As you may know, there is an article by professor Sperling’s argument about Lobsang Sangay la. At first I believed Lobsang Sangay la’s response. Because I believe he is telling truth as a fellow Tibetan scholar. But after I read more about Elliot Sperling’s another article. I changed my mind. I do not want you to believe me, please read free online Elliot Sperling’s article, called The Tibet-China Conflict: History and Polemics. The website is
http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/PS007.pdf

Best,

Tenzin

You have picked up on that contradiction well.

Marxian liberation theory needs peasants, “lessor” nations (nations once deemed by Lenin to be to small to survive on their own and needed to be incorporated into the large socialist super-states like the USSR), and wretches in order for it to work. But when the party gains control of such peoples, all of a sudden there is pageantry, dances, costumes, music, song, and depictions of the rich life of the common person. I wonder where this rich life came from? Did it suddenly appear whole hog after the vanguard party takes power?

The issue for communists isn’t this though. The issue is that such displays are for themselves as a self-congratulatory mechanism which gives them a sense of pride in their version of history. Truth in post-lenin marxism is not a searching of reality to see what is happening, but a result of the party struggling against “anti-revolutionary” forces. If this seems like moving the goal posts around a bit in a cheating game of football, you have the picture clearly.

“People should know that Tibet of 21st century has had a taste of Capitalism, in which fortune can be made and a life of an aristocracy can be lived – indulging in extravagance and doing ostentation. With this confidence in mind that anybody could be one if one is enterprising, hardworking and fortunate enough gave vent to their disillusionment with the traditional society. The issue has almost been forgiven and forgotten. People don’t really want to talk about it as it is a thing of past.”

Reminds me of Sun Shuyun’s book launch (of “A Year in Tibet”), where she claimed that Chinese people choose to go to Tibet for the material rewards accompanying hard work (apparently government incentives don’t come into the equation) and that Tibetans could share in these material rewards if they would just get off their butts and do some work.

On a different note:

I’m wondering if the 50 cent Party bloggers are under instructions to try and distract attention from Serf Emancipation Day and the fact that it has been an “own goal” for the Party. Just a thought…

Recalling that zztop advocated elsewhere on this blog that Dharamsala should endorse all the PRC’s lies to get “a step closer” to the realization of “genuine autonomy”, Prof. Sperling’s conclusion must come as a disturbing blow…

Why make a fuss about this communist designed ‘Serf emancipation day’? People should know that Tibet of 21st century has had a taste of Capitalism, in which fortune can be made and a life of an aristocracy can be lived – indulging in extravagance and doing ostentation. With this confidence in mind that anybody could be one if one is enterprising, hardworking and fortunate enough gave vent to their disillusionment with the traditional society. The issue has almost been forgiven and forgotten. People don’t really want to talk about it as it is a thing of past. Older generations have stopped their orientations on such issues to the new generation as it would be nothing more than digging into the shit – The more you dig into it, more the stench it would give.
The article only serves as a recollection of the days gone by. It seems as if it is asking the Tibetans not to forget things, which should have been better if forgotten.

“It’s hardly likely that most Tibetans, after all these decades, are ready to buy into the government-enforced description of their past; such a ham-handed propaganda campaign may actually end up making many Tibetans view the past as far rosier than it actually was. It is also unlikely to win over large foreign audiences beyond those who already are, or would like to be, convinced. Most likely, it will simply reinforce a Chinese sense of a mission civilatrice in Tibet”

Even if most Tibetans, after all these decades, are ready to buy into the government-enforced description of their past is well enough. Remember that we are not here to entertain the foreign audience. We have a truth to present and if that is not convincing enough, you are free to buy the Chinese interpretation of Tibetan liberation.
Yes I do agree that china has a great role to play in this global financial crises except that Tibet issue. Of-course many have their eyes on this ‘financial injection’ but perhaps feeling a little handicapped morally because of the chinese track record and its treatment of the minorities. But now with this argument presented, It would be easier to submit to the wishes of this insatiable red giant with one bold face.
Shouldn’t it be better if the author had given an introspection into the plight of chinese peasantry in mainland china rather than the emancipation of Tibetan serfs. They should know that charity begins at home.
This is my supposed clarification to those wanting it.

I would like you to explain how the article actually helps the Chinese project in Tibet. I understand what you said, and would like clarification.

You said:

“What I mean to say is that sir Elliot has actually helped the the chinese with their propaganda”
Could you please elaborate which part of Professor’s article is aiding Chinese propaganda?

“we should refrain from such articles and ideas as this gravely affects our cause than being constructive.”

Could you please enlighten us the logic behind your comment above?

TCL