On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 05:24:56 GMT, PaPaPeng <PaPaPeng@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>At war with the utopia of modernity
>Tibetans' rage is directed not at communist rule, but the consumerist
>threat to their traditions and sacred lands
>Pankaj Mishra
>The Guardian,
>Saturday March 22 2008
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/22/tibet.china1
A letter (below) in response to the above article. I haven't visited
Vancouver for a decade now but have a couple of friends there who do
call me when they come to town. One said that at Univ of BC,
especially in the quota (aka highly competitive degree courses for
medicine and engineering for example) its practically a Chinatown
followed by East Europen immigrants and Asian Indians-Pakistanis. The
Canadian born whites have been practically squeezed out of the pool.
Among the Han there is also a pecking order - Mainlanders, immigrants
then CBCs - that reflects who is hungrier and therefore study harder.
kelg
March 22, 2008 2:22 AM
In British Columbia Canada we face the influx of Han Chinese as well.
Immigrants from Hong Kong and Taiwan, who have taken over the city of
Richmond and had started to spread into other areas. Vancouver is
considered the first asianified city in North America. In some parts
of Richmond, immigrant owned stores will not give jobs to non
Mandarin/cantonese speaking people. The university of British Columbia
is nicknamed the University of a Billion Chinese.
You might say--what about the indigenous people of North America. I
say--what about the indigenous people of taiwan who are not Chinese.
The han Chinese already reduced those people to parking attendants and
discriminated against them(as Tibetans claim now).
I sympathize with Tibet because despite its problems it doesnt need
more problems(especially environmental) brought by China. As for the
notion of China defending itself from attack--China can do that
without locking up Tibetan children and replacing religious figures
with their own(cynical given China's secularism).
A country with 1.3 billion people, who can affect food prices and
ecology by fads among its millions of middle class people, cannot say
"its an internal problem." Especially when they want to appear holy
for a trivial s****ting/cor****ate event.
==================================================
Another interesting letter.
Rashers101
March 22, 2008 4:22 AM
I was in Tibet in 1989 during the last serious uprising when martial
law was declared, and it was clear then that the primary source of
disquiet was not abstract religious, political or economic 'freedoms',
but more immediately practical concerns.
Western media (probably all media) are not good at communicating
complex and subtle cultural contexts and instead prefer simple 'set
scripts' to explain events.
A few months after the 1989 Tibetan uprising saw the Chinese student
uprising that culminated in the Tiannamen Square massacre. During that
whole episode Western mass media was as biased and as unrepresentitive
of the truth as the official Chinese government media, albeit for
different reasons (I saw both). Again, due to ignorance or an
inability to explain the cultural context, Western media (or at least,
the American media that I saw) resorted to set scripts (helped by that
irrelevant but televisual papermache statue of liberty!).
My point is that mass social and cultural movements are very difficult
to interpret and understand for those not familiar with the unique
contexts within which they happen. This now includes myself, who last
visited the region in the '90's.
With that caveat, I would imagine that the stability-obsessed Chinese
government is very, very aware that the 1989 Tibetan uprising was
followed within months by a China-wide uprising. They are likely
equally aware of the potential for the upcoming Olympics to influence
or even trigger more widespread Chinese protest (in the same way that
Gorbachev's visit with the accompaning international media presence
were crucial to magnifying the small protests that followed Hu
Yaobang's death in mid-April 1989).
Social stability is (rightly, IMO) the number one concern of the
Chinese government. China has a long history of internal rebellions
and uprisings leading to mass deaths (4 of the top 5 wars in terms of
human death toll have been Chinese, all more deadly that WW1). The
country also has a vast population squeezed into a relatively small
area (i.e. the eastern half), and it is a diverse country, with many
competing identities, interests and passions. Keeping the whole show
on the road is seen as the primary duty of the Chinese government,
which is not nearly as omnipotent as many would believe.
The Dali Lama has offered to talk with the Chinese government, and
they would do well to take him up on his offer. A series of low-key
talks with the Dali Lama at an overseas neutral venu would diffuse the
Tibetan situation and could be prolonged until the Olymics are safely
behind. This would reduce the likelihood of unrest spreading and might
even lead to a resolution of the festering Tibet issue.
Tibet needs the Dali Lama. And now, at this time, so does the Chinese
government. Hopefully they are wise enough to take him up on his
offer.
|
