Perhaps the most hopeful moment in recent Han-Tibetan relations came shortly after 1980, when the Chinese Party Secretary, Hu Yaobang, went on a fact-finding mission to Tibet and returned with severe criticisms of Chinese policies. He advocated a two-pronged solution: Chinese investment was needed to spur economic growth in Tibet, but at the same time the Han should be more respectful of Tibetan culture. Cadres needed to learn Tibetan; the language should be used in government offices serving the public; and religion should be allowed more freedom.
I’m still not completely sure how I feel about Tibet, but the above is probably close. Interesting points (link to article below): 1) part of what Tibetans are fighting against is modernization, which will happen with or without Chinese imperialism, 2) much of the inequality starts with a linguistic barrier, 3) migrant workers are the driving force of change, and you can’t keep them out. Not sure if these are completely accurate – only skimmed the article, maybe a closer read later.
As a postscript, I don’t even feel like writing about the media (this is re: recent protests againt Tibet coverage). I don’t see how people automatically assume the media is or should be objective. It’s another one of those truisms in America. If you’re a business, you’re selling something, and does objectivity sell better than say, controversy?
Interesting article about Tibet below. It’s by someone who’s actually lived in Tibet and also elsewhere in China. To me it’s slightly more credible than someone who’s in Tibet for 5 minutes and needs an angle to sell to his editor next week.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199902/tibet-china
Comments, please.
I have comments, it’s just that it was too much thinking for a Saturday and then it was too much thinking for a Sunday and then it was too much thinking to be expected of me on weekday nights. but I have comments and they may be coming on a day I feel like thinking.