The madness of Qin Gang
Yahoo News reports on the latest diatribe from Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang:
Asked about a possible meeting between Obama and the Dalai Lama, Qin said the U.S. president should recognize the exiled Tibetan leader — a Nobel Peace Prize winner — as the former head of a slave state.
“In 1959, China abolished the feudal serf system just as President Lincoln freed the black slaves. So we hope President Obama more than any other foreign state leader can have a better understanding on China’s position on opposing the Dalai’s splitting activities,” Qin told reporters at a regularly scheduled news conference.
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/
Qin’s analogy is nonsensical on so many levels, but if I may ask Qin one question that puts it in its appropriate place: when can we expect to see a free speaking, native Tibetan elevated to the position of PRC president via a fair, representative, and democratic electoral process?
Silence.
Many more memorable Qin Gangisms are available to those with free internet access. For those in China, you’ll have to make do with the real thing.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
From another angle, if Qin is making references of the Tibet situation to Lincoln’s efforts to abolish slavery and prevent the secession of the southern states, does that mean he is making an inference that Mao is in the same philosophical and ethical universe as Lincoln? This is just bizarre thinking, absolutely bizarre.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:18 am
Mike – Agreed, Mao ‘freeing the slaves’ is a tough line to swallow. I’d also like to know who is China’s Martin Luther King in this little story. Hu Jintao is clearly leader of the KKK after his ’89 antics.
Qin has out-Qined himself with this one. I doubt if he sees it this way, though. In his mind I’m sure he’s created an analogy so brilliant that Chinese textbooks will be compelled to adopt a new mantra.
I tried to leave a comment over at the China Pendulum, btw, but it got chewed up.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:22 am
I think he is trying to divert from the real topic…
November 14th, 2009 at 11:23 am
“I think he is trying to divert from the real topic…”
Yeah, he strikes me as a bit of a diverter.
Oh yes, and I’ve popped a veggie under the jacaranda tree.
November 14th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
“Yeah, he strikes me as a bit of a diverter. ”
Creating diversion is what they teach every spokesperson in every country in “Spokesperson 101″.
That’s said, all Chinese MOFA struck me as pretty lame and stupid.
But again, there is probably nothing associated with the Chinese government that doesn’t strike people like stuart with such an impression. Whatever.
November 14th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
“people like stuart”
Get real, Pffefer. Your assumptions indicate clearly that you have no idea what I am ‘like’.
Good to see that you’re now blogging:
http://juchechosunmanse.wordpress.com/
In the spirit of pluralism I’ve added you to my blogroll. See how nice I play?
November 14th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I wouldn’t encourage Qin to pursue that anti-secessionist analogy. He might soon be proudly painting Mao/Deng/Hu in the Lincoln role… and maybe representing Obama as Jefferson Davis!
Leaving aside for a moment the questions of how much of the serf system persisted in Tibet in the 1950s and whether you can fairly draw a comparison (certainly not an equivalence!) between serfdom and slavery, I’ve always wonder…. since Tibet was “part of China” from the very moment of the inception of New China in 1949, and was under the control of the Beijing government from 1951, why did it take them so long to abolish serfdom? The Dalai Lama was only a boy when he assumed the title, and his government was stripped of any real power by the Communist takeover almost immediately afterwards. Seems to me like the Mao regime was far more culpable in allowing the existence of serfdom within New China than the Dalai Lama was.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I’d also like to try and pin down Mr Qin on his understanding of “China’s position on opposing the Dalai’s splitting activities”.
What “splitting activities” exactly? All China has are unsubstantiated allegations that certain people close to the Dalai – the “Dalai clique” – may be responsible for encouraging an organised and militant opposition to Chinese rule within Tibet. Ahem. Aside from occasional spontaneous rioting (if China turned up hard evidence of co-ordination of last year’s unrest, where is it??), there’s remarkably little effective opposition to Chinese rule within Tibet – certainly not organised or militant.
The Dalai’s public pronouncements all seem to be directed towards trying to restrain extremists among the Tibetan exile groups and the possibility of a resort to violent acts of resistance. He says he wants to work with the Chinese government. He says he’s willing to accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet – he’d just like to work out a more genuinely autonomous system of administration that better protects the rights of native Tibetans. What possible reason is there to doubt the sincerity of this position? Absolutely none.
Except that, after 50 years of demonizing the Dalai, the Chinese leadership has brainwashed itself, and is incapable of changing tack to embrace a more flexible approach to the Tibetan problem that might actually be in the best interests of China as a whole as well as of Tibet.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Am I being spammed out again, Stuart?
My earlier comment this afternoon seems to have gone astray.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Sorry Froog – just caught it.
I check quite regularly as it seems to be happening quite a lot (it’s not just yours). ‘Approving’ addresses doesn’t seem to be enough to establish a precedent in the wp machinery.
I blame fenqing hackers.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:58 am
Stuart,
At least I have an idea what you are like.
Froog,
This is one of the few things that I agree with you: Chinese government’s handling of the Dalai Lama (and Rebiya Kadeer for that matter) is really lame and stupid. If I were them I would invite the DL to come back to China and use him as the best as they could to stabilize Xizang and to nullify the cause and efforts of all those pro-TGIE, TYC groups out there.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:18 am
“If I were them I would invite the DL to come back to China and use him as the best as they could to stabilize Xizang and to nullify the cause and efforts of all those pro-TGIE, TYC groups out there.”
It’s a great idea, pffef; Qin Gang would then have to accuse the DL of inciting euphoria and ‘adhesive’ activities.
Seriously, I really don’t see the downside of engaging with the DL – unless they’re worried about loss of face on some level.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:43 am
“Seriously, I really don’t see the downside of engaging with the DL – unless they’re worried about loss of face on some level.”
You have finally struck a cord stuart. I think you are right on this one!
Again I am 102% all for engaging with the DL and bring him back to China before he passes. Unofortunately I have no contacts within Zhongnanhai.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Guys, I don’t understand why so many of you do not (or rather do not want to) understand Qin’s analogy. Personally I don’t think there is a complete analogy, but any analogy is only partial. In that sense, China did abolish the feudal system that was presided by the Dalai Lama. Tibetans were living under the slavery system, more brutal than the Blanks in the US. But Mao is not Lincoln for sure.
As for the China’s perceived refusal to dealing with DL, I read the accounts of both sides quite often. I admit that DL is a smart guy and he knows how to play the international sentiments. Publicly he says all the nice things. But when it comes to real negotiation with the Chinese government, he always make sure to demand outrageously impossibles. One of his demands is that any places in China that has historically ever been inhabited by Tibetans should be part of his self-governed “autonomy”. This would mean that practically major parts of Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu would be his autonomy.
That is why the talks very often break apart.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Chris, thanks for commenting.
I personally think the analogy is absurd on many levels. For one, if you were to have asked the objects of the PLA’s ‘liberation’ which master they would prefer, none but those in the pay of the CCP would have welcomed their new overlords. And, given the brutality and cultural destruction that has followed, their preference would have been – and remains – understandable.
No black American would consider Lincoln in the same way as today’s Tibetans look upon their ‘liberators’. There are good reasons for that. Lincoln also acted out of a deep sense of what was morally right, which is completely at odds with the geopolitical and dictatorial thuggery that lay behind the CCP’s decision to invade Tibet.
There’s simply no worthwhile comparison.
The Dalai Lama is smart, for sure, although I’m not sure you’re correct to view him as the stumbling block in negotiations. The Chinese, I would suggest, are quite happy to run down the clock on His Holiness.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:27 am
“No black American would consider Lincoln in the same way as today’s Tibetans look upon their ‘liberators’. ”
How do you know that? How do today’s Tibetans look upon their “liberators”?
November 25th, 2009 at 8:31 am
“How do you know that?”
In the same way that I know jumping into an active volcano is bad for my health.
“How do today’s Tibetans look upon their ‘liberators’?”
On the basis of my observations and interactions with Tibetans in 2001, the overriding attitude towards Chinese is one of contempt. The events of spring 2008 suggest those feelings remain, although I’m prepared to concede that my investigation wasn’t exhaustive.
Also, we’ve had serf’s emancipation day since then, so perhaps it’s all one big happy family now.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Well stuart, I don’t know what Tibetans you have met, I am thinking it is possible and very likely that the ones you “interacted” and “observed” tend to be a selective group of pro-TGIE Tibetans, you know the ones who are often quoted by the western media. I am always suspicious when I see western “journalists” and commentators telling me how hostile “the Tibetans” are.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:58 am
“I am always suspicious when I see western “journalists” and commentators telling me how hostile “the Tibetans” are.”
I didn’t find them hostile towards me at all. Besides, ‘contempt’ was the word I used.
The hostility lies in the imposition of Beijing doctrine on a people that don’t want it. And why should they be a party to the systematic erosion of their culture, language, and beliefs?
Meanwhile, Beijing holds a gun to their heads (quite literally) and tells them to fly the Chinese flag from their rooftops so the PLA can take a picture that shows the extent of Tibetan gratitude for being freed from ‘slavery’.
Be suspicious about that.
November 28th, 2009 at 5:01 am
Stuart,
Of course those one you met were not hostile to you. Pro-TGIE = anti-Chinese.
Again I am not sure if I could take your words on that. Not that I am saying all Tibetans are the happy, dancing, gracious folks that the CCP wants us to believe, of course there are people holding their grudge out there, like in any group (you don’t think some Han Chinese are hostile to the Chinese government?).
“the systematic erosion of their culture, language, and beliefs” is a lot of bull. The CCP might ban them from openly worship the DL, how did the several Tibetan schools of Buddhism suffer that is differently from how some Han-di schools of Buddhism under the CCP? Most Tibetans speak Tibetan only, a fact that speaks for itself.
Talk about “systematic erosion of their culture, language, and beliefs”, I would say westernization is the No.1 culprit. Down with the evil westernization! Western stuff belongs to the west only!
November 28th, 2009 at 8:58 am
“I would say westernization is the No.1 culprit. ”
Maybe, but it’s not imposed by force – it’s more of a natural progression
November 28th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Awesome. I want to start a McDonalds franchise at the foot of Mt. Everest and open a KFC franchise at the peak. Disneyland in Lhasa, anyone? Butter tea replaced with Coca Cola. Tibetan heavy metal or Tibetan rap would probably sound a whole lot better than chanting monks. Progress.
Hopefully, the DL won’t consider it cultural genocide.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Well stuart,”Tibetans you have met, I am thinking it is possible and very likely that the ones you “interacted” and “observed” tend to be a selective group of pro-TGIE Tibetans, you know the ones who are often quoted by the western media.”
Well, try this…I don’t know a lot of Tibetans, but I stayed with two Tibetan families in Qinghai in 2001, and while I was instructed to stay away from politics, one told me “thanks for everything you Americans did for us Tibetans” and another told me “tell your president to come back to help us kick out the Chinese.” And the Tibetan students I was with who doubtless knew to stay away from politics translated these comments like they were the most natural thing in the world.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:34 am
@ Zhongguophile
His Holiness would make a great rapper.
Btw, who do you think own the franchises for KFC and McDonalds in Lhasa? Tibetan Herdsmen?
November 28th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Thanks for stopping by, MAC.
Doubtless the naysayers will inform you that you encountered a minority opinion.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“His Holiness would make a great rapper.”
That would be an interesting sight. DL, covered in bling with 2 Tibetan ho’s draped around him, “M.C. Lama in da house! Whazzup! Yo, yo, yo! Our brothas in da hood are being oppressed. Free us from the Mickey D’s and the KFC’s! PEACE!”
December 1st, 2009 at 5:33 am
“Maybe, but it’s not imposed by force – it’s more of a natural progression”
Sure, just like if you want to land a decent job anywhere you’d better learn Englisch. So if you want to land a decent job in China you’d better learn Mandarin. Natural progression.
Once again, the fact that most Tibetans speak only Tibetan is a testament to China’s non-assimilating policies.
December 1st, 2009 at 5:35 am
MAC,
I am not doubting your experience, which is real of course. The point is, how representative of such views? Neither the Chinese government nor any western organization has done any wide-range surveys.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
“The fact that most Tibetans speak only Tibetan is a testament to China’s non-assimilating policies.”
Bollocks!
It would take decades, perhaps centuries for the Tibetan language to die out altogether. But that is likely to happen unless vigorous steps are taken to preserve and promote the teaching and use of Tibetan. That’s the exact opposite of what the PRC is doing. Is Tibetan an official language of government in Tibet, even a joint official language?
If you make learning Mandarin compulsory in Tibetan schools, make it the official language of government, and create a situation where Mandarin is deemed necessary “to get a decent job” even in Tibet, then you are eroding the position of the indigenous language.
The main reason “most Tibetans” don’t speak Mandarin is that they haven’t had much schooling. Rural education in Tibet is even sparser than in the rest of China. If Tibetans who’ve had decent access to education still don’t speak any Mandarin, that’s probably a political decision.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:47 pm
“Bollocks!”
Amen to that. Glad to see that new accommodation hasn’t blunted your edge, Froog.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:32 am
Froog, you are all about bollocks.
“Is Tibetan an official language of government in Tibet, even a joint official language?”
Yes.
“If you make learning Mandarin compulsory in Tibetan schools,”
Says who? You Froog?
“make it the official language of government, and create a situation where Mandarin is deemed necessary “to get a decent job” even in Tibet, then you are eroding the position of the indigenous language.”
Hell, like I said above, to get a decent job in China these days you need to be able to speak Englisch. In China Froog. Not in your beloved UK!!
“If Tibetans who’ve had decent access to education still don’t speak any Mandarin, that’s probably a political decision.”
Oh yeah? Your twisted logic really is amazing. Provided that most Tibetans have access to decent education, if most of them only speak Mandarin, it is the evil Chinese government policies at work. If most Tibetans don’t speak Mandarin it is their political decision? Fuck!
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:34 am
Froog,
Do me a favor will you? Do some research on Tibetan schools and ethnic policies in Xizang before we banter more about this, will you?
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Looking to you to do my research for me, Pffef. I was signalling my own lack of knowledge on the ‘official language’ point by putting it in the form of a question.
But if Tibetan is an ‘official language’, what exactly does that mean? Does it really have completely equal status to Mandarin? In what circumstances do organs of the state use Tibetan alongside or in preference to Mandarin? All the central government reports and policy papers on Tibet seem to be written and published initially in Mandarin. If they’re subsequently issued also in Tibetan, well, so are they in English and several other languages – it’s helpful, but it’s not exactly maintaining the status of Tibetan being the first or joint-first language to be used in discussing Tibetan affairs. Maybe things are different in Tibet itself, but I rather doubt it. (I wonder, for example, if proceedings in the criminal courts can be conducted entirely in Tibetan? I would hope so, but… Anything to share with us on that point, Pffef?)
Most Tibetans, I think, don’t have any desire to leave Tibet. The point I was raising was whether it’s now becoming necessary to speak Mandarin in order to get “a decent job” within Tibet? And, if so, is this a fair or reasonable thing? I believe it is happening in certain sectors, and is one of the factors which seems to give preferential status to Han Chinese immigrants, and thus leads to resentment among indigenous Tibetans.
Is there pressure on Tibetans to learn Mandarin these days? Yes, of course (chiefly economic – as you yourself have said, Pffef). Is there opportunity for them to learn Mandarin? Yes, but limited.
If few Tibetans are learning Mandarin, it’s either because they do not have the necessary access to education or because they are choosing not to. That’s obvious and undeniable.
The fact that relatively few Tibetans so far speak Mandarin does not really say anything about the impact of PRC policies on language, culture, and education in Tibet.
However, one might say that the fact that any Tibetans speak Mandarin is evidence of the pressure to assimilate into Han culture which they are now being exposed to.
That pressure is undoubtedly there, whether it is a direct or only an indirect result of government policies and the Han colonization.
And that pressure will have a harmful effect on Tibetan language and culture unless active and vigorous steps are taken to preserve them.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Froog,
The following should answer most of your questions regarding Tibetan as one of the official languages in Tibet. Of course it is up to you to believe whether these are just BS or for real (I assume you speak Chinese):
http://www.xzzyw.cn/
http://www.xzzyw.cn/jsp/xz/detail.jsp?newsID=8000001024&type=030
http://www.tibet328.cn/jdgz/04/200909/t399762.htm
If the Chinese government had wanted to eradicate the Tibetan language along with the culture etc. like stuart, you and many TGIE sympathizers claim, they would have completely banned Tibetans schools and the teaching of the Tibetan language. It is not like it cannot be done.
It is a fact, quite I sad I concur, that if you don’t speak Mandarin (hell, even some Cantonese speakers complain), your chances of finding a decent job greatly diminish. Just like you need to be able to speak English to find a decent job in the US and most English-speaking countries. Speaking just Cherokee doesn’t get you decent jobs in the US. Is there anything wrong with it?
“one might say that the fact that any Tibetans speak Mandarin is evidence of the pressure to assimilate into Han culture which they are now being exposed to.”
Nonsense. One can speak a language but not assimilate to the culture that language represents. I speak English but I am not trying to assmilate into British or Anglo-Saxon culture at all. Any Mandarin-speaking Tibetan might not want to assmiliate to Han culture either. Actually there is ample evidence out there that Mandarin-speaking ethnic minorities, even some Manchurians have not and will not assimilate to the so-called Han culture. Plus, the most powerful sweeping culture that is endangering many cultures is not the Han culture rather the Judeo-Christian western-culture based pop culture represented by the American culture.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I never said China was trying to eradicate the Tibetan language (or culture), Juche. But I don’t think it’s taking sufficient measures to preserve and promote it.
If you introduce Mandarin as a “joint first language” (and, I suspect, in many situations a preferred language) where it previously didn’t exist at all, and introduce a large colonizing Han population into the country, and create a situation where Mandarin is seen as being essential to social/political/economic advancement, then that poses a major challenge to the survival of the Tibetan language.
Language is the cornerstone of culture and ethnic identity, and if the strength of the language is undermined, the culture will wither also.
Comparison with the native American situation is unfortunate, because many Chinese gleefully embrace that parallel, envisaging a future where the indigenous population of the Tibetan regions will have been almost entirely displaced by Chinese. Yes, Cherokee and other minority languages are under threat from the dominance of English; but I hope they can be preserved. If they die out completely, there won’t be much of Native American culture left either.
Of course, all attempts at language preservation might be said to be a futile resistance to the tide of history. I look forward to the day when Mandarin has given place to English as China’s official language. The process has already started.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Assimilation of language is a portal to a wider assimilation of culture. Some such assimilation is inevitable (since the use of a language affects how you think, and the sources of information and culture you are exposed to), however much you try to resist it. (And I would suggest that you, Juche, are “trying not to assimilate into Anglo-Saxon culture” rather than just “not trying to”.)
All of the native Tibetan political leaders we see on TV look pretty thoroughly Sinified – wearing suits and red ties, smoking Zhongnanhai, drinking maotai, etc.
I agree that American pop culture is a powerful homogenizing influence worldwide, and I rather regret that. However, the Chinese leadership (and some Western commentators too) really seem to envisage a future in which Chinese culture will be an equally potent influence. I have my doubts about that; I think the English-speaking, Judaeo-Christian world had got way too much of a head start. But we have an interesting century ahead of us.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Froog,
Did you actually take a good look at those links that I provided? If you did, how could you say that China is not “taking sufficient measures to preserve and promote it”, at least on paper? What more do you want? What kind of language policy do you want for Xizang?
“I look forward to the day when Mandarin has given place to English as China’s official language. The process has already started”
Not a chance. The prominence of Englisch will gradually die down with the decline of the US and the Anglo-Saxon world, plus the increasingly vibrant cultural and language awareness among people. If there are 10 Tibetan Chinese complaining about the loss of the Tibetan language, there will be 1000 Chinese of all sorts complaining about the loss of Mandarin. English will remain important, but there is no way whatsoever that it is going to take over. Official language in China? Sure, in your dream Froog!
Now that I am happy that most Chinese don’t speak Englisch at all or speak crappy Englisch.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Froog,
I am not really trying to fight anything. Being able to speak Englisch mostly helps me observe what others are saying. And being able to speak it enables me to engage in this kind of discussion/debate/argument/fight/banter with you guys, which is great. Does being able to speak English make me an Anglophile? Not at all. Just like most Chinese-speaking foreigners are not Sinophile, I am far far far from an Anglophile or an admirer of everything Anglo-Saxon (including American). Actually being able to speak English helped me a great deal in understanding who I am and where my place is. It reinforced my identity. Let me say this: I was a lot more pro-western when I did not speak English. Now I have completely shaken that off, with the help of English.
I agree with you that the English-speaking, Judeo-Christian culture had a huge head start. And I do think for a long time to come it is going to remain this way. None of the non-western civilizations will be able to dethrone you guys soon. However, in the long-run anything can happen. Not that I am completely against your culture, I just think your culture is too dominant and that is a bad thing. There should be several dominant cultures. Just like always eating Chinese is very boring. Let’s have something else: bibimbab, temupra udong, pad thai and chicken tandoori.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:08 am
I was (half) joking about English becoming an official language in China. My intention was to prompt you to feel the same resentment that most Tibetans probably feel about their own language being displaced in public life.
Also, gazing into the crystal ball, the big question for us is whether human society will survive at all, and, if it does, will it be able to sustain the technologically sophisticated, globally integrated civilization that has begun to emerge in recent decades? If it does, we’re going to move towards an integration of language as well: in a few hundred years, we’ll all be speaking English – albeit an English that might be almost unrecognisable to us today, and probably incorporating a lot of borrowings from other major languages like Spanish, French and Arabic (and, maybe, Mandarin).
December 8th, 2009 at 10:15 am
I am very sceptical about the professed policies of the CCP in Tibet (or anywhere else, for that matter; but especially in Tibet).
If they were serious about preserving the Tibetan language, we’d need to see things like: Tibetan being the preferred language for all local government departments and banks and utilities companies (Mandarin available, but not common; hence creating more pressure on Han settlers to learn Tibetan); Tibetan the sole language used in court proceedings involving Tibetans; Tibetan universities where Tibetan is the sole language of instruction (other than in language subjects). I don’t know – maybe all of that is happening, and more. But none of the Tibetans I’ve spoken with in Beijing seem to be aware of it.