In article <7167513.oz1WfLRYUc@Dharma>,
Peter Terpstra <
peter.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"They treat us like animals"
>Tuesday, 7 May 2013
>
>Tashi Rabten (pen name: Theurang) is a Tibetan writer, poet and editor
>who is serving a four-year sentence in Mianyang Prison,
>Sichuan Province. He graduated from North-West University for
>Nationalities and edited the now-banned Tibetan language
>journal "Shar Dungri" and also published "Written in Blood", a
>compilation of his poems, notes and writings on the situation in
>Tibet following the 2008 protests.
>
>In this essay, translated by TCHRD, the writer condemns the cultural
>insensitivity of Chinese tourists and the commercialization
>of Tibetan culture as the number of Chinese tourists continues to rise,
>exerting immense pressure on the fragile ecology and
>landscape of the Tibetan Plateau.
>
>They treat us like animals
Bad title! 'cos it's making a false advertisement.
A reader's normal response to the words "They treat us like animals"
is that of "They treat us badly".
The article below doesn't convey that kind of imagery. It's easy for
an average reader to say that the author is belly-aching. "What's he
complaining about? Tourists giving indigenous people money who are
all too happy to accept? Tourists snapping pictures at anybody in
sight? Tourists sharing the surrounding of monasteries with the
indigenous people? Jeez-Louise, what kind of times are we living in
today? Even if there are no tourists in London or New York, CCTV are
still all over the respective city, constantly monitoring every face
in its sight.
And the news media has just finished praising these CCTV cameras in
Boston for the speed with which the FBI succeeded in identifying the
bombing suspects.
And when you think about it, perhaps these tourist cameras may also
serve as a socially (in addition to the individually) useful function
of capturing the faces of a few potential self-immolation inciters
among the monks near the monasteries. How about that for a win-win
situation?
Actually, the author is quite bitter about his fellow Tibetans who are
all too happy to earn some money by being the locals who know their
way.
What makes me laugh and cry at the same time is to witness the
smiling faces of the Tibetan masses lured by hard cash. . . .
. . . When tourist vehicles arrive, ruddy-faced Tibetan women and
snot-nosed Tibetan boys rush into action with their horses. Holding
their breath, desperation in their eyes, they carry Chinese tourists
on their horses and walk up the mountains. Holding fifty-Yuan notes
in their hands, smiles written all over their faces, they kill their
time waiting for the arrival of other tourists. When I see them, I
wonder how a race that once conquered two-thirds of the world's
territory has now been turned into a bunch of soul-less slaves
serving other people. My dear fellow-countrymen, if we cannot paint
the bones of our ancestors in gold, the least we could do is not to
throw their gray hair in the wind.
But why did the author begrudge the masses for being materialistic
when the Dalai Lamas for generations have been so glad to collect gold
watches, diamond music boxes, all kinds of jewels, and tons and tons
of gold bars and gold coins? Why can't he have a little compassion
and share the joy of his own people whose parents or grandparents were
serfs working in extreme conditions just to have food in the stomach
in the end of the day while the abbots and landowners lived like
kings?
While I can sympathize with Theurang, the author, for his sentimental
yearning for an era that is gone, there is no suggestion whatsoever
that "They treat us like animials".
Actually, the author is extremely confused about that certain "race
that once conquered two-thirds of the world's territory" that, in his
view, "has now been turned into a bunch of soul-less slaves serving
other people". Be a little more kind to your own people and a lot
less assured of your righteousness, will you?
First, as you know from history, there might have been a "race" that
"once conquered two-thirds of the world's territory", if you want to
discount the Americas and Africa as well as much of the rest of the
planet, but it couldn't hold on to much of that territory for even a
hundred years. Part of the reason, about which many historians can
readily agree, is that the Mongols weren't sufficiently sophisticated
to rule that amount of territory, once they got off their horses and
put their swords away.
Second, the Tibetan masses didn't have a chance once they were turned
into serfs serving the monks after the latter figured out how to use
religion to make them superstitious, illiterate, and willingly work
for the ruling class practically for free for their entire lives and
still expect to reincarnate as worms in the next life.
Given the historical context, the Tibetans never had a choice. They
were only liberated when the CCP came and wrestled the power from the
landowners and the abbots, and outlawed serfdom and instituted land
reform.
Theurang can fill himself with "anger" and let "resentment boil in"
his own heart. But what he has described lends plenty of support to
the Chinese government's claim that the West's accusation that it
represses the Tibetans is a lie.
China's ruling class has no incentive to repress its minorities
because there are so many of them in substantial numbers. If they do
not repress the Miao or the Manchu, for example, then what motivation
is there for them to selectively repress the Uighurs or Da Lama's
followers, other than the facts that they are terrorists and
treacherous elements in the society who are wilfully working with
foreigners to destabilize the country to cause it to fall apart?
Thanks Theurang, your article does a lot of good to vindicate the
Chinese government - against the lies and distortions from the VOA,
RFA, and the like of BBC News' Damian Grammaticas.
lo yeeOn