Tibet is Not a “Cultural Experience”

The following guest post is by "Chiwa," a western woman who hopefully will become a regular contributor.

In college classrooms around the country, professors and administrators insist that Tibetan organizations (like their particular branches of Students for a Free Tibet) are not "aggressive" or "hostile", that they focus on "spreading awareness of the issues" and Tibetan culture rather than Tibetan politics.

Of course, it's really difficult to paint an accurate picture of what the "issues" are in Tibet when focusing on things like prayer flags, moos and the smiling, friendly face of His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama. The word “Tibet” is, at its very nature, a polarizing word. “Tibet,” as the People’s Republic of China allows it to exist, is known as the Tibetan Autonomous Region, or TAR. The TAR was created in 1965.

The word "Tibet" is, at its very nature, a polarized word. "Tibet," as the People's Republic of China allows it to exist, is known as the Tibetan Autonomous Region, or TAR. The TAR was created in 1965.

In this illustration by the BBC, the Tibetan Autonomous Region is the very light beige area. The green line, extending into the Chinese provinces of Qinghai, Sichuan, and parts of Gansu and Yunnan, is often referred to as “historical” Tibet. In these areas, the vast majority of people are “ethnically” Tibetan.

In this illustration, the Chinese provinces are given alternate (and rightful) names— a majority of what is known as Qinghai is actually the Tibetan province of Amdo, and the Tibetan province of Kham exists in the Chinese province of Sichuan.

When the Yushu earthquake occurred in 2010 (om mani padme hum), there were many facts that were wrongly reported by the Western media—including the mislabeling of the victims as "Chinese."

The earthquake originated in what is known as the Yushu Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, where, according to the Yushu Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture Statistics Bureau in 2005, 97.25% of the population is Tibetan, with the next largest ethnic group being Han at 2.56%. The vast majority of the victims were not Chinese—they were Tibetan (Khampa).

It’s hard to claim that you’re “spreading awareness about the issues” when the issues aren’t even being discussed. Another year passes and “Seven Years in Tibet” is screened again instead of more revolutionary material, such as Dhondup Wangchen’s film “Leaving Fear Behind”, for which he is still imprisoned.

Violently splitting Tibetan culture from Tibetan politics and the history of the Chinese invasion in order to make the truth taste a little sweeter, the tragedy a little less brutal, is an injustice. Maybe we think that if we don’t aggressively pursue the issue, we are more likely to arouse new supporters—and I will buy this to a certain extent, because the issues of Tibet are vast. The crimes committed against the Tibetan people are not merely religious or political in nature; their lifestyles are being forcibly changed, their land is being destroyed, and in exile they face numerous issues ranging from health issues to language and cultural barriers.

I’m not interested in a “cultural experience.” Stop trying to raise awareness about the culture, stop trying to keep the Tibetan culture alive—if you’re not a Tibetan, it is not your culture to save. We should be working with them, rather than touting their culture as something unique and on the verge of extinction so we should hurry up and see it while it lasts.

Painting Tibet as a “cultural experience” is serious erasure. The image of Tibet may never recover, if college administrators (and others) do everything in their power to deny the fact that “Tibet” is a political issue at its very heart.

“Twenty years ago, when the public didn’t know the first thing about Tibet, we used to pray and dream that somehow Tibet would become a household word. If people knew the truth, we believed, they would come forth and intervene. Tibet would be saved. Now Tibet was indeed a household word, but China had imposed its will, transformed it. Beyond our worst nightmares.” (one of the women in “Sky Train: Tibetan Women on the Edge of History” by Canyon Sam)

Setting a Low Bar

Tibet is a topic about which most Americans, and presumably most people world wide, are extremely ignorant. A recent religion poll showed that less than half of Americans knew what religion the Dalai Lama, who is currently in Washington DC, is. I've met American private school seniors who asked me whether Tibet was in Europe or Africa. I think it's safe to say that many, if not most, Americans could not find Tibet on an unmarked map or explain what "Free Tibet" means.

You won't find the invasion and occupation of Tibet in a high school World History textbook and, even at a large university, you will be lucky to find even one class about Tibet (although a Buddhism course will surely cover at least a little bit.) The resulting ignorance creates a glut of issues. From an information standpoint, the biggest issue is that the majority of non-Dharma Tibetan resources available to non-Tibetans (who do not speak Tibetan) are written by a very small number of people. The intentions of some of those people is enough for another post entirely, so I'll save it for later.

This wide spread ignorance has set the bar for knowledge incredibly low. Almost anyone who knows the basics of the Tibetan situation, or I should say almost anyone who seems to know the basics of the Tibetan situation, is practically an expert and can play themselves off as one.

However, many have spent very little time in Tibetan communities, can't speak Tibetan, and only have a knowledge based on hearsay or a bit of reading, and a good deal of misunderstanding.

I know because I was one. I hope I'm not any more, but I definitely was one just like this in the beginning. It's embarrassing for me to think back on it and the misunderstanding I propagated in others by saying things that I thought, based on my comparative knowledge, were true.

I don't think it's done out of bad intention or a desire to misrepresent, but just because the bar is set so low that almost anyone can be an "expert."

People with the best intentions, but very little knowledge, then try to educate the outside world about Tibet. I am the first to encourage telling your friends, co-workers and other acquaintances about Tibet, but a few people want to go far beyond that seeking to widely publish themselves.

I remember one book by a well intentioned, but poorly informed westerner which showed a photograph of a group of Tibetans walking past a mani pile (a pile of stones with prayers carved on them) but the author had labeled it as "a group of Tibetans walking past what are likely the ruins of a monastery." Many publish photographs or books with incorrect captions which sensationalize the issue. The Tibetan issue is serious enough as is, hyperbole is completely unnecessary. Beyond being unnecessary, it is detrimental to the Tibetan cause. When we use hyperbole, the Chinese authorities can accurately claim that we are quoting false "facts" and it is simply propaganda. Are these mistaken, exagerated "facts" closer to the truth than Chinese propaganda? It depends on the statement, but usually yes. But the world will not care, and will just look at it as those Free Tibet Hippies spouting bullshit. See? The Chinese are right, and they can prove it!

Another particularly memorable error I found in one of the few available Tibetan "resources" stated that the reincarnation system was created after a Tibetan king decided to become a monk, thus celibate and ending the royal lineage. In fact the reincarnation system was founded by the first Karmapa, Dusum Khyenpa, a monk, roughly 900 years ago as a way to carry on his religious teachings after his death. The Tibetan royal lineage is still alive and the current king, a direct descendent of Songtsan Gampo, is a teenager living in India.

No one has publicly called out this author. To make matters worse, since these self declared experts usually write based on sympathy towards the Tibetan cause, it adds a patina of disreputableness to any publication that sympathises with Tibetan people.

A good number of people decide that, with their newly found, limited, and often incorrect knowledge of the Tibetan issue, gained from a few weeks or months in India and a few books, they will make a documentary, publish a book, write a news article, or do something similar. Some write about their own experiences, in which case it is usually an accurate representation of what they saw, and I cannot complain. However, many decide that they want to expose the world to the Tibet issue, despite their lack of an understanding of Tibet themselves. They are blind leading the blind.

Many of these people may have spent years in refugee settlements in places like Dharamsala, but spend all their time around westerners or frequenting internet cafes instead of actually interacting with local people. Very few are willing to actually get their hands dirty or exit their comfort zones.

Am I missing something? I want to be told, if I am. But I just can't imagine that people who've never been to Darfur or spent copious amounts of time in a refugee camp, or at least worked for years with refugees and done a lot of research would decide to make a movie about Darfur to wake up the world. Am I wrong? Am I just expecting too much? I don't know.

I keep feeling like it's just another version of people who want to be white saviours, heroes, but as usual don't want to make any real commitment.

Frozen in Time

Frequently, during political discussions about Tibet, scholars especially will condemn the independent Tibetan government prior to 1959 as backwards and feudal. They may condemn current Chinese actions in Tibet, but will then follow that up by saying "If Tibet were still independent, they would be living in a feudal system, peasants controlled by landlords, and have no modern amenities or technologies. The Chinese government may be brutal, but they've brought Tibet into the 20th century! Look at the train, look at the roads." A similar argument comes from western Buddhists. A Tibetan commenter on "Incident at Gyuto" gave us a great example: While visiting Bodh Gaya, a western Buddhist nun, with a complete disregard for the feelings of the Tibetans around her, commented that it was good that Tibet was occupied, because otherwise Tibetan Buddhism would never have spread to the outside world.

Although seemingly different, these two ideas stem from the same viewpoint: Were it not for the Chinese occupation of Tibet, Tibet would have remained isolated. Nothing would have ever changed.

Before I begin my rant, I want to note that it is impossible to know what truly would have happened had the occupation never occurred. The best we can make are educated guesses.

That said, I think this view point is completely false. Why on earth should we assume that nothing would change over the course of 50-plus years? Tibet was already on the brink of change when the occupation started. The young Dalai Lama, rapidly approaching majority (the age at which he would take full political power), was interested in contacting the outside world. He wanted to bring democracy to his country. He had frequent contact with some of the foreigners residing in Lhasa, petitioned to statesmen abroad and had a great interest in the world outside of Tibet. It is safe to assume that, had Tibet retained independence and the Dalai Lama been allowed to attain majority as head of the Tibetan government, he would have pushed for a more open, democratic Tibet. In fact, when the Dalai Lama did attain majority and move the Tibetan government, one of his first moves was to declare the Tibetan National Government the only valid government of the people of Tibet and that this government was now a democracy.

In addition, with the British invasion of Tibet in 1911, the Chinese (even before the communist party) invading and encroaching on numerous areas of Eastern Tibet, the Russians sending in spies, India gaining independence and virtually every neighboring country shifting governments, it is unimaginable that Tibet would have been able to retain isolation.

Let's look at other countries. Prior to the mid 20th century, many countries around the world were in semi or complete isolation. For some, the isolation was due to a political choice, but for many others it was due to location or a lack of technology. Honestly, how many of these countries remain isolated now, in the 21st century? Even North Korea, the most self isolated, totalitarian and closed country in the world, has advanced technologically by leaps and bounds in the past 50 years. Remember, North Korea, unlike Tibet, is a country that desperately wants to remain isolated and is perfectly happy to oppress its own people.

How can we reasonably believe that Tibet would have remained the one exception in the entire world? The one country that, as all nations were swept forward in the technological and communication advances of the 20th century, would have remained stagnant in time? To believe that is to believe that Tibetans were too backwards to look towards the future.

As for the Buddhism comments, prior to 1959, the Dalai Lama had already travelled abroad to India at the invitation of the Indian government to go on pilgrimage and to celebrate the Buddha's birthday. He knew that there were Buddhists all over the world and many great masters of the past had travelled widely. I am sure that someone with as much drive as he had at such a young age, and still has at the age of 76, would have made every effort to travel abroad. Tibetan Buddhism, which had already been partially disseminated in the rest of the world prior to 1959, would have continued its spread when the Dalai Lama travelled. To believe that he would have been content to reside in the Potala for the rest of his life pays no attention to the kind of young man he was even before the Chinese ever came.

Cultures like Tibet are not quaint showcases in museums, perpetually remaining in one moment in time for others to ponder and exoticize. All cultures, Tibet included, live, change and grow. To assume otherwise is to disempower the people of those cultures.

Baby Sitting Tibetans

This post is by “Metak”, a western woman who'll be one of our regular contributors.

In my last year of university, I spent my winter break in Tibet. As a fluent speaker of Tibetan, I used it as a chance to learn more about the views of Tibetans inside Tibet.

Having spent my winter break in that way, I decided to spend my spring break meeting with potential universities about a graduate program. I knew I wanted to continue work on my Tibetan, but I was severely limited in my school choices, because I had decided to pursue non-Dharma Tibetan studies. Unfortunately, only a few schools have any Tibetan programs for non-Dharma students.

On March 14th 2008, I had a meeting with a highly respected (Westerner) professor in Tibetan studies at one of the top universities in the United States. I came into the meeting a bit more frazzled that usual. I had been woken at 3:30 that morning by a phone call from a friend, telling me that Lhasa was on fire. When I checked the news in the morning, I saw that the city I had just returned from was in the midst of massive protests. We were all holding our breath to see when the Chinese would begin shooting.

When I walked into the meeting, the professor asked me if I was alright, being that I looked haggard. I responded that I was fine, but the news from Lhasa was reported to me at 3 AM and I was very concerned about the outcome. I felt this had the potential to be something big, but I knew it would get ugly, no matter what happened.

The professor turned to me and said “Tibetans don’t realize what will happen if they actually get independence! Do you think they even consider the instability, human rights violations and collapse that would come with that?” His question caught me off guard, because it clearly told me that he had no close contact with Tibetans inside of Tibet.

“Actually,” I said, “I just got back from Tibet. They do consider it. They are willing to risk it in order to have their country back. And these problems would be their responsibility.”

“They don’t understand what that means, they are uneducated.” He responded.

“I wouldn’t say that.” I said, “I met several Tibetans with masters degrees, fluent in English, Tibetan and Chinese, who also expressed that exact sentiment. The Tibetans who I spoke to said that they understood this was a possibility, but at least these would be their problems, not anyone else’s. Every country has issues, at least these would be their own.”

“Well, do you really think they represent the majority of Tibetans?”

Had this not been a meeting in regards to my future education, I might have responded by asking “So, if they don’t have a college degree, they don’t know what’s right for them. If they do have a college degree, they don’t represent the population, so they don’t know what’s right for them. But foreign scholars like you, many of whom have never been to Tibet nor speak Tibetan, and have never lived under the constant oppression of the Chinese government, you know what’s best for them. What are you, baby sitters?”

Initially, it’s bad enough to say that a person does not have the right to make decisions for themselves, based on their own experience. We, in western society, value college degrees so highly that we believe that even if we have no direct experience, a series of letters after our name makes us more qualified to make decisions for fully competent adults than the adults themselves.

But, what bothered me even more was that this same person claiming that only the educated could make decisions, then completely disregarded the same decision made by the educated, because they did not represent the majority. In short, the message sent by this allegedly Tibet supporting scholar was clear, if you were a Tibetan, your opinion was worthless.

In the beginning, I felt like we had a new version of “White Man’s Burden,” the belief in colonial India that the British presence was necessary because the Indians were too childish and simple to take care of themselves. However, this does not cover the situation of university educated Tibetans. I feel instead that the people who express these sentiments are simply disregarding Tibetans as a whole. It makes me wonder why, if they don’t care what Tibetans in Tibet think or want, do they even claim to support Tibet at all? Any thoughts?