While talking is better than not talking, the guarded hope that some are spilling forth today should be even more tempered than it already is. There are certain conversations I would have if I must: with the police if it were to keep me out of jail; to a person with a gun if it were to keep him/her from pulling the trigger (I’d also bop till I dropped if told to dance); and to an attractive woman who told me I had beautiful eyes, even knowing that it’s all part of the pitch.
I feel quite certain that the promise of talk is being used here as a way to soften the growing international perception of China as a poor choice to host the Olympics. That the Chinese would consider withdrawing one paramilitary policemen, one soldier, one Han immigrant (just remember, they don’t see themselves as immigrants in their own country) from Xizang is probably not something that will happen in this lifetime – or the next several if that’s the way things go. Someone once told me that if you’re going to Hell, don’t bother bringing your ice skates, but if it’ll make you feel better, by all means pack them. But don’t forget to bring along the skewers and the marshmallows, too.
But talk is better than not talking.
1 response so far ↓
1 Lindel // Apr 29, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I think one of the problems in talking about Tibet today is that doing so brings up a lot of issues that go to the heart and beginning of the PRC and gets to issues regarding assessment of Chairman Mao.
When the PRC “liberated” Tibet in the 50’s the PRC itself was still young and the real purpose and objectives of the PLA in Tibet was driven by several factors: consolidating CCP control over the former Qing territory, countering western influence in Tibet, use Tibet as a staging area for promoting communism into Nepal and India, realizing Chairman Mao’s policy towards religion, demonstrating the legitimacy of the CCP and the PRC. I think it has hard for the CCP to talk about Tibet rationally with out opening up some criticism and examination of the early history of the CCP and especially Chairman Mao. I am not an expert, but it seems Chairman Mao really did not like the Lama’s or their form of religion. Considering the historical influence of Tibetan Buddhism within China and Mao’s and the CCP’s anti-religion policies and the promotion of the cult of Mao and the historic long march that no matter what they tried to do to accomodate the CCP the lama’s and Dalai Lama were definetly on the wrong side of good as far as the communists in 1950’s china were concerned.
The last time I was in China one of 20 something chinese asked me about history books, he was interested in reading history books that were not influenced by the official version of history. We talked about Jiang Jie Shi and Mao Zedong and it seemed there was some interest in maybe making a more objective and critical analysis of both men among more educated people in China. But there are still leaders in China who grew up carrying little red books and singing songs of the heroic long march who are not all that enthusiastic about hearing any criticism of Mao even if it is “true”. I think Tibet is in the middle of that. I remember telling my tour guide that most of the principle actors from the 40’s and 50’s in China have long passed away so maybe soon the government may realize that there is no need to protect the reputations of the long deceased and that maybe there will be a willingness to make a new assessment more objective of the early history of the PRC.
Leave a Comment