2 Comments:

I'm searching for the right word to describe this statement by the The Times' Jane Macartney that you quoted:

"It did not go down too well in those days, and still fails to resonate with many Tibetans who believe that the region already had a civilisation before the Chinese princess arrived in 640."

To use the adjective 'disingenuous' would seem to imply that the writer knows less than she is letting on, when here it's more like implying that she knows not only what Tibetans are thinking, but what rough percentage of them (note her word "many" and that Tibetans "believe" they had a civilisation...). I guess I'd say it's 'haughty' unless she has real arguments and basis for argument that what she says is really the case and that she's not just making it up spur of the moment in order to get the story to print in the morning. (For a moment I suspected that there was a note of snideness in her voice, but let go of the idea as being far too unbelievably unprofessional. I suppose I could be wrong. She's no stranger to Beijings deceits.)

I'll risk impressions of haughtiness (no time or space for lengthy historical arguments right now) and just say that every Tibetan is quite acutely aware that hardly any of their (pre- and post-640) civilization comes from China, with or without Wencheng. Many of Tibetans' routines of life, their food staples (tsampa, dromo...), their everyday traditional dress (chuba) and the like are of course deeply and undeniably their own. Tibetan cultural items and practices that do come from outside Tibet's borders come from India with very few exceptions. (Tibetan traditional histories universally reject Chinese Buddhism, most explicitly rejecting Ch'an (Zen), while accepting Indian Buddhism in its entirety. Some early Tibetan cultural heroes, like Sakya Pandita in the 13th century, insisted that absolutely all of Tibet's Buddhism must come from India [here including Nepal] and nowhere else.)

That's why cutting the the South Asian Buddhist Nepalese Queen Bhrikuti out of the Tibetans' own history, while at the same time elevating the East Asian Chinese Queen Wencheng into the cultural founder-hero she never was, is a desperate and (upon slight reflection) pathetic face-saving measure to cover up Beijing's richly merited guilt over what she has done, and is right now doing, in Tibet. I am confident it will soon be an acute embarrassment to people of Chinese descent everywhere, every bit of an embarrassment as the 'Gang of Four' and the 'Great Leap' (which was anything but forward). Don't tell me they don't know. And if they don't know, every Tibetan knows. Just ask any Tibetan you know (but first make sure they know they're free to speak what they know).

No, Jane. This simply won't do. You've allowed Chinese propaganda to frame the question. Then answered it as if Tibetan culture and aspiration could be defined by your momentary top-of-the-head rationalizations. (In the absence of what your newspeople call 'background.') This is not news reporting that deserves the name. This is BS. Go back to journalism school and while you're at it take a beginner's course on Tibetan cultural history.

Shame on Jane M. Yes, OK, but immeasurably more shame on Beijing and on the dwindling number that gives her any credence whatsoever.

And the word disingenuous? It much better fits what Gao Mukun says about 'his' play

“This is a work of art, not a lesson. Its aim is both to move the audience and to educate them.”

But Agam, you neglected to quote his other words given in the same story:

“Now you can say this is a perfect marriage between these two art forms just as the marriage of Princess Wencheng and King Songtsen Gampo was a marriage between the Chinese and Tibetan peoples.”

Yes, I too think he highly overworks the marriage metaphor. But then I doubt it was intended that we would take it to any of its logical consequences. That wedding that took place in the 1950's was of the shotgun variety. Under such circumstances annulment is an obvious option. At the very least a re-negotiation of the marriage contract. Especially when so very little love has been lost meanwhile.

By  Dan, at 20 August, 2008 18:46  

Dan,

Thank you. Wai Your words are an excellent addendum here, and so much more quotable than Jane's or Mukun's. (I did consider to use his marriage metaphor quote, but worried that someone might actually fall for it)

This writing - or most of it anyway - should be on front pages everywhere. It's what people need to know, and said so well. Chinese officials and apologists constantly charge Westerners with not understanding Tibet correctly. In a way they're right. Most Westerners don't know the half of it.

By  Agam, at 20 August, 2008 19:37  

Post a Comment