Chinese Propaganda on Tibetan
« previous post | next post »
As part of its efforts to spiff up its image for the Olympics and counter the widespread protests over its occupation of Tibet, the Chinese government is putting out propaganda to the effect that all is well for the Tibetan language and that China is promoting its use. CCTV has just reprinted this article originally published in October in the People's Daily (人民日报), the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.
In reality, according to Tibetan sources, China is promoting Chinese at the expense of Tibetan as part of its campaign of cultural genocide. Here is a brief news item. The Free Tibet report to which it refers can be downloaded here.
Ollock said,
May 1, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
I saw a similar propaganda article a while back and I was skeptical. It's hard to get reliable information on Tibet, it seems — with no independent foreign reporting, a lot of people seem to just choose which side to believe. Regardless, I'll go with the Free Tibet crowd on this one.
KL said,
May 1, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
For what it's worth, Ollock, I don't think independent foreign reporting would help. People come into this issue with certain pre-conceived notions that can't be changed by facts. If it's verified that the alleged practices are not occurring in Tibet, most people on one side will then argue that there are other ways in which the Han Chinese are nonetheless repressing Tibetan culture. If it's verified that the alleged practices are occurring, most people on the other side will then argue that there are other ways in which the government is protecting Tibetan culture.
What I think is missing for many Western observers is a context for understanding the Chinese attitude. It's not irrational — rather, it's just unfashionable. The Chinese view can be summarized as follows: "We are actively encouraging Han migration to the far west (including Tibet) and promoting Han culture and Western material culture at the expense of traditional Tibetan culture because we think it's our manifest destiny — it's no different from what the Americans did to the Native Americans in the 19th century."
To the Chinese, Western nations like Britain and America rose to power through genocidal policies towards other peoples (the British with repeated mass killings and cultural destruction in India, and the Americans with repeated mass killings and cultural destruction in the American West). But once they got there, they then turn around with a morally superior attitude and try to (often with force) prevent other nations who were "late to the game" to imitate their own path to power. To the Chinese, this is not a very convincing moral position — if the Western nations got to be on top of the world by following these policies, telling others that they can't do the same seems more like self-interest than real moral persuasion.
Now, of course the Western nations can respond to the Chinese: "Just because our ancestors raped and pillaged doesn't mean that it gives you any right to do the same thing. The world has moved on and now we don't think those things are right. To the extent you want to develop, you are going to have to find a way to do it that doesn't repeat our mistakes. And we'll help you figure out how."
I have found, in general, that if I present my arguments for the Tibetans in the above manner, a Chinese audience is much more likely to be sympathetic to the claims of the Tibetans. It's a much more effective way to promote the interests of the Tibetans than calling the Chinese "thugs and goons."
Lugubert said,
May 1, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
Now discuss to what extent Amerind languages are promoted in the US, or aborigine languages Down Under. We're not innocent in Sweden either; at least until the 30's (I think), speaking Saami in northern schools was forbidden.
I don't for a second doubt that the Han intervention in Tibet has raised the education level, mean income and general health status in the region, however much I cry because of the destruction of cultural heritage when it started.
I don't have the necessary experience of ruling a nation of some 1.3 billion people to judge what has happened and is happening; in fact, I found it difficult enough to sit on a community board for even some 33 000 inhabitants. Anyway, you can't make all the world into an open air museum.
Jean-Sébastien Girard said,
May 1, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
No country is truly neutral in this, and I doubt you can find a country where minority/multiple language culture preservation is actually acted upon consistently.
Even in Canada, where we love to boast about our bilingualism (let me pause and laugh myself sick here), attempts at preserving native language are on a strict community level (except maybe, to a point, Inuit languages of Nunavut), and quite recently, Manitoba stopped funding its French-language school system entirely.
Jean-Sébastien Girard said,
May 1, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
I have to adjust my previous commentary, as I seem to have confused this (much older) issue with others (Such as the struggle of Ottawa's Montford Hospital, Ontario's lone French-speaking hospital).
Ollock said,
May 1, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
I don't deny that our ancestors had similar policies. Even now there are a few similar problems in the West. And I definitely agree that calm and rational arguments should be used. We can't simply condemn people and talk down to them and expect them to listen.
In fact, KL, I like your argument to a degree — though it still seems a little of a "talking down" argument. I think that not only China but a number of the world's movers and shakers, including some in our own government, might need to be shown the benefits of multiculturalism and tolerance. Of course, I'm not sure exactly where or how we should apply pressure — after all, I'm just a student. But we need pressure — slow, steady pressure — if we want to change things.
KL said,
May 2, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
I don't have anything more to say other than to thank all the commenters so far for a civil and calm discourse. I have not been able to present my views in other forums without being called all kinds of ugly names or being accused of being a Chinese nationalist. The ugliness exists on both sides.
In some ways I wish this debate weren't framed as "pro-Tibet" and "pro-China." I'm pro-both. I would like Tibet to remain a part of China but for Tibetans and Han Chinese alike to live in all of China with religious, cultural, and political freedom. Right now it may seem that the biggest challenge to Tibetan culture are the Han Chinese policies — and they are — but even when these policies are adjusted to Western standards I'm afraid we'll still have problems. Han Chinese culture and language themselves, as Victor Mair constantly reminds us, are being eroded and changed and challenged and modified by English and Western material culture. It's not clear to me that even if we can get the Han Chinese to change to better policies these other threats and pressures won't apply to the Tibetans as well.
In any event, if you read Chinese, please take a look at the forums on creaders.net. The Chinese commenters there have engaged in some very insightful and nuanced discussions on this issue, and there are definitely many voices besides the strict nationalist ones. It might give a more complete picture of how the Han Chinese think about this.
Fred said,
May 2, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
Re minority language preservation, is Britain not a reasonable example? Minority languages were certainly suppressed for a long time, but today Welsh, Scots Gaelic, and lowland Scots are all encouraged. Welsh gets more love than the others (bilingual road signage, and the state broadcaster has dedicated Welsh channels), but official documents are published in all those languages and their use is strongly encouraged.
Even Cornish, a language that became extinct during one of the recent periods of repression, has been revived in a limited form.
Charlie C said,
May 3, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
KL, thank you for sharing your view on this topic. It isn't very often that one comes across a gem like this — balanced, mature, based on experience and knowledge. I truly appreciate your contribution.
Graham Asher said,
May 13, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
I wonder if Fred could give some documented examples of repression of minority languages in Britain – and by documented I mean more than anecdotal? I think that whatever there was, was very mild indeed, and consisted mainly in the fact that legal documents, court proceedings, and other official transactions had to be in English. Cornish became extinct not because of repression but simply by the natural process of people making the choice to speak English after the Cornish-speaking community became too small to sustain itself. The language frontier inexorably moved westward and reached Land's End. British opinion, and English opinion especially, has for at least two hundred years been rather sympathetic to the minority languages. But Welsh-speaking parents until quite recently have often deliberately brought their children up to speak English only, and the story was doubtless the same among Gaelic speakers in Scotland. The situation has now, with mass immigration, changed again, and I suppose Polish must be the main minority language of the UK now; and it needs no encouragement.
mig said,
July 21, 2009 @ 11:28 am
The hearsay I know from the Chinese-speaking internet is something rather complexish, characterized by:
* Constitutional multiculturalism for "inter-ethnic harmony"
* Deep suspicion of Han Chinese local officials of the Tibetan language
* Lack of willing teachers to teach Chinese in rural communities
* Linguistic identification secondary to ethnic affiliation, so for less-Educated Tibetans, it's easy to disparage Tibetan as "useless" and yet call oneself fully Tibetan