The Success of Tibetans: Choeying Kyi's Bronze

This past summer, during the London Olympics, something very unusual happened:

Tibetans, the world over, cheered as a competitor wearing the People's Republic of China uniform raced for, and eventually won, a bronze metal.

Another unusual event occurred as well.

Chinese, the world over, cheered as a Tibetan competitor raced for, and eventually won, a bronze metal.

Why? Because for the first time ever, a Tibetan competed in the olympics.  Unsurprisingly, she was competing under the Chinese flag. I say 'unsurprisingly' because statistically, with roughly 150,000 Tibetans in exile and 6,000,000 Tibetans in Tibet, there is a larger pool of potential athletes to choose from Inside of Tibet and therefore under Chinese domain should they wish to compete in the olympics.

Tibetans, almost uniformly, were thrilled to finally see a Tibetan face in the olympics.  Choeying Kyi, a young woman from a nomadic family in Amdo, not only was able to compete in the women's 20 km racewalk, she took home the bronze metal.  She wasn't just the first Tibetan competitor in the Olympic Games, she was the first ever Tibetan medalist.

Along the track, Tibetan flags waved alongside Chinese ones, and banners written in both Tibetan and Chinese urged Choeying Kyi to win.

Of course, there were those who felt uncomfortable cheering on an athlete under the Chinese flag and understandably so.  I am sure that there are many Tibetan athletes who might be of olympic quality but wouldn't feel comfortable competing as a representative from China.

But there was a far more vocal group as well, primarily consisting of Western "supporters" who plastered the word "COLLABORATOR" over the photos of Choeying Kyi winning the race and campaigned and wrote on how she was a traitor, how she should have stood up for Tibet and protested or defected.

I ask these people: what do you think would have happened to her family if she had done this?  It's easy to say that, but would you risk your family?  You don't have to!

I use Choeying Kyi as an example, because she was one of the first Tibetans under a Chinese passport to make a big name in the international media in recent years.  However, I consider this just another symptom of a greater problem that I've seen among so-called "supporters." And it is the idea that Tibetans cannot be successful unless they are collaborators, the idea that Tibetans can never be truly Tibetan without being protestors.

But that request boils down to this: Asking that Tibetans in Tibet risk their lives and safety, their families' lives, for the sake of politics. Asking Tibetans to forfeit the right to just try to live a normal life. Asking Tibetans to forfeit the right to try and be successful, just because they would have to play within China's rules.  Who will they condemn next? The composers who must submit their music to 'copyright offices' where they are judged by censors?  The singers who's concerts and music videos must be published on a state run television? The Tibetan film directors who have no choice but to play their films on state run television stations because no others exist?

It's fine if you don't want to cheer Choeying Kyi on, but she isn't putting Tibetans in jail, she isn't making propaganda speeches about how Tibetans are So Happy Under the Great Motherland. She's living a dream under the restrictions that have been imposed on her.

So don't cheer for her if you don't want to, but how can people declare her and by extension any Tibetan who chooses to pursue success over mediocrity and safety over extreme danger for the sake of a political battle they don't know if they can win, a "collaborator"?

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.

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.