Lousy full-time employment...
Meanwhile, I truly enjoy watching the Olympic torch circle the globe. What an inspiring sight it is to see the flame carried by a runner guarded by the three divisions of the People's Liberation Army. It must really be a thrill for some of those soldiers to put a beatdown on Free-Tibet protestors from several continents.
Poor 'Free Tibet' protestors. I have such good memories of students marching around the Memorial Library at Wisconsin, carrying their signs advocating an independent Tibetan homeland. After all, we can't shut our eyes to the plight of the Tibetans. "Kids, are you getting all this plight?"
I just have one question. Can someone explain to me why Tibet would be so much better off if it were independent?
I realize that denouncing China is only slightly less popular than denouncing the United States, but if you look at the history of Tibet before 1950 - it's a mess. In many ways, the Chinese have improved the quality of life for ordinary Tibetans.
Consider:
China invaded Tibet in 1950. From 1951 to 2007, the Tibetan population in Lhasa administered Tibet has increased from 1.2 million to almost 3 million. The GDP of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) today is thirty times that of before 1950. Workers in Tibet have the second highest wages in China. The TAR has 22,500 km of highways, as opposed to none in 1950. All secular education in the TAR was created after the Chinese revolution. The TAR now has 25 scientific research institutes as opposed to none in 1950. Infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 to 0.661% in 2000. The United Nations reports an infant mortality rate of 35.3 per thousand in 2000. Life expectancy has risen from 35.5 years in 1950 to 67 in 2000.
I know, I know...it's all about self-determination, that magical buzz-word of Wilsonian democracy. But what does that phrase really mean? For example...
Two days ago a Hawaii sovereignty group known as the Hawaiian kingdom took control of Iolani palace, the former residence of the Hawaii royal family and a major tourist attraction. They announced to the press that they had taken this action in order to draw attention to the Hawaii's status as an territory illegally occupied by the United States. The group would like to secede from the USA, restore the monarchy, and return to an authentic (pre-1893) existence.
But why stop there? Why not go back to the time before Kamehameha (the original imperialist), when each island was a separate kingdom? Surely, the farther we go back the closer we'll get to pure Hawaiian culture. Everything will be better off if we just eliminate those contaminating aspect of western imperialism. First to go - democracry, Christianity, electricity, and the internal combustible engine. Oh, what a paradise it will be when Hawaii is once again a society of small villages, taro fields, and fish ponds.
Tibet will just have to liberate itself without my help. When I get back to Madison, I'm starting a "Free Hawaii" club.
3 comments:
Your list of stats assumes that all of those things (Chinese based education, roads, increased manufacturing capacity) hold some inherent value, and that ANYONE would welcome such improvements. But even though you and I enjoy a good highway, who's to say that the Tibetans do? Or, more precisely, that they value such things as highly as they do their traditional way of life? When you consider that the spiritual ethos of the country is anti-materialist, the "we've got more stuff with China" argument is even less convincing.
Remember, oh my student of history, that the British made the same argument about India that you're making about China/Tibet. India was much better administered by the British than by the subsequent Indian leadership (speaking specifically of the split between Pakistan and India), yet you wouldn't seriously suggest that the British should have held onto their colonies are you? Your point seems to be a revised "white man's burden" argument, a "China man's burden" if you will.
All that said, I agree that the student marching around an American University campaigning for a free Tibet is a bit ridiculous.
Yes, you're right. You're always right. How racist of me to think that the Tibetans are like the rest of us - that they would actually care about something trivial like a lower infant mortality rate. When will I learn to be more sensitive to the special needs of eastern cultures?
I'm not trying to suggest that Tibetans are better off as part of China than they would be as an independent country. But I don't think it's too much to ask the 'Free Tibet' cabal to make a more convincing argument than their trope of ridiculous interchangeable platitudes involving 'freedom', 'self-determination', and the Dalai Lama.
You're certainly going to fit right in at Maryland - the white imperialist is always wrong! Down with the colonizer! If only we could some how tear apart the nation-state apparatus and grant autonomy to every single ethnic, religious, and cultural minority. Then we could all exist in a perfect utopia of peaceful co-existence where no one dares interact with another for fear of influencing them.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...
You're certainly going to fit right in at Maryland - the white imperialist is always wrong! Down with the colonizer! If only we could some how tear apart the nation-state apparatus and grant autonomy to every single ethnic, religious, and cultural minority.
It's good to see that your powers of hyperbole haven't left you. You and I have talked about Said, so I KNOW you recognize the problem of ascribing values to a foreign culture based on one's on cultural background. On needn't be rabid in order to see the wisdom in using caution when trying to say what another country/culture should or shouldn't do.
Oh, and are you suggesting that there's a time when the imperialist IS right? I guess for a time, but long term I don't see how imperialism could, on the whole, be anything but exploitation.
Post a Comment