most, foreign supporters.

It is the role of the Panchen Lama in the discovery of the Dalai Lamas.

Let us pretend for a moment that this is one of those tricky college exams:

True or False: It is the duty of the Panchen Lama, exclusively, to recognize the reincarnation of the next Dalai Lama?

Most people, including myself up until a few years ago, would answer "True." However, they would be wrong.

The Tibetan system of reincarnation is very complex, and so in general conversation, it is boiled down to its simplest terms. And in those simplest terms, the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama have a joint relationship whereby one recognizes the other. And, in those simplest terms, it brings up the uncomfortable question that the Tibetan community is currently faced with: Gendun Choekyi Nyima, the 11th Panchen Lama recognized by HH the 14th Dalai Lama, has been missing since May 17th, 1995. He was only 6 years old when Chinese security forces disappeared him and his family. Without the Panchen Lama, who will recognize the 15th Dalai Lama when the current Dalai Lama passes?

Based on this belief, many fear that if Tibet is not free prior to the passing of the 14th Dalai Lama, Tibet will, for all intents and purposes, cease to exist. This belief creates a false sense of urgency, whereby there is an extremely limited amount of time to solve the Tibet problem. Many people faced with this misconception urge forms of sudden-death compromise. Although I fully believe that the situation in Tibet must be remedied as soon as possible, I have to ask: is this deadline real?

Let's put the situation into western terms.

In the United States government, we have a Vice President. In the simplest terms the Vice President's duty is to take over the roll of president in the case that the president dies or is otherwise incapacitated. In doing so, a smooth government continues and upheaval is prevented.

However, let us take instead the possibility that the President and Vice President are travelling together and there is some sort of accident: Both are incapacitated. If we were only looking at the simplest terms, then the country would be in very big trouble! However, an entire hierarchy exists within the US government which would cause a series of shifts, thus providing a new president and guaranteeing a smooth continuance of government and prevention of major upheaval.

This safety net provides two functions: Firstly, it guarantees that if something were to happen to both the President and Vice President, someone would still be running the country. However, secondly and far more relevant to our case, it guarantees that enemies of the current political regime cannot overtake the government through assassinating or kidnapping the President, Vice President or other political leaders.

Likewise, the Tibetan political and religious systems have had such failsafes for years. In the case that the Panchen Lama is unavailable, other qualified lamas can recognize the new Dalai Lama. In fact, recent history shows that the system can work perfectly smoothly, even when the Panchen Lama is unavailable.

For readers who have seen the Martin Scorcese film, Kundun, think back and try and remember the role the Panchen Lama served in the film. You may recall that he was not even mentioned! Why? Because in the case of the current Dalai Lama, The Panchen Lama was unavailable!

How is that? The 13th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso, passed away in 1933. The 9th Panchen Lama, Thubten Choekyi Nyima, passed away four years later in 1937. The current Dalai Lama was born in 1935. The search for and recognition of the 14th Dalai Lama commenced in 1937 after the Panchen Lama had died. To put it simply, after the death of Panchen Lama there was neither a Panchen Lama available to recognize the Dalai Lama nor a Dalai Lama available to recognize the Panchen Lama. While the system of mutual recognition works perfectly when there is an age gap of at least 15 years, it fails when the deaths and births fall within about ten years of each other.

Being that Buddhism teaches impermanence, the Lamas who worked within this system were painfully aware that you could not conveniently schedule death and there needed to be a back-up system in the case of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama dying or being born at around the same time.

In the case of the 14th Dalai Lama, he was recognized by another high lama: Reting Rinpoche. As we can see when we now look at HH 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, 1989 Nobel Peace Prize Winner, and recipient of the 2006 congressional Gold Medal, the system seems to have worked just fine.

The disappearance of the 11th Panchen Lama was one of the greatest and most tragic blows to Tibetans in their recent history. As long as he is missing, it will remain an open wound and I do not mean to dismiss that in any way. However, it is important that we remember that Tibetans and the Tibetan institution have an emergency plan, set up and practiced, for a situation in which the Panchen Lama is not available to recognize the Dalai Lama.

Why did I feel that this detail of Tibetan Buddhism and politics was so important that it deserved its own post? In Tibet's current non-violent struggle, the two main weapons are truth and hope. Without truth, there is no reliability or legitimacy to the cause. Without hope, it is too easy to give up and in doing so abandon the Tibetans inside of Tibet who's lives rely on not giving up. While we must always struggle to move as quickly as possible, we cannot afford to create a false deadline whereby we can declare the struggle "dead." For Tibetans inside of Tibet, as long as they remain oppressed, the struggle continues. If we declare it hopeless, we withdraw our support, and that is the greatest disservice we can provide.

The "Radical" Dalai Lama

The media. We haven't concentrated much on them here because, to be honest, media representation of Tibet is such a can of worms that it's overwhelming to try and cover all of the ways the media disempowers Tibet and Tibetans. Therefore, I ask of readers that you be patient with us as we cover each issue individually over time. What I want to talk about today is far from the only issue or the biggest issue of media coverage of Tibetan issues. It is just the one I saw most recently.

While doing my daily BBC browse, I came upon this headline on the front page for Asia-Pacific news.

"China attack." I was shocked and interested. HH Dalai Lama has spent the past several decades attempting to negotiate with China. It had been several years since HH Dalai Lama had made any strongly worded statements critical of China. If my memory serves me right, it's been since the protests and crackdown of 2008. However, even those could barely be termed "attacks." Perhaps, with his official retirement from political power and instatement of the new Kalon Tripa, he had decided to be more vocal?

The small blurb underneath was limited to saying he "criticises China," and so I decided to read the article.

The moment I clicked the link I was faced with a far tamer headline:

And an article even tamer yet:

This supposed attack, according to the BBC, was such things as the Dalai Lama maintaining that he, himself, made China uncomfortable for talking about the truth. "Made China uncomfortable?" If that's an attack, then tickling someone with a feather is felony assault!

He continues by mentioning that "Some Chinese officials describe me as a demon so naturally they fear...the demon." Here, the Dalai Lama is referencing widely publicized incidences where major Chinese officials have called him names and then showing understanding for the Chinese officials by justifying that they are just scared and having a fear reaction.

The so-called attack continues with (as the BBC puts it)

"He said that 'hypocrisy' has become part of the fabric of the 'communist' system and said that those who spoke the truth made China uncomfortable."

Okay, I can understand the use of the word hypocrisy in quotes, but communist? While communist and socialist may be used as an accusation and insult by American conservatives, this hardly applies in the case of China which describes itself as and is, according to its own constitution and ruling party, a communist nation!

This supposed "attack" is nothing more than observations that can be backed up by any reading of the news, and a few statements that are clearly from the Dalai Lama's point of view as a representative of Tibet. Unlike China, which calls the Dalai Lama a "Wolf in sheep's clothing" or a "demon," statements which could be termed attacks, how can statements such as "Naturally they fear [me]" or the stronger statement that the truth "makes China uncomfortable" be termed an "attack"?

This sensationalist headline, which is all that many readers will see, functions to falsely even the playing field. It makes it seem as though not only is China the rhetoric flinging, aggressive, attacking party with a total unwillingness to negotiate, but look: Even the Dalai Lama is on the attack!

I know, it's the media. Sensationalist headlines is what they do. But is this even a story?

On the recent crisis in Ngawa:

Tibet has been in the news a lot lately due to the recent crisis in Ngawa: As of the time of this writing, 8 young men and women had self immolated in protest of the Chinese occupation of Tibet during a span of roughly 2 weeks.

This tragedy has sparked a lot of discussion from many people, including many non-Tibetans. We, here at Overlooking Tibet, wanted to share this article written for the Lhakar Diaries by a young Tibetan in New York: How About Some R-E-S-P-E-C-T? I think this article perfectly articulates the fact that we should hesitate to criticize before walking a mile in someone's shoes. It also breaks down some of the common criticisms of the protests in Tibet, many of which are based on misconceptions, privilege, egocentrism and blatant misunderstandings of what drives the Tibetan cause.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but in such a volatile situation we first must strongly and accurately consider the situation of the people who want their voices heard.