Jun 28 2008
Uma’s Dad Robert Thurman
Uma Thurman’s Dad is a professor of Buddhist studies at Columbia University and the first American to be ordained as a Tibetan monk. He claimed that Dalai Lama used to come to his house in the old days in Manhattan. He said “No Chinese people lived in Tibet before 1950. Zero.”, and Hu Jintao keeps denouncing the Dalai Lama is due to fear.
Hmmmmmm … I don’t think so. In the late Qing, my great great grandfather was the Viceroy in Sichuan, and he managed Tibet affairs. No Han Chinese living there didn’t mean it didn’t belong to China. The English criminals were sent to Australia, got what I mean? Second, fear of what? There are only 6 million of Tibetans, most of them are nomadic .. what can they do to China???? Geographically undesirable, who’s going to back it up? Hello, pls can anyone enlighten me here? another poorly informed soul.
You’ve got to read yourself on ‘Dick Cheney breastfeeding him’ ..:)) I had to laugh ..
Hi Irene, good post. I like Bob. He’s okay, but flat-out wrong that “no Chinese people lived in Tibet before 1950.” Moreover, he should know better. I get bored when people have to rely on hyperbole to support their arguments (even if I might agree with them). In this case, the esteemed Dr. T is off base.
Additionally, it behooves people on both sides of the Tibet issue to do reality checks. Inasmuch as I think Mao’s invasion had nothing to do with “the peaceful liberation of Han minorities” and inasmuch as the historical record doesn’t support Tibet as a province of China, the other side of this is that there are nuances and subtleties in Sino-Tibetan relations going back centuries.
Sometimes the relations weren’t so great (the invasion of China by Tibetan forces under King Tritsong Detsen and the subsequent subjugation of Chang-an comes prominently to mind); but I find that most of the time, relations between the people were pretty okay. I think I mentioned to you that when your great great grandfather was Viceroy, he had a kind of “eh” assignment; the most I could find was that the “border was porous (as it had always been) and Chinese and Tibetans carried on commerce as they had for centuries.
The governments of Lhasa and in more recent centuries, Beijing, tend to be other matters. I’d be blathering on far too much to go over the reasons why Lhasa would play back and forth between the Mongols and the Chinese and frankly, you hit the nail on the head regarding why Tibet was not exactly feared in its later history. A population spread out over an immense land mass doesn’t yield much in the way of terror especially if the last show of force by what was once an empire - and make no mistake about it; the Tibetans were fierce prior to the arrival and acceptance of Buddhism and it was an empire - was over a thousand years ago.
What is an issue is something you’ve referred to elsewhere. Treaties are viewed differently by different groups. Contractual law is seen as profoundly binding in western approaches to governance and agreement. The idea of word as bond as a genuine point of honor isn’t specific to Europeans by a long shot, but it has informed the basis for contracts and treaties. Not that that means anything; can I see a show of hands of how many treaties and contracts have been broken between, say, the American government and the indigenous peoples who occupied the continent? And of course, in modern litigation, you couldn’t sneeze without upsetting dockets full of people suing each other over breach of contract. But you raised a point in discussing your work with Mr. Wei in the magazine business that if something doesn’t go contractually right, that part of the contract is ignored.
Unfortunately, on a geopolitical scale that can have painful results. Between Tibet and China there have been several agreements; however, I have found none where any Tibetan ruler ceded governance to China or agreed that Tibet was part of China. Trade agreements, tribute paid to different Chinese emperors and so on were certainly part of various dealings throughout history between the two, but frankly, the outright acceptance of provincial status was never part of the deal from the Tibetans’ side.
That said, it doesn’t mean that at different points Tibet hadn’t tacitly relinquished certain areas of the Tibetan plateau due either to lack of understanding/foresight or just realizing that they were outmanned. Of course, in some cases, I get the impression - and this is an impression, not anything I can point to directly - sometimes that it was just easier to not hassle over the eastern part of Tibet. Sort of the other side of what you mention: bunch of nomads, hm, not really interesting…nyah, we’ll just keep an eye on things closer to home (meaning the cities and more densely populated areas.)
Which brings me to one last point. A number of my Tibetan friends, particularly my age and a little younger, have become increasingly aware that Tibetans really didn’t come out and say that they were Tibetans first; they were from Amdo or Kham or U; provincial identity was perhaps considered more relevant (because more immediate in a commercial/social context?) “Tibet” is a foreign term. The people who populated the plateau referred to themselves as Bod (there should be an umlaut over the “o”, there.) David Curtis of the Tibetan Language Institute related the story that the word Tibet came about from the phrase di (this) Bod (with umlaut-) meaning “this person”.
In any event, sorry to whinge on like this, but again, I’m disappointed at Prof. Thurman’s assertion when he, of all people, should know better. And I hope I added a little bit more to the discussion of pre-invasion Tibet. I know that China did use Tibet as a sort of penal colony, but again, even that’s somewhat incidental, since with the population so light and the general emphasis on politics was in the populated areas, the Tibetans may not have cared much and the Chinese, well, heck, “if you see a place, use it” was probably their perspective.
What I find sad about much of the rhetoric surrounding the debacle that is the occupation of Tibet is the lack of listening to each other. Ultimately, human rights is just a bargaining chip. It’s sad that humans don’t support each other in having rights, regardless of country, but where Sino-Tibetan relations could play to China’s strengths are in just this area.
I do think the CCP doesn’t want to let the Dalai Lama back in both out of fear that the populace would go nuts (which would necessitate the usual clamp-down and the resultant loss of face in the world’s eyes…again) but also because to do so, might legitimize the arguments of critics across the world. But there’s a third reason that I don’t see often referred to.
While His Holiness has repeatedly stressed that he favors a middle way solution where Tibetans would have autonomy in terms of educational, religious, and cultural growth, China would control the defense and economy, what goes often unstated is that there are vast numbers of Tibetans who don’t support that. They’re looking at complete independence, and this goes under-reported and unspoken, but the Chinese politburo is probably very much aware of this. Thus, the return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet could worsen the situation for China in ways many of us outsiders can’t quite get.
Chances are, you’re not going to find many Tibetans who will speak out against His Holiness’s perspective, but I guarantee you that many I know weren’t happy with it and aren’t happy with what they see as selling Tibet out and/or a political miscalculation. On the flip side, China could actually work with His Holiness on popularizing that idea, and give it a go.
HHDL had himself admitted that China has been able to do for Tibet what it might well have taken much longer for Tibetans themselves to do: build up the infrastructure, get on board technologically and enter the twentieth century. Unfortunately, the cost to Tibet in human terms has been vast. I’ll avoid the full litany; but technological advances and infrastructure improvement do not justify bombing and destruction of monasteries, wholesale slaughter, rape and torture and the forced acceptance of a doctrine antithetical to the traditional culture’s values. Hmm, sounds like something the U.S. did a few years back?…let me think….it’ll come to me.
Sadly, again, the rhetoric from the CCP is way too defensive and malignant to garner much support from the world. But they have at hand the chance to turnaround what is one of the great tragedies of the twentieth century and doing so could actually shame other countries to rethinking their invasive/imperial practices.
By the way, I think this sentence is funny: “You’ve got to read yourself on Dick Cheney breastfeeding him” but what does it mean?
Talk to you soon?
J
Johnnnnnnnnn .. I was holding my breath hoping not to see you as the only WASP among orange robed monks that either got arrested, or hand-raising (as if .. I heard all the protesters would act out when the cameras are on ..) protesting in front of CNN or BBC cameras crews during the Tibet unrest this past March. Thank god you’re safe and sound .. Blowing over the Big Apple anytime soon? Let’s debate Tibet over a bottle of Beaujolais and spicy beef, ok?