Empathy does not live here any more.

I stumbled upon your blog a few weeks ago and really appreciate the efforts in your analysis of the various issues. As I read today an interview by the Chinese ambassador to UK, I was wondering if you would comment on it (http: //www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/12/do1210.xml ). To me it seems that the lady uses several "art of controversy" tricks to build empathy with examples, while avoiding the real issues. The numbers given about tourists, percentage of locals and industrialization are hardly relevant to the problem (is industrialization a good thing? are flocks of tourist beneficial? where do they get their numbers of "locals" while millions of Hans have settled into Tibet?). If you find the time, your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Fu Ying wasn't trying to generate empathy, the Ambassador was trying to blow smoke over the issue by creating a situation in which anybody whom argued against the status quo could be made out to be the villain, instead of China.

If the Ambassador was to stand up in the West and to try to argue Beijing was justified in destruction of the Tibetan way of life and in moving who knows how many Han into the region, in order to cement their control, on the grounds that "Tibet is an integral part of China", they would have been booed off stage and any defensive argument that they put up would have simply made things worse.

Instead, what the Ambassador did was to try to create a false rationale that could be argued in front of a Wester audience. One which it would be more difficult for Western audiences to object to without them appearing to be the bad guys for "rejecting progress and denying Tibetans a better quality of life".

This is exactly the same thing that Imperial Japan did in Taiwan just prior to what became WWII. Japan moved in, built roads, factories and seriously upgraded the island's agricultural capabilities by improving irrigation and food processing, then it stood back and said "what a wonderful job of improving thing we have done here. We should be congratulated, and anybody whom disagrees is against progress in Asia for their own selfish reasons".

This is public relations and nothing more. While the region known as Tibet has higher economic development and higher tourism than ever before, very little of this is actually filterig through to the local people. Most is benefiting Han migrants. It's a complete sham.

The Chinese media spin the story as anti-Chinese riots instead of anti-government riots. They try to make it something against the Chinese people. It is not against the Chinese people." —Tsering Wangdu Shakya, Chair in Modern Tibetan Studies, University of British Columbia

@Tsering Wangdu Shakya "The Chinese media spin the story as anti-Chinese riots instead of anti-government riots". Now how do you consider the killings of innocents Han and Hui Chinese in Lhasa, as part of anti-Chinese or anti-government riots.

People can be brainwashed to believe just about anything. Young people can be brainwashed to to believe anything.

Live From Las Vegas www.TheMaskedMillionaire.com

ACB, your logic is sound enough, if you believe Tibet is under occupation. That's your stance, then fair enough. But by same logic, if you put yourself in the shoes of chinese, who believes tibet is part of us for hundreds of years, part of our heritage, part of national identity, one of the fibres made what is called chinese today ( you don't hear we call us han, zhuang, hui, or miao, etc. in our daily vocabulary, do you?), then how will you feel? Did you try to look through the 'chinese eye' in this incident? I don't think when all the japanese, french, british,... came to china during the 19th and early 20th century, saw the chinese as one of them, didn't they? In shanghai, many public areas such as parks, were marked 'chinese and dogs are not alowed', is that just a fiction too, fabricated by the CCP?

"...one of the fibres made what is called chinese today ( you don't hear we call us han, zhuang, hui, or miao, etc. in our daily vocabulary, do you?)"

Here's a link to an article I've read that is at least tangentially related to the above statement.

http://www.blackandwhitecat.org/2008/04/09/are-you-really-tibetan-youre-so- clean/

I will have to agree with ACB here. I too come from a third world country that has been sacked, raped, and abused by Europe, America, and Japan more than half a century ago, for several centuries. However, sentiment in our country isn't Anti Europe, America, or Japan. Everyone is aware of what has happened in the past, but we have more or less moved on. We no longer dwell in the past, because we know that fostering hate won't make us gain anything. Although we do know that there is nothing we can do to change the past, we can however at the very least try not to make other people suffer in the exact same way we did. The mere fact that those several centuries were humiliating and hard on our ancestors should at the very least make us more compassionate to other people, when we see them suffering in the same manner. And in no way should we visit those exact same suffering on others.

As I mentioned before, I have never been to Tibet, and I don't know any Tibetans. But sometimes, people just want to be left alone, to live with dignity, and to be able to determine their own fate. This is probably how the Chinese people felt when they drove out all the then Chinese ruling class and foreigners from China more than half a century ago. I'm sure that the foreigners brought technology with them, and the then ruling class built roads and other forms of development, but in the end, all the Chinese wanted is to be left alone, never mind all those so called "developments".

As such, when the riots in Tibet occurred, I was appalled by several Chinese internet posts saying that more force should be exacted on the Tibetans. I have no real stand regarding the Tibet issue, since I don't know that much about it, but what so far disturbs me most regarding this is, is (what I perceive as) the animosity of the Chinese people against the Tibetans specially in internet forums; and that to them, Tibetans are just plain ungrateful, and as such deserve to be shot. Apparently, Tibetan life isn't worth much to your typical Chinese citizen. This is saddening and ironic at the same time because just a century ago, foreign colonizers of China whom China up to the present despise, may have been saying the exact same things regarding the Chinese. I'm not sure if any Chinese have ever reflected and wondered, "Is it possible that maybe Tibetans just want to be left alone?", "Maybe they view us in the same way we view our then colonizers more than 50 years ago", or, "We have built them roads and provided development, but maybe that's not what they really want". But instead, the resounding voices that can be heard are those angry and outraged by these "ingrates who deserve to be shot". Any Chinese citizen that can think beyond what the masses think should be applauded, but should be pitied as well. With the wave of nationalism sweeping China and overseas Chinese, if ever these Chinese who dare to think against the crowd speak out, they may be labeled "race traitors", and the "human flesh search engine" would then be put to work.

China has indeed risen and now stands as an economically impressive country. But as a country that has been victimized, and has gone through hardships in the past as well, what seems to be the absence of empathy from the Chinese people is saddening and frightening at the same time. Let the CCP do what it wants, it never listens to anyone anyway. But when it looks as if the general populace, if given the chance to govern, will be more ruthless and vengeful than their government, that is definitely something not only China's neighbors should worry about, but the Chinese as well.

thanks dood, it is very interesting article, I have read it. Never, I have said chinese society was free of 'Chauvinism', it is human fallacy, even Mao admitted himself and urged all the officials to limited it on the subject dealing with minorities. But I think it is no longer mentioned and carefully monitored in the last 3 decades as economic development occupied most population's mind.

I was born in the 70's, I can recall from kindergarten, I was taught there were 56 ethnical groups in my country, each of them have equal rights and the only difference is the numbers among the each group's population. Is this propaganda, yes, it may well has that factor, but nevertheless, it is the correct way to teach each citizen from very young age. That's my personal basis when I made the claim that the ethnical diversity is one of our national identity and characteristics.

• It is ironic, chinese are very proud of lots of our traditions, yet little care had been taken to preserve them. (In the 50s and 60s there were some efforts put into preserve minority cultures, recording folklores, music, dance, recording their languages, if they had not had a written system already, then one will be invented to. I don't think nowadays, such kind of efforts are carried out on the national level anymore.) I don't think everybody is aware that each individual has a responsibility.

• Culture is a living thing, just like language, I don't believe it should be just kept in a glass box, it should be able take any modern development impact, adapt, and evolve. Chinese culture as a whole is facing a particular challenge here, as the modernization happened so unnaturally fast. But when Dailai Lama said it was "culture genocide" in tibet, I was under the impression, he is accusing the Han and the Beijing government have pre-meditated, and systematically deliberated to wipe out the tibet culture, in my personal view and experience, which is a grossly distortion of facts. Tibet culture is facing huge impact under intense modernization, lots of traditional way of life will be lost, but it should not be read as tibet culture can't handle this change. It has a long glorious history can be traced back thousands of years, why shouldn't it survive for another thousands of years?

I think most chinese admit the Tibetan have suffered, they have, like rest of the country, rest of population, we went through the same 'great leap', 'culture revolution', etc. But none of these were targeted at them due to their ethnicity. Now, we are going to develop and rise up as a whole. Development comes with a price, we are going to pay for them as a whole. Most of chinese myself included see the nation as a unity, (naive, maybe, ill-intended, no.), that's why we voiced angrily when a malicious lie is told that tibetan was punished due to their ethnical origin.

Dailai lama and his government in exile are regarded as the true voice of tibet in the international community, but is that fair and just? There are about 100,000 tibetans support him overseas, and just say all the monks inside tibet are his loyal followers, that makes up what percentage of the entire tibet population of 5-6 million? Why a feudal elite ruling class with appalling credibility suddenly became a democratic representative of a population they had severely abused? ( I am not suggesting that they will carry on the old system now, nevertheless, I wouldn't regard them as good candidate for such position) Why the current tibet governor who is native Tibetan could not represent the tibet's population? ( Ok, he is installed by beijing government, then who installed the dailai lama, the Divine?) Why everybody assumes the entire tibetans want to be left out from modernization? (By the way, dood and CAB, Chinese did not want to be left alone just to be chinese, through out the history, as an inward looking society, the period was very short. Chinese did not want the opium, but welcomed the technology the westers brought in, we wanted to be treated as equals, but didn't get that. We adopt the westen idea of republic and abolished the feudal society.)

• I think the tibet issue is ethnical issue, highlights the ethnical tensions among the chinese society today. The past 20 years, this problem has not been sensitively addressed and dealt with. It's also an issue compound with a large part of population be marginalized under the economical development, both worth of international attention. But the 'western media' one sided reporting led the recent wildly spread anti-china, anti-chinese sentiment, and in response to such provoking tactic, an equally widely defensive and blinded chinese nationalism took place. Both have showed their ugliest sides, now what?

Just a note, the previous comment is posted by me, I just noticed on submitting, there was a typo mistake on my name. I was not trying to be another person, I know that ACB hates that.

And to dood, the website you mentioned was excellent, I enjoyed some of the comments which are well elucidated. Thanks .

dood: Are you from Indonesia or the Philippines, by any chance?

juldny: Why a feudal elite ruling class with appalling credibility suddenly became a democratic representative of a population they had severely abused?

I think that some perspective is needed. While the old Tibetan government wasn't exactly a picture of good governance, it wasn't all that much different from the Chinese government of the period.Outside of the Imperial Court and the so-called concessions the life of your average Chinese was one of Feudal serfdom and substance farming under a ruler who considered himself divine, whom maintained a grip on power by seeding the country with loyal lieutenants that adhered to a strictly legalistic view of how to keep the people in line. The Tibetan government and Imperial Palace had slightly different "excesses", but when you average things out they were both just as bad as one another.

Where things are different today is that the Tibetan government in exile has been exposed to democracy and is weak enough to know that it will not be able to attract international support unless it commits to democracy, while Beijing is strong enough to tell the West where to shove their ballot papers.

julndy:

"if you put yourself in the shoes of Chinese"

That was actually one of the reasons why I re-printed this story.

"you don't hear we call us han, zhuang, hui, or miao, etc. in our daily vocabulary, do you"

Nope, but modern Chinese culture is by and large based on Han culture with a consumerist twist. Han is the dominant ethnic group on the Mainland and it is the new landlord class in Tibet. with this said, I'm often use "Beijing" and "Han" in order to create a grouped differentiation. "Chinese" is really far too broad a term to use especially since what we are seeing is not under the control of the Chinese as a people but rather a small subset and because, technically, Tibetans are Chinese, too (As in, they are a component of greater China and are ruled by Beijing).

"is that just a fiction too, fabricated by the CCP?"

Nope, that one's real. If you read my blog back a bit you will see that I've had a great deal to say about foreigners marching around China as if they owned the place.

Mind you, I do about Chinese putting up "No Dogs, No Filipino" signs a while back.

Just found your blog and really enjoy it. Thanks for writing.

at julndy#8:"we wanted to be treated as equals, but didn't get that."

I'm sorry I wasn't able to mention this. But maybe Tibetans don't feel like they're being sufficiently treated like equals. Although, I am not one to say.

at ACB #10 "dood: Are you from Indonesia or the Philippines, by any chance?"

Yep. I should have guessed that by mentioning "third-world" and "Europe, America and Japan", where I come from would be easily deduced. Haha.

julndy, you seem like a well-intentioned and thoughtful person. Hopefully, the answer is "now what" is that there will be some people like you to discuss things calmly

I understand that Chinese people tend to embrace the idea of their country as a multiethnic state with 56 different ethnicities living in harmony. That's nice -- it's much better than being taught that the minority peoples are bad, etc. But, to look at a specific group, how do Tibetan people feel when they are taught about this idea? Do you suppose they feel the same way you do? What do you suppose Tibetans thought when they first heard about it in the 1950s? For instance, did you know that in 1951, there was no word in the Tibetan language which meant "China-including-Tibet"? In Tibetan, the Han parts of China are called Gyanag, "the black empire" or just gya, "empire", for short (I'm not sure whether this also includes Manchus, etc., but Hui people are called gya-khache, "Muslim imperial"). Since this term did not include Tibet, the government had to create a new word "Drunggo", borrowed from the Chinese language.

I agree that China has never had a policy of oppressing Tibetans just because they are Tibetans. However, that doesn't mean that the policies don't end up hurting Tibetans anyway. Residual Han chauvinism can still hurt Tibetans even if it is not an official government policy, because they are a lot of Han cadres in Tibet. As you know, the real leader of each government body in China is the head of the local party. So, the real leader of Tibet of is not the governor, but the secretary of the TAR party committee. Why do you suppose that this position has never been held by a Tibetan person?

Moreover, the government values loyalty, but Tibetans are less likely to be loyal than Han people are. In the 1950s, there was a huge revolt in Kham (western Sichuan) which spread to Lhasa, and a lot of Tibetans were hurt when the revolt was suppressed. Now, naturally, the government had to suppress the revolt, but that's only true because they insist on having Tibet. That's the result of occupying a place that doesn't want to be occupied -- you end up hurting the people who live there. So, I don't think it is a "malicious lie" when people think that Tibetans have been persecuted for their ethnicity -- it's not true, but I can see how some people might get that misunderstanding.

You can say that everyone throughout China suffered from the bad policies of the 1960s, and that's true. However, even if it's bad to cause problems inside your own house, it's worse to go to your neighbor's house and cause problems. You can't say to your neighbor, "Look, things are just as bad at my house!"

As for why the international community treats the Dalai Lama as the true voice of Tibet, one reason is that there is no alternative -- who else can speak for Tibet? If there were a democratically elected government in Tibet, it could speak for Tibetans, but there is no such government. The other reason is that the Dalai Lama is apparently popular inside of Tibet. When the government-in-exile sent fact-finding delegations to Tibet in the early 80s, they were mobbed wherever they went. A couple years ago, the Dalai Lama made a statement against wearing fur because of animal cruelty issues, and people in Tibet responded by burning their fur clothing. I'm talking about ordinary people -- I don't know why you assume it's only monks that support him.

I think that Western people's opinions about Tibet are usually based around two main opinions: 1) The Tibetan people have a sense of a separate national identity, of being members of "Tibet"; and 2) The Dalai Lama is popular among Tibetans, more popular than the TAR government, and so he can speak for Tibet while there is no elected government. Are these opinions false? If they are true, isn't it natural for well-intentioned people to sympathise with Tibet?

It seems we have reached to the fundamental point, unfortunately, it is a irreconcilable one.

Otto, you said:"...However, even if it's bad to cause problems inside your own house, it's worse to go to your neighbor's house and cause problems." I absolutely love your analogy. By the same logic, there is household, quite poor, always has a bit of problem. So the neighbors one day decided it is better to take away the children from that household. Is that fair? The household knows it has problems, everyone is trying to make the household better, why the neighbors are so nosy, what the right do the neighbors to have to interfere? What rights do the neighbors have to split the family, to snatch our siblings?

The first point: '...The Tibetan people have a sense of a separate national identity, of being members of "Tibet";' correct, but please remember no one is asking them to give up their identity, being Tibetans and being chinese is not mutual exclusive, they are not conflict identities, no conflict of interests, and no conflict loyalty here. We want tibetans to be tibetans, keep their traditions in their fullest glory. We acknowledge their uniqueness, and we appreciate them, and we want to celebrate them.

The 2nd point '...The Dalai Lama is popular among Tibetans, more popular than the TAR government...' allow me to borrow your household analogy again. Dalai lama is like a distant uncle, and TAR is like the parent who has to provide and discipline. When uncle comes always bear gifts and says things whatever the children want to hear, you bet the uncle will be more popular than the parent. '....isn't it natural for well-intentioned people to sympathise with Tibet?' May I ask you back, why whatever beijing government does, whatever degrees of sincerity chinese show have always been so ill twisted?

This bring us to our irreconcilable difference, you believe Tibet is invaded in 1950s, Chinese don't believe that. I leave that to those who are interested in history to do their own researches and draw their own conclusions. But I do know, under current international law, China's sovereignty over tibet is undeniable.

One can debate as much as one wants on the moral ground, both sides have equal good arguments. How about the reality? The fact is as a country, China and Beijing government will not give up tibet, as a nation, the chinese population will always include tibetan as one of us. We care about what tibetans want, it is human nature to care for one's own kin. We don't need other's permission to do so, nor do we seek others approval in doing so. We welcome international community' suggestions, constructive criticisms, and hope it will give guidance and monitor our progresses, the chinese are more than happy to learn and to improve. However we do respond violently when groundless accusations are forced upon us, our integrity are attacked and the unity of our state is under threat.

The current Beijing government, in essence, is still a war time government, its duty is very much a custodian role. it keeps the territory intact, equip the citizens with necessary economic wealth and mental awareness for the next stage's nation development. That was CCP's promise to its people , so far they are doing pretty well, that's why they still enjoy overall support, contrast to general belief by purely using suppression.

It is current government's responsibility to hand down an intact territory to the next generation and next government. The CCP has been called 'traitor' already by letting outer Mongolia independent, surely won't do it again. When chinese become more secure, and more confident, then the chinese people can make decisions for themselves and about the land. Tibetans may have a separate state, but they will still have to live side by side with Han, Hui and other ethnical groups. It is in their and all others interests to have a good relation, the current international climate certainly is not promoting that.

dood, you mentioned '... But maybe Tibetans don't feel like they're being sufficiently treated like equals.' I agree with you, they probably feel be marginalised, they should be treated better. We chinese don'e treat our own people very well. Even when there are polices installed, they have not been carried out properly, Beijing government must put more efforts into that. '...With the wave of nationalism sweeping China and overseas Chinese, if ever these Chinese who dare to think against the crowd speak out, they may be labeled "race traitors", and the "human flesh search engine" would then be put to work....' I agree with you again, under this incident, chinese as whole showed a immense immaturity as well as insecurity, just to show how unready we are for a democratic system. It will be a long hard journey, we will make lots mistakes along the way, international commuinty has to be patient, not to rush or bully us into something we are not ready for.

ACB, what is "human flesh search engine" in Chinese? Do you care to share some lights on this?

I debated a long time before venturing my ignorance in print about this……

What happen in Tibet is totally wrong and there is no denial idealistically speaking. But just because you have a green light that doesn’t mean you should cross the street when a big 18 wheeler going 90 miles an hour heading into the intersection.

Asia is old in culture and with a long painful history. She suffered through disasters and catastrophes of historical proportions. The land is soaked in blood, tears and hardship. Through out her history, the people are more concern about basic survival that “human right”.

The intellects can stand on the soup box and yield all they wanted, but it is the common, poor peasants who build the boxes they stand on. Human rights to these peasants are: food to eat, cloth to wear, place to live WITHOUT OPPRESSION and May there be no war (social unrest) for thousand years. If these conditions are met than no one cares who the emperor is .It has been and will always be this group that builds/ breaks.

China is like a pig headed old dog; you can not teach the old dog new tricks by yielding, screaming or beating but with time and lot of patients.

“Now what” that is the best I saw so far. Let’s put all our calm minds together to find a solution. We have to, failure is not an option. Asian as a whole has suffered way to long.

I'm a young undergraduate in a metropolis in China. Most of my friends show little interest in issues of this sort, while I am an exception. Very often I find myself surrounded by some fale or untrue news reports, and it's really depressing. Thiank you for your efforts to provide a window for me as well as many other Chinese who are eager to find truth in some issues like Tibet.

"maybe Tibetans don't feel like they're being sufficiently treated like equals."

The problem is that Tibetans are being treated either as second rate citizens, or as Han.

What Beijing is offering them is usually unobtainable in all practical terms due to skill shortages or migration (For example, the new jobs being created are being filled by Han who were brought into the area who'd been doing similar roles elsewhere, rather than by local people who needed to be trained), or they come at too high a cost (For example, Beijing recently forced many Tibetans nomads to give up herding and instead offered them fixed accommodation and work in industry or fixed agriculture, neither of which they had neither the skills required to do, nor a cultural background in. They'd known a nomadic lifestyle for centuries and considered it a poor trade off).

Imagine if you were a fourth generation cattle rancher and that was all that you had know, then the state government used 545 U.S. 469 slapped an "eminent domain" order on your farm and the surrounding area so that they could build a golf course and a big gated community. Then they told you that you should be happy because you could now get a job as a caddy or a pool boy, but that you'd have to learn to speak Arabic because the development was being marketed to the families of rich Saudi businessmen. Better yet, imagine that you're a native American, and that you are being told to stop hunting the range and to start dirt farming on a reservation.

Most Tibetans are not getting a fair deal out of this.

Otto Kerner:

One important thing to remember about the way that Mainlanders are taught about China's different ethnic groups is that Beijing teaches that China has many ethnic people whom exist within the greater Chinese identity, and since Beijing is a Han dominated entity this greater Chinese identity has come to mean the Han identity.

If you are an ethnic people you will be OK so long as you submit yourself to the greater Chinese identity first and say that your have a secondary ethnic identity give you a few interesting customs or twists on the overall theme of the greater identity. However, if you were to stand up and to say that your ethnic identity is who you are and that it comes first, then things will go harder for you.

'...China has many ethnic people whom exist within the greater Chinese identity....' This is hardly unique in china, is it? It is very common within today's society, look at today's america, british, australia, you name it, which one is not multiculture and multiethnical society, don't they all share a common national identity as well as their subset own heritage??? And in all these soceities, which one has absoulte even represtation in their individual congress/parliament? Minority is be called as such due to population ratios. What do you think the Chinese birth policy is for? Han urban dwellers only allow one child per couple and minorities allow for 2-3, one factor of this is to rebalancing the population compositions.

As for your conclusion '...If you are an ethnic people you will be OK so long as you submit yourself to the greater Chinese identity first and say that your have a seconadary ethnic identity give you a few interesting customs or twists on the overall theme of the greater identity..' do I dare to say it is based on your own interpretation and extrapolation. Where is the hard evidence on the beijing's policy on this 'submit' you are talking about?

ACB, it is my impression that you might regard me as a deeply brainwashed individual, in fact, since the age of 15, I started listening to BBC and VOA, actively seeking alternative new reports. And since I left China, I have not read any chinese side news reports. I have been equally unbrainwashed ( if I may say that) by westen media half of my life. Of cause that doesn't prevent me from 'programmed', I have limits on my subjectivity. 'What Beijing is offering them is usually unobtainable in all practical terms due to skill shortages or migration' I agree with you on this, it is market economy, it is beijing government's duty to prepared to local population adequately before introduce it. But even tibet gets its independence today, it will still face the exactly same impact, tibet can not be sheild away from the market economy. In an open economy, migration occurs natually, it happens in Europe, in Ameria, and in the east coast of China. That's just the reality.

"Where is the hard evidence on the beijing's policy on this 'submit' you are talking about?"

What would you consider evidence? Please take a good look at how Beijing talks about the Mainland's ethnic people and how it treats those who feel that being "Chinese" is a secondary consideration to their local identity. It is very must that you must put your loyalties to Greater China ahead of your loyalties to your ethnic groups.

I also I think that you will agree that the way to get on in China in general is to keep your head down and to act and speak in unity. You don't announce that you are different, or that you feel differently, or that you think differently, do you? no if you want to get on in life. Well, when you keep your head down and act the same as everybody else, the "same" that you are acting is post Mao Han.