There is one thing, though, that I cannot compromise on, and that is the Tibetans’ (or the Chinese’ or anyone’s) human rights. They are the air that I breath and they are every human being’s birth right…
Bod gyalo!

In the next few years China will need to move 400 million surplus labor from the countryside to the new cities that they are building now In order to do that you need stability above else

“For China, this economic and social transformation has to come with political stability. It is in all our interests that it does. The policy of One China is not a piece of indulgent nationalism. It is an existential issue if China is to hold together in a peaceful and stable manner as it modernizes. This is why Tibet is not simply a religious issue for China but a profoundly political one — Tibet being roughly a quarter of China’s land mass albeit with a small population.”

Tony Blair EX British premier
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121970878870671131.html

I’m simply asking where the money comes from. Please don’t put words in my mouth. And please don’t answer a question with rhetorical questions.

“What frustrates me is that it is continually fielded to “prove” that Tibetans were and are going to be so backward that they can’t be on their own but need Chinese paternalism instead.”

No one said that they need Chinese paternalism. All I want to point out is that according to a UN report on Tibet, the literacy rate jumped from 3% to 97% after the Chinese takeover. There are now “modern” luxuries such as running water and electricity available to most of the population.

I must admit I was much of a cultural relativist myself for a long time. In fact, I even thought it might be better for China to throw off her blind pursuit of Western dollars and pounds and return to a poorer yet proud sense of ethnic identity. Yet I realized what the Chinese had been saying all along – that sometimes it is necessary to “eat bitter” and “give in” to the capitalist pursuit of wealth in order to give oneself a real sense of power and status on the world stage.

In this case, that means the Tibetans recognizing the benefits that have come about from their period under Communist Chinese rule. The future is uncertain obviously. But in my mind certain sacrifices had to be made (the Tibetans being governed by a body not composed of their own ethnicity, analogous to the situation faced by the Hui, Miao, Bai, Yi, etc.) similar to the Chinese adoption of Western customs, language, and habits (such as learning Western ways of dress and etiquette for the Olympics – see WSJ video) in order to ascend on the capitalist world stage. Because, after all, we must confront the harsh reality that the world today revolves around the power that emanates from material riches.

And if you don’t mind me asking:
were you suggesting that the majority of the Tibetan protesters in the US are rich previous landlords (or their descendants) conspiring to lull the world into a restoration of theocracy and their previous riches? Are you serious?
Please visit the Tibetan exile communities if you think that is the case or travel independently to and around Tibet. That is, if you really care about the plight of the Tibetans.
If you don’t, and if you are not in any way yourself involved in the issue, why propagate these conspiracy ideas at all?
To create further obstacles for the Tibetans’ struggle for a fair solution?

I doubt an autonomous Tibet would really resurrect theocracy in any meaningful sense of the word. There simply wouldn’t be the space for that. That said, the balance of religion and government certainly deserves discussion, as I said.

On your other point, I think you’re right that Chinese have been pretty upfront about their past “feudalism” (even using the term too much, sometimes). What I find strange is how when Tibet’s contemporary development is discussed, “feudalism” and freeing “slaves” is suddenly put front and center. In comparison, China’s economy is usually compared to the period right before reform or even the 1980s.

Why is Tibet not just compared to the 1970s or 1980s? Or compared to other parts of the Himalayas? Because, I think, it makes for a stronger argument in China’s favor to compare Tibet to over half a century ago when it, like China was “feudal.”

While Tibetans may avoid discussing some things, I think Chinese do, too.

Nonetheless, I agree with you about the arc of rural progress. The best set-up, I sometimes think, would be the immediate post-land reform setup in China, after the landlords and before the communes. This set-up was mirrored in the early 1980s, when the communes had been broken up fairly evenly and families still shared a lot of farm equipment and pooled labor.

“But I would hesitate to say that “feudalism” is THE defining aspect of Tibetan society. China was “feudal”, too, in a sense (neither of them exactly matched the Marxist definition of feudalism). And China’s current state-market hybrid definitely favors elites, though there are some notable protections–more and more of them–for workers and farmers.”

I would actually argue that feudalism WAS “the” defining aspect of both Tibetan and Chinese life. Today, things are drastically different in China but like you said, the new generation of autocratic elite bring with them new challenges. Perhaps the saddest thing is that after a brief period of dominance over the elite classes during land reform/Hundred Flowers Movement, the farmers/peasants once again fell to the bottom.

The point of this is that many Chinese can and do admit that they used to be a feudal society. In the media at least, Tibetan rhetoric has convienently avoided this issue by sidestepping with arguments about religious freedom and religious autonomy. Yet the real question remains: theocracy at what cost?