【09.03.10 Examiner】为什么你不应该关心西藏
本帖最后由 I'm_zhcn 于 2009-6-7 00:46 编辑【中文标题】为什么你不应该关心西藏
【原文标题】Why you shouldn't care about Tibet
【登载媒体】The Examiner
【来源地址】http://www.examiner.com/x-1000-DC-Independent-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m3d10-Why-you-shouldnt-care-about-Tibet
【译者】rlsrls08
【翻译方式】人工
【声明】本翻译供Anti-CNN使用，未经AC或译者许可，不得转载
【译文】
http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/TibetanChildren(3).jpg
图片文字说明: 勇敢地前进，不管理查基尔怎么努力
对于那些不知道的，今天是著名的西藏反对中国占领起义50周年，起义导致此后达赖喇嘛流亡。许多乏味的好莱坞名人记录，神化和庆祝这一纪念日。
大约在此之前十年，中国，即中华人民共和国，已经开始了对西藏的占领。确切的性质仍然是历史（和史学）的争端。中国共产党一方的两个论点无疑是真实的，即:
- 他们几乎没有遇到抵抗，
- 作为清朝的继承国，他们只是继续1904年之前中国和西藏的关系。1904年英国军队入侵并占领了西藏拉萨，并要求清朝支付他们入侵的费用（现在你知道反西方的中国民族主义情绪来自哪里了吧）。
后者是比较重要的一点；过去几个世纪，西藏和中国的关系从敌对到共生一直变化，清政府管理该地区，而达赖喇嘛作为宫廷的精神导师。
共产党的其他声明则完全无法核实，但可能有一些事实根据；某些学者同意这些声明的大部分，而其他许多国家采取了不同的立场。
著名的舞台魔术师，自由意志论者和Run-DMC(饶舌乐队)粉丝 Penn和Teller 在他们的表演中编入了一些投诉(这里看视频)。
在视频中表演的是学者迈克尔·帕伦蒂(Michael Parenti)，在他的论文"友好的封建制度：西藏神话"中，描述了在喇嘛阶层统治下，1912-1949年的西藏乃是一个封建的，填充着奴隶制和农奴制，贫困落后和压迫的地方。 (这里看全文)
令人惊讶的是，我还在雅虎问答找到了一个实际的全面回答。
当然大多数解放西藏事业的支持者是空想主义者，嬉皮士，和好莱坞明星，他们彻底否定了自己的欧洲文化，只在寻找一些东西来信仰。带着西方人憎恨自身的怪癖，大部分活动家从来不去查考50多年中国武断和粗暴地攻击西藏之前，西藏是不是香格里拉。够胆的话可以搜索媒体关于西藏的新闻故事；你会看到有多少图片是达赖本人或者其他僧侣（即使在其鼎盛时期僧侣只占很小的人口比例），看看有多少图片提到了普通藏人的生活。我知道每当我看到了后者我很震惊。对左倾活动家而言，解放西藏运动是一个沉迷放纵和进行中的幻想，一个众多的简单快乐无知的农民阶层长时间辛苦的工作养活那些高尚的，教导精神和智力的精英们的共同社会主义，精英们高兴地拿走了农民们的自由意志，据为己有。与此同时，对许多战争鹰派人物而言，西藏是他们抱怨中国的好借口。
因此，大多数人从未真正思考过去西藏作为一个独立国家是什么样子，以及将来作为一个独立国家它又会是什么样子。但是，思考过这一问题但仍持怀疑态度的人可能有一些相反的观点。我将努力解答。
问：难道共产党描绘的1912-1949年的西藏不是企图掩饰其入侵的带偏见的宣传？
答：当然。
只有傻瓜会才会相信一个专制国家比如中国的说法不含水分。然而，对资料的分析显示了一些东西。即使是最亲达赖喇嘛的人士也承认了一些中国入侵西藏之前的事实； 1 ）它是地球上最贫穷和文盲最多的国家之一。没有足够的粮食，女孩没受过教育，男孩很幸运可以学习阅读。 2 ）西藏社会基本上是由世俗贵族，僧侣神权，和众多农民农奴组成的等级制度。农奴受到前者的束缚和制约，耕种不属于他们的土地来支持上层阶级。没有严肃的学者争辩这两点。相反的观点主要基于假定藏族人自然地倾向于享受简单的，一无所知的农奴制度和高死亡率的生活，这是一个彻头彻尾的种族主义猜想。
问：但是中华人民共和国的统治即使不是更糟，不也还是一样糟糕吗？
答：可能。西藏一直是中国的一部分，而且中国政府在毛泽东领导下是非常可怕的和不称职的。但是，由于远在中国西部，西藏实际上相对地躲过了大跃进最严重的波及，中国的面积跟美国或欧洲差不多大，拉萨距离北京比马德里距离明斯克，或华盛顿特区距离丹佛要远。如果无视来自中国的民族主义言论也将是一个错误，他们并不认为西藏是被占领的外国，而是中国的一个组成部分，中国是中华帝国影响下的传统的地区，一个多民族的国家。共产党努力要赢得藏人的民心，提高西藏这一中国最贫穷的地区的生活水平和经济。西藏拥有大约50%的识字率，听起来似乎不怎么样，但相比喇嘛统治下的西藏它肯定是一个巨大的进步。
问：但是，难道西藏人民没有权利得到解放吗？（可以换成“解放西藏”任何不同的口号）
答：没有。无须解释。抗辩无效。下文会谈及这点。因为这是一个共同的误解，和共同误解的继续，在整个20世纪造成了很多共同的悲伤和痛苦。
首先，这里所谓的“西藏人民”的含义并不清楚它可以作为一种文化概念用来谈论西藏，但能作为一个国家或人民吗？直接到这一谬误的最严重的形式，它比区分雅利安种族和雅利安民族更难。西藏流亡政府最极端的要求是包括整个西部地区的狭长地带作为大藏区，但那些代言人并没有认识到这些地区不等于1930年的德国。大量的汉，回，撒拉，门巴，珞巴，蒙古，羌，东乡，普米族，栗僳族和其他人民生活在这一地区。解放西藏运动的口号“一个民族一个国家One People, One Nation(译者注:这句口号不确定翻译对了没有，请大侠指正)”不仅是一个谎言，更是令人毛骨悚然的种族主义和彻头彻尾的法西斯主义。我们可以去到以色列，巴勒斯坦，或印度和巴基斯坦，看一看按照文化，宗教和种族分割的结果，或探讨整个非洲撒哈拉以南地区国家和部落失败之迷，一个合理的人不难得出结论，比较各自争取利益，多种族的国家更强大和更安全。中国的汉族人被许多文化语言的族群包围。如果一个人倾倒了100桶油漆到大理石地板，并且要求把每种颜色放回到各自的桶里，也比区分一个覆盖全球的，成千上万的相互交融和纵横交错的族群容易。
即使在那时，种族也不能够指导政治，那么我们来谈一谈西藏的无神论者，穆斯林，和一些不信奉达赖喇嘛的大型的佛教教派，他们不希望达赖喇嘛回来，(达赖喇嘛统治西藏)是解放西藏运动一个潜台词和隐含的假设，基于达赖喇嘛微笑着的头像出现在国家地理杂志，滚石，甚至（我对你很失望）经济学家每一篇无趣的关于西藏的文章上。
问：但达赖喇嘛不是要在西藏进行民主改革，把西藏变成一个自由民主的国家吗？
答：也许，但是我不会用我全部的积蓄来打赌。首先，观众喜欢什么达赖就唱什么调。对左倾的团体，他就用进步的词汇来形容自己:“一半马克思主义者，一半佛教徒”。他是在暗示如果他领导共产主义改革一定成功。另一方面，最近他提出了宪法草案。它保证宗教自由和言论自由，但中华人民共和国也有这些自由。此外，它看上去就像西方的民主，除了提到藏传佛教，认定达赖喇嘛为永远的总统，并给他独家的权力任意雇用和解雇民选官员，以及暂停他随意间谈到的民主改革。
我不是说达赖喇嘛的计划是为了利用西方的支持，以确保一个在亚洲中心的巨大的民族。宣布民主改革，然后把它们无限期搁置，而他（再一次）确立自己终身为神圣的独裁者，享有超越法律的绝对权力，还没有责任，我只是说，这正是他提出的宪法允许他做的。
问：但是，难道西藏人民不希望达赖喇嘛回来掌权吗？
答：嗯，有些人确实。多数人用一个有趣的方式来表现它。为了说清楚一点，西藏景观使阿富汗看起来象小山坡，如果有大量当地人反对中共统治，那么他们完全可以使得生活比现在困难(译者注:意思是西藏的地理环境比阿富汗险峻得多，藏人如果大规模起义将比阿富汗人更容易成功)。不管白人大学生怎么告诉你，佛教徒完全有能力实施政治暴力，就跟其他宗教一样，斯里兰卡人和日本人可以解释这点。在60年代，美国中央情报局训练西藏游击队的协助下，达赖喇嘛似乎并没有得到很多民众的支持。
当然，一些人希望达赖喇嘛回来，并表现为把汉人和穆斯林人围困在商店里和烧死他们（是的，我知道媒体回避了这些，但去年的镇压？不是和平嗡嗡叫的僧侣发起的吗），但除了流亡僧侣和贵族，好莱坞和享受特权的白人大学生之外估计很难得到任何实际支持。
问：但是，中国政府压迫，剥削，暴力和虐待。你怎么能支持他们？
答：我不。我不认为这是一个西藏特有的问题。这就是为什么刚才我说西藏人没有要求解放的权利。
人人有权享有自由。人人有权享有自由，大约有13亿人他们的宗教信仰自由，他们的言论自由，集会自由和司法权利...等等，被中华人民共和国政府滥用。还有另外大约八千万人在中国共产党支持的缅甸和北韩军事政权下遭受更为严重的苦难。藏族人所忍受的对于言论自由，宗教活动自由的压制，政府的不透明以及司法腐败，比起维吾尔族，蒙古族，朝鲜族，彝族，回族，布依族，或汉族所忍受的，不多也不少。
我只不过是现实的。除了不允许的自由，中国允许它的人民自由吃饭，读书，接受教育，有机会在经济上成功。如果你的家人在挨饿，你不识字，你不敢走在街上害怕被开吉普车的暴徒开枪打死，具有投票和写文章的自由没有任何意义。中国比达赖喇嘛能提供的更好；如果要在台湾独立还是被中国统一之间作出选择，我的立场将是非常不同，因为台湾有实际的自由民主。
当然，台湾在联合国和国际社会的地位不是一个问题，不足以引起大学校园的关注，因为它仅仅涉及二千万人(主要是汉人)，他们试图保持由其他汉人带来的民主自由和经济繁荣，而不是面带微笑的僧侣喊着标志性的口号，象史蒂芬斯皮尔伯格拍的一部电影里头那样，但这扯远了。
我反对一个自由的西藏。我支持一个自由的中国。摆脱贫穷和神权的压迫，没有腐败和世俗的压迫。但是，那些关心人权的人应该参照台湾，而不是西藏，为了光明的未来，而不是一个更加黑暗的过去。
如果谁可以举出一个不同的原因，说明为什么解放西藏运动应被视为有效，而不只是愤怒和无知的大学生/好莱坞的演员唧唧歪歪，让我知道，我会尽力解答这一问题。与此同时，拿起一份关于伟大的20世纪罪恶所带来的理想化的集中的文化民族国家很好的读物，尼尔弗格森的”世界战争”。
-----后续----
4月1日作者在另外一篇文章“当无知遭遇偏见；以色列和两个国家的妄想”里头又提到这一话题:
我最近写了一篇攻击解放西藏运动的文章。这是我最喜欢的自己的文章之一，如果说它有不足的话，那是我没有着重强调(达赖喇嘛的)“解决办法”--一个独立或自治的西藏所暗示的深刻的种族偏见，尤其是在达赖喇嘛的领导下。幸运的是，一个网名叫"西藏的穆斯林"的读者实实在在地在这一方面阐述了自己的观点。如下:
藏人只占青海人口的20%。我们非藏族占了80%。达赖喇嘛主张的大藏区里头，半数以上的人口是非藏族。我们也不是移民。千百年来羌族人居住在青藏高原的东部，而那时藏族不过是雅鲁藏布江村庄里的一些部落。自从成吉思汗征服了青海(700多年前) ，蒙古人就一直生活在这里，在此之前许多其他民族陆陆续续搬来这里，我们都已经在这里生活了几百年了。
如果流亡西藏政府成为我们的政府，在其100%的藏族背景下，每一个政府官员都将是藏族人，以及一部不允许任何人挑战达赖喇嘛作为宗教领袖和政治领袖地位的宪法。可以肯定的是你们对藏人的担忧对我们而言将是一个实际问题，那时我们是不是将“快乐地看着我们的语言和文化灭绝？”
许多人在西方利用“独特的语言和文化”作为支持西藏独立的一个主要理由。事实是，700年来西藏一直是中国的一部分，而且仍然保留着你们称之为独特的语言和文化。许多其他少数民族几千年来都生活在中国，我们仍然有我们独特的语言和文化，为什么只因为一个(藏族)的语言和文化背景，我们的国家就应该分裂，如同西方媒体要求的？如果因为文化和语言给予西藏独立，那么是否也应该允许其他20个传统民族独立于西藏之外？
我不打算老调重弹。但是。。其实。。不。这是重复基本上相同的原理。但这是一个基本原理，和必须要捍卫的原理。
-----背景材料----
作者Jack Elgin是来自华盛顿特区的独立保守作家.
About Examiner.com
Launched in April 2008, Examiner.com serves 60 major markets across the country and is quickly becoming the premier online brand for local information and events. We are a division of the Clarity Media Group, owned by the Anschutz Company, one of the largest media companies in the country.
Our content is contributed by passionate, informed people known as Examiners. Examiners are people in your community with a common desire to share their knowledge and expertise with others. Examiners are college students, civil servants, retirees, doctors, musicians, magazine editors and stay-at-home parents.
关于Exmainer.com
The Examiner 是一个由Leigh和John Hunt在1808年创立的周报。
John Forster 1835年成为该杂志的文学编辑，此后1847-1855年的编辑是Albany Fonblanque。投稿者包括英国著名作家狄更斯等。
该杂志在1886年停刊。
我们的内容由Examiner，也就是富有热情、消息灵通的人士所提供。Examiner是您社区中的一份子，愿意和他人分享知识和阅历。Examiners中有大学学生、公务员、退休人员、医生、音乐家、杂志编辑以及驻家父母。
原文
本帖最后由 rlsrls08 于 2009-4-3 02:17 编辑Why you shouldn't care about Tibet
Jack Elgin
March 10, 6:36 PM
Bravely carrying on, despite Richard Gere's best efforts
For those not in the know, today marks the 50th anniversary of a famous uprising in Tibet against the occupation of the People's Republic of China, which led shortly thereafter to the Dalai Lama's exile, which has been recorded, mythologized and celebrated by numerous vapid Hollywood celebrities.
Roughly ten years before that, the PRC, which is to say the People's Republic of China, had begun it's occupation of Tibet, the exact nature of which is still up for historic (and historiographical) dispute. The CPC, which is to say the Communist Part of China, has two arguments on it's side which are undoubtedly true, namely;
- That they were met with scant resistance,
- That as the successor state to the Qing Dynasty, they were merely renewing the relationship that had existed within Zhong Guo prior to 1904, when British troops invaded Lhasa and occupied Tibet, demanding, amongst other things, that the Qing Dynasty pay the expenses of their invasion (a small taste, just in case you were wondering where anti-Western Chinese Nationalist sentiment came from)
The latter is a point of some importance; Tibet and China had varied from a hostile to a symbiotic relationship by the last few centuries, with the central Qing government administrating the region, and the Dalai Lama acting as spiritual advisors to the court.
The CPC makes other claims that are completely unverifiable, but which probably have some basis in truth; certain other scholars have agreed with most of these claims, while many others take a wide gradient of stances.
Penn and Teller, eminent stage magicians, libertarians, and Run-DMC hanger-ons, detailed some of these complaints on their show, (profanity-filled) clip to
be seen here.
Featured in the clip is Michael Parenti, a scholar who writes his own description of the sort of feudal, slavery- and sefdom-filled, poverty-ridden and backwards, oppressive place Tibet was under the relatively brief rule by Lama caste, from 1912-1949, in his essay,
Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth. Complete with sources.
Surprisingly, I also found an actual comprehensive answer on
Yahoo Answers, too.
Most supporters of the Free Tibet cause, of course, are idealogues, hippies, and Hollywood celebrities who, having thoroughly rejected their own European culture, are just looking for something to believe in. The peculiarities of Western self-hate being what they are, most activists never get as far as to question whether or not Tibet was actually ever a Shangri La before it was arbitrarily and brutally attacked by China some fifty years ago. Heck, as a dare, go search for news stories from the usual gullible suspects in the media about Tibet; see how many feature pictures of either the Dalai Lama himself, or other monks (even in their heyday, a small percentage of the population), and see how many actually feature pictures or even references to the lives of average Tibetans. I know I'm shocked whenever I see the latter. To left-leaning activists, the Free Tibet movement is an indulgence and ongoing fantasy, the common socialist fantasy of a numerous, simple, happily ignorant peasant class toiling under the gentle, nurturing care of a spiritually and mentally enlightened elite, who gladly lift the burden of free will from the former and take it for themselves. Meanwhile, to many warhawks, any excuse to complain about China is a good one.
Thus, most people never actually get so far as to question what Tibet looked like as an independent nation, and what it would look like again as the same. But several counter points might occur to those that come this far and are still skeptical. I shall try to address these.
Q: But aren't the portrayals of 1912-1949 Tibet the biased propaganda of the CPC, attempting to justify their invasion?
A: Of course. Only a fool would take information coming out of an authoritarian state like China without a hefty dose of salt. However, parsing information reveals a number of things. Even the most pro-Dalai Lama sources have to concede a number of facts about Tibet prior to the Chinese invasion; 1) It was one of the poorest and most illiterate nations on Earth. There was not enough food, girls were not educated at all, boys were lucky to learn how to read. 2) Tibetan society was essentially caste-based, with a secular aristocracy, a theocratic monkhood, and numerous peasant serfs who were under the thrall and contract of the former, working land not theirs to support these castes. No serious scholar contends these two points. The counterarguments rely largely on supposing that Tibetans are a people naturally inclined to enjoy a simple of life of ignorant serfdom and high mortality, which is a fundamentally racist supposition.
Q: But wasn't the PRC rule just as bad, if not worse?
A: Probably. Tibet has been part of China, and China's government under Mao was pretty terrible and incompetent. Tibet, however, was actually relatively sheltered from some of the worst fallouts of the Great Leap Forward, given how far to the west it was- the PRC is, after all, about the same size as the United States or Europe, andLhasa is no closer to Beijing than Madrid is to Minsk, or D.C. is to Denver. It would also be a mistake to ignore that nationalist rhetoric coming from China on the subject; they do not view Tibet as a foreign region being occupied, but as a part of Zhong Guo, the traditional region of influence of the Chinese empire, which is, after all, a multi-ethnic one to start with. There have been extensive efforts from the CPC to win Tibetan hearts and minds, and to raise the living standards and economy of a region that remains China's poorest. It's a lukewarm victory to say that Tibet has about a 50% literacy rate, but it's certainly a vast improvement over where the nation was under the Lama caste.
Q: But don't the Tibetan people have the right to be Free? (or any variant of a "Free Tibet" slogan)
A: No. Not specifically. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. More on this later.
This one bears getting into, because it's a common misunderstanding, and a continuation of a common misunderstanding that caused a lot of common grief and suffering throughout the 20th century.
First of all, it is not at all clear here what is to be meant by "The Tibetan People". It's all well to talk of an abstract concept of Tibet, as a cultural concept, but as a nation or people? To go right to the most severe form of this fallacy, this distinction is no easier to enforce in any way than that between the concept of an Aryan race and the realization of an Aryan nation. The most extreme calls from the Tibetan Government-in-Exile have included demands for whole swaths of Western China that feature prominent Tibetan communities; but advocates here fail to realize that these regionsare no more homogenuous than 1930's Germany.Large populations of Han, Hui, Salar, Monpa, Lhoba, Mongol, Qiang, Dongxiang, Pumi, Lisu, and some several dozen other peoples live in this region. The common phrase, "One People, One Nation", associated with the Free Tibet movement, is not only a lie but a chillingly racist and fundamentally fascist one. We could go to Israel and Palestine, or India and Pakistan, to see how well partitions along cultural, religious and racial lines work out, or explore the many-fractured maze of failed states and tribal emnity raging through sub-Saharan Africa, but it shouldn't take much convincing to persuade a reasonable person that multi-ethnic nations are stronger and more secure than those who strive for anything else. Even the Han majority in China are deeply fractured amongst many cultural-linguistic groups. If one were to dump a hundred buckets of paint onto a marble floor and be commanded to get each color back into it's respective bucket, pure and whole, one would still have an easier task than that of sepearting the tens of thousands of inter-mingling and criss-crossing ethnic groups that cover the globe.
Not that ethnicity alone could guide politics even then- then we'd have to come to mention the Tibetan Atheists, Muslims, and members of several large sects of Buddhism that do not place particular reverence on the Dalai Lama, and thus would not want a return to his rule, an unspoken and implicit assumption of the Free Tibet movement, based on the smiling mugs of His Holiness used in about every vapid National Geographic, Rolling Stone and even (I'm so disappointed in you) Economist articles on the subject.
Which brings us to the next point;
Q: But doesn't the Dalai Lama want to institute democratic reforms in Tibet, making it a free, liberal democracy?
A: Maybe, but I wouldn't bet my life savings on it. First of all, the Dalai Lama sings whatever tune's going to please the audience; when appealing to more Leftist groups, he's described himself with the Progressivegasmic phrase,
"Half-Marxist, Half-Buddhist".
He's basically hinted that if he were to try and lead Communist reforms, he would make them work, dammit. On the other hand, more recently he's put forward a
proposed constitution.
It guarantees religious freedom and freedom of speech, but then, so does the PRC. Moreover, it looks a lot like a Western democracy, except for the references to Tibetan Buddhism, making the Dalai Lama President for Life, and giving him exclusive power to hire and fire elected officials at will, as well as generally pause the democratic reforms he talks about at his own discretion.
I'm not saying that the Dalai Lama's plan is to use gullible Western support to secure a huge nation at the axis of Asia, announce democratic reforms, and then put them on indefinite hold while he establishes himself (again) as theocratic dictator for life with absolute power over the law and no accountability, I'm just saying that that's exactly what his proposed constitution allows him to do.
Q: But don't the Tibetan people want the Dalai Lama back in power?
A: Well, some certainly do. Most of them have a funny way of showing it. Just for clarity's sake, the Tibetan landscape makes Afghanistan look like gentle rolling hills; if there were substantial local opposition to PRC rule, you'd assume they could make life a bit more difficult than it is. Buddhists, despite what white college students might tell you, are exactly as capable of political violence as other religions, as anyone in Sri Lanka or Japan could explain. The Dalai Lama, in concert with the CIA, in fact sponsored train guerillas in Tibet during the 60's, but they didn't seem to garner a lot of popular support.
Certainly some want the Dalai Lama back, and express this by trapping Han and Muslim businessmen and their families inside of shops and burning them down (yeah, I know this was missed by the media, but those crackdowns last year? Weren't initiated by monks peacefully humming and clinking thumb-cymbals together), but it's hard to gauge where there's any real support anywhere other than exiled monks/aristocracy, Hollywood, and amongst privileged white college students.
Q: But the PRC government is repressive, exploitive, violent and abusive. How can you support that?
A: I don't. I just don't think this is a Tibet-specific issue. Hence why I said Tibetans weren't specifically entitled to freedom before.
Everyone is entitled to freedom. As it so happens, there's roughly 1.3 billion people that are having their religious freedom, their freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, right to trial, etc., abused by the government of the PRC. There's also another eighty million or so suffering far worse fates in Burma and North Korea, broken military regimes supported by the CPC. The repressions of free speech, free practice of religion, the opaquness of government and corrupiton of justice suffered by Tibetans are not more or less wrong than those suffered by Uyghars, Mongols, Koreans, Yi, Hui, or Buyei, or Han.
I'm simply being realistic. For all the freedoms it doesn't allow, the PRC does allow it's people the freedom to eat, to read, to an education, to an opportunity at economic success. The freedom to vote or write an article means nothing when your family is starving, you can't read, and you can't walk down the street without being shot by roving thugs in jeeps. The PRC is better than the alternative the Dalai Lama is offering; if it were a choice between Taiwan remaining independent or being absorbed by the PRC, my stance would be very different, since Taiwan is an actual liberal democracy.
Of course, the status of Taiwan in the UN and international community isn't an issue that college campuses are throbbing about, since it only involves twenty million, mostly Han Chinese trying to retain their democratic freedoms and economic prosperity from other mostly Han Chinese, rather than some smiling monk spouting Hallmark catchphrases that Steven Spielberg made a movie about, but that's neither here nor there.
I'm against a Free Tibet. I'm all for a Free China. Free from poverty and theocratic oppression, free from corruption and secular oppression. But those who are concerned about human rights in the Middle Kingdom should look to Taiwan, not Tibet; to the brighter future, not an even darker past.
If anyone can cite a different reason why the Free Tibet movement should be considered valid and not simply the mewling of angry and ignorant college students/Hollywood actors, let me know and I'll try to address it. Meanwhile, for a very good read on the great 20th century evils brought about by the idealization of the centralized, culturally homogenuous nation state, pick up a copy of Niall Ferguson's
War of the World.
Jack Elgin is an examiner from Washington DC, District Of Columbia. You can see Jack's articles on
Jack's Home Page.
---Follow-up--
http://www.examiner.com/x-1000-DC-Independent-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m4d1-Stupidity-and-racism-conjoined-The-two-state-delusion
When ignorance and bigotry conjoin; Israel and the two-state delusion
April 1, 1:56 AM ·
I recently wrote an article attacking the Free Tibet movement. While one of my favorite articles that I've written, if there was a weakness to it it, it's that I didn't place adequate emphasis on the deep racism implied by the "solution" of an independent or autonomous Tibet, especially one under the Dalai Lama's control. Fortuitiously, a reader going by the simple handle of A Muslim in Tibet expounded on this point eloquently from their own perspective on the ground, la;
Tibetans only make 20% the population of Qinghai. We, the non-Tibetans, make up 80% of the population here. We also form more than half of the population in this Greater Tibet area claimed by the Dalai Lama, and we are not immigrants. Qiang people dominated east part of Tibet plateau for thousands of years when Tibetans were still some tribes in the Yarlung Zangbo villages. Mongolians have lived in Qinghai ever since Genghis Khan conquered here (700 years ago), many other ethnic groups moved here earlier than that, some followed and we all have been living here for hundreds of years.
If the exiled Tibet government becomes our government, with their 100% Tibetan background, every single government official being an ethnic Tibetan, and with a constitution that does not allow anybody to challenge the Dalai Lama's position both as a religious leader and political leader (the head of the government). It is also for sure what you are worried about Tibetans would be a practical problem for us. Are we then, going to be "happy watching our language and culture disappear?"
Many people in the west use "distinctive language and culture" as a main reason to argue for Tibet independence. The truth is, Tibet has been a part of China for 700 years, and still has a language and culture you call distinctive. Many other minority ethnic groups have lived in China for thousands of years, and we still have our distinctive languages and culture, so why should our country break up now because of one (Tibetan) language and culture as the media in the west call for? If Tibet should be granted independence because of culture and language, should the other 20 traditional ethnic groups all be granted independence from Tibet?
I'm not going to rehash the same argument, but... well, actually, no, I guess it is a rehash of pretty much the same principle. But it's a basic principle, and one that must be defended.
"西藏的穆斯林"的2个留言
本帖最后由 magicboy 于 2009-4-3 19:40 编辑a Muslim in Tibet
says:
Every 3 to 4 out of 1000 people live in China is ethnic Tibetan, especially considering less than 5% of the Chinese population live in the western section of China where Tibet is. Are you surprised not many Chinese (what you meant was "Han Chinese") have talked with Tibetans? Also, have you talked with any non-Tibetans living in this Greater Tibet area? We live in this land, why should we be ignored?
Tibetans only make 20% the population of Qinghai. We, the non-Tibetans, make up 80% of the population here. We also form more than half of the population in this Greater Tibet area claimed by the Dalai Lama, and we are not immigrants. Qiang people dominated east part of Tibet plateau for thousands of years when Tibetans were still some tribes in the Yarlung Zangbo villages. Mongolians have lived in Qinghai ever since Genghis Khan conquered here (700 years ago), many other ethnic groups moved here earlier than that, some followed and we all have been living here for hundreds of years.
If the exiled Tibet government becomes our government, with their 100% Tibetan background, every single government official being an ethnic Tibetan, and with a constitution that does not allow anybody to challenge the Dalai Lama's position both as a religious leader and political leader (the head of the government). It is also for sure what you are worried about Tibetans would be a practical problem for us. Are we then, going to be "happy watching our language and culture disappear?"
Many people in the west use "distinctive language and culture" as a main reason to argue for Tibet independence. The truth is, Tibet has been a part of China for 700 years, and still has a language and culture you call distinctive. Many other minority ethnic groups have lived in China for thousands of years, and we still have our distinctive languages and culture, so why should our country break up now because of one (Tibetan) language and culture as the media in the west call for? If Tibet should be granted independence because of culture and language, should the other 20 traditional ethnic groups all be granted independence from Tibet?
Today, many Tibetans learn Chinese so they have more opportunities in finding better jobs, what is that so different from many Chinese learn English to find better jobs, both in China and in the US? I definitely think Tibetans should have a choice of not learning Chinese (which they do), but keep in mind, Chinese is the dominant language in China, almost everybody speaks it, you just have to learn it to be successful. We live at a time of globalization. English is not my native language, but do you think it's a bad thing for me after all that I can speak English? How else can I read Jack's article and write a comment here?
Anyway, after all, I support the communication between Han Chinese and Tibetans. But all the other ethnic groups living here should be included in this discussion. Tibetans are not so special as humans. Ignoring the rest ethnic groups is racist. I am not saying you are, but since you seem to sure you have done objective research. I feel I have to point out to you the things I have just said.
March 19, 11:22 PM
"西藏的穆斯林"第一个留言完整翻译版
每一千个中国人中，有3到4个是藏族。而在他们聚集的中国西部地区，人口也只占中国总人口的5％。那么没有太多中国人（也就是你所说的中国汉人）没有和藏族人亲自交流过，这有什么奇怪的呢？另外，你有没有和任何在大藏区生活的非藏族人交流过吗？我们也居住在这块土地上，为什么你们要忽略我们的存在？
藏人只占青海人口的20%。我们非藏族占了80%。达赖喇嘛主张的大藏区里头，半数以上的人口是非藏族。我们也不是移民。千百年来羌族人居住在青藏高原的东部，而那时藏族不过是雅鲁藏布江村庄里的一些部落。自从成吉思汗征服了青海(700多年前) ，蒙古人就一直生活在这里，在此之前许多其他民族陆陆续续搬来这里，我们都已经在这里生活了几百年了。
如果流亡西藏政府成为我们的政府，在其100%的藏族背景下，每一个政府官员都将是藏族人，以及一部不允许任何人挑战达赖喇嘛作为宗教领袖和政治领袖地位的宪法。可以肯定的是你们对藏人的担忧对我们而言将是一个实际问题，那时我们是不是将“快乐地看着我们的语言和文化灭绝？”
许多人在西方利用“独特的语言和文化”作为支持西藏独立的一个主要理由。事实是，700年来西藏一直是中国的一部分，而且仍然保留着你们称之为独特的语言和文化。许多其他少数民族几千年来都生活在中国，我们仍然有我们独特的语言和文化，为什么只因为一个(藏族)的语言和文化背景，我们的国家就应该分裂，如同西方媒体要求的？如果因为文化和语言给予西藏独立，那么是否也应该允许其他20个传统民族独立于西藏之外？
藏人只占青海人口的20%。我们非藏族占了80%。达赖喇嘛主张的大藏区里头，半数以上的人口是非藏族。我们也不是移民。千百年来羌族人居住在青藏高原的东部，而那时藏族不过是雅鲁藏布江村庄里的一些部落。自从成吉思汗征服了青海(700多年前) ，蒙古人就一直生活在这里，在此之前许多其他民族陆陆续续搬来这里，我们都已经在这里生活了几百年了。
如果流亡西藏政府成为我们的政府，在其100%的藏族背景下，每一个政府官员都将是藏族人，以及一部不允许任何人挑战达赖喇嘛作为宗教领袖和政治领袖地位的宪法。可以肯定的是你们对藏人的担忧对我们而言将是一个实际问题，那时我们是不是将“快乐地看着我们的语言和文化灭绝？”
许多人在西方利用“独特的语言和文化”作为支持西藏独立的一个主要理由。事实是，700年来西藏一直是中国的一部分，而且仍然保留着你们称之为独特的语言和文化。许多其他少数民族几千年来都生活在中国，我们仍然有我们独特的语言和文化，为什么只因为一个(藏族)的语言和文化背景，我们的国家就应该分裂，如同西方媒体要求的？如果因为文化和语言给予西藏独立，那么是否也应该允许其他20个传统民族独立于西藏之外？
今天，很多藏族都在学习中文，这样他们就能有更好的工作机会。这和很多在中国和美国的中国人学习英语来提高自己的就业能力有什么区别呢？我当然同意藏族人应该可以选择不学习中文（他们目前就是这样做的），但是请不要忘了，中文是中国的主要语言，几乎每个人都说中文，你要想取得成功，就得学中文。我们生活在全球化的时代。英语不是我的母语，但是你真的觉得我会说英语是一件坏事吗？若非如此，我有怎么能读懂jack的这篇文章并且在这里留言呢？
不管怎么样，我支持在汉藏人民之间进行更多的沟通。但是生活在这里的其他民族也应该加入到讨论中来。藏族作为人类的一支，并没有什么特别的。忽略其他民族就是种族主义的表现。我不是说您是种族主义者，但是既然您似乎也进行了客观的研究，我觉得我应该向您指出我刚才提到的那些意见。
a Muslim in Tibet
says:
Hi, I saw your link on one of the youtube channels and I thought i'd check it out. you really impressed me with your research on the subject. Thanks for bringing out one of the most important points in the whole Tibet issue. I don't want to turn my comment into a long essay but I will write down one thing I feel very strong about, and this is to all the people who read this webpage.
Tibet is neither a mono-cultural geopolitical entity, nor a one-hundred percent Buddhist area, even though I feel the media in the west have been purposely misleading people to believe so. Especially if this Tibet we are talking about is not "Tibet Autonomous Region", but this "Greater Tibet Area" defined by the Dalai Lama and the exiled govt. (which includes Tibet, Qinghai and part of Sichuan, Gansu and Yunnan) I am very worried if this Greater Tibet area, if independent, will become a Buddhist theocracy as what their constitution says so. That will be a disaster for the millions of non-Buddhists living here, especially Muslim, considering the relationships of Muslims and Buddhists in the past, especially during the time of the Republic of China. The worst thing can happen is that we all get expelled by them as what Dalai Lama has stated in his five point peace plan.
Even if we don't get expelled, we don't want the exiled Tibet government which has a Buddhist monk as the head who is not choose by merit but incarnation. Take Qinghai (claimed by them as Amdo) as example, it would be very unfair in Qinghai becomes part of the independent Tibet. Muslims (Hui, Salar, Dongxiang, Uyghurs and Kazakhs are the ones in Qinghai) have a larger population than Tibetans in this province, and there's also Han, Mongolians, Tu Zu, Buyei, ... 41 ethnic groups in total have large communities in Qinghai, why should a Buddhism monk be the head of the government? If we were going to have a religious leader as the head of the government, why can't we have a Muslim Caliph as our government head in Qinghai since we have a larger population?
Chinese Hui Muslim, the Ma family warlord was already the ruler and provincial governor of Qinghai (part of the Republic of China) from 1912 to 1949. The current Dalai Lama was born here in 1937. Before the Ma family, it was Qing China who ruled here, after the Ma family, it is People's Republic of China, we certainly do not want a Buddhist monk as our government head. They tried to take over Qinghai before, but their troops (Tibetan Buddhist) were crashed by Ma's army (Muslims troops).
Same like all you guys have in the west, we want Religion and Politics to be separated, especially if the ruling class is not even from our own religion. From what I heard, in parts of Yunnan and Sichuan where the Dalai Lama claims, Christianity is the largest religion among the Lisu and Yi people. Remember, we all have lived here for thousands of years, some have been living here for a longer time than the Tibetans. What on earth makes people in the west think we want the exiled Tibetans to be our rulers? Just because they are closer with some people from the west?
Do not push a Buddhist monk on top of our head. The current Chinese government might not be good in your eyes, but it's much more fair than a Buddhist theocracy. We want move towards democracy, not move backwards.
March 19, 8:21 PM Great Job! The repressions of free speech, free practice of religion, the opaquness of government and corrupiton of justice suffered by Tibetans are not more or less wrong than those suffered by Uyghars, Mongols ...
scandy 发表于 2009-4-3 02:51 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
谢谢你，比我翻译的好多了。
解放西藏运动的口号“一个民族一个国家One People, One Nation(译者注:这句口号不确定翻译对了没有，请大侠指正)”不仅是一个谎言，更是令人毛骨悚然的种族主义和彻头彻尾的法西斯主义。
照ZD的思路，也只能这样翻译了。不过我很怀疑这个口号的普遍性。很少会有支藏团体赤裸裸地这么说吧。
我都西媒比较不满意的一点就是他们极少批评藏人的极端民主主义。这篇文章的出现非常有意义。 好文章！ 说真的，这是我见到过的最好的外国人关于西藏看法的文章了 本帖最后由 rlsrls08 于 2009-4-3 03:43 编辑
照ZD的思路，也只能这样翻译了。不过我很怀疑这个口号的普遍性。很少会有支藏团体赤裸裸地这么说吧。squirrelnyc 发表于 2009-4-3 03:27 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
你试试GOOGLE一下，会发现不少网站提及。
http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/section.php?id=106 那个留言的回族太牛了。要不是有点小小的语法错误，我差点以为是抢手。
我不觉得达赖喇嘛回来会搞制度上的神权，但是政教分离肯定不可能很快地实施，同样的隐患是藏族具有强烈排他性的民族主义。他们给北京的自治的备忘录里面，好像都没提其它民族，就说，什么都要藏族自治。打死我也不信在这种制度下，其它民族能有好日子过。共产党虽然相对专制一些，但起码干部里面什么民族都有，能起到相当的权衡作用。
回族同胞还指出了另外很重要的一点，我最近没在AC上看到有人说起过。那就是凭什么藏族文化就好像比其它文化更高人一等？除了西方的吹捧，我也想不出别的原因。
他第二条留言如果没人翻译的话，我认领了。
顺手贴一下雅虎的答案
本帖最后由 rlsrls08 于 2009-4-3 03:55 编辑Slavery in Tibet?
I've been hearing about the Free Tibet protest and I've heard from China supporters that the Chinese government freed more than 95% of Tibet from slavery and mutilation.
Meanwhile Tibetans claim that they didn't even know that Tibet had slaves.
What's the truth?
西藏的奴隶制?
我听说了解放西藏的示威，也听中国的支持者说中国政府从奴隶制度下解放了超过95%的藏人。同时藏人说他们不知道西藏曾经是奴隶制。
真相是什么?
Best Answer - Chosen by VotersThis may answer your question：
First, a correction is long overdue: the word “China” or “Chinese” cannot be found in “China’s” language or in the “Chinese” rich history records. What? Are you kidding? NO, I AM NOT KIDDING!
1) “China” and “Chinese” were imposed /used by the Europeans, a reference to the place where a bowl of porcelain was made. But, before the Europeans first laid their eyes on a china, be it a rice bowl or a tea cup, the peoples living in on that land already had a name for their country. It is called Zhong Guo. The literal translation is the “Middle Kingdom.”
2) What about its peoples? How do they address each other? There are over fifty ethnicities living in Zhong Guo. The Tibetan people are one of them. The word “Tibet” or “Tibetan” was also imposed by the Europeans. But long before the Europeans (the English) landed on the Tibet, Tibetans called themselves “bod” or “po.” This word is still in use, referring to both the place and the people.
3) So, a question like, “When did the Chinese first invade Tibet?” is an oxymoron. The fallacy is comparable to a hypothetical question: “When did Native Americans invade Navajo or Apache tribal lands? “ In America, you have Navajo, Cherokee, Choctaw, Sioux, Chippewa, Apache, etc. In Zhong Guo, they have Han, Hui, Mian, Zang, Zhuang… … about 50 plus ethnicities living on the land called the Middle Kingdom.
4) So, just like the Navajo people, who are ethnic Native Americans, the Tibetan people are an ethnic Chinese. What? How could you say that Tibetan people are an ethnic Chinese? YES, THEY ARE. But their culture, clothing, and food are so different than that of Chinese, if you object my assertion. Be calm, my friend. When you say “Chinese”, you probably refer to Han Chinese, who is only one of many ethnicities in China. But there are at least a dozen of other ethnic Chinese minorities whose culture, language, clothing, and ways of religious worship are every bit as exotic, if not more than, as those of Tibetans!
Then, what makes the Tibetan issue come to a head? A short answer is because of the English and the CIA’ s never-ending meddling. A long answer is, well, let’s explain the long one:
5) As early as the seventh century, the ethnic Tibetan and ethnic Han Chinese established close ties through royal inter-marriages; the Han Emperor’s daughter married the head of the Tibetan tribe. The alliance was cemented further into a military and political bond by a mutual agreement or a bilateral practice: Han Chinese officials (or other ethnic Chinese who took control of the dynasty) came to the Tibetan tribal court to assist in administration and defense matters, while the Tibetan court sent its officials to the Central government court. For a very long time, the Central Chinese court subsidized the Tibetan court.
6) Here is a specific in Yuan Dynasty, which was controlled by ethnic Meng Chinese, or Mongols: In the middle of the thirteenth century ( about 100 years after William the Conqueror invaded England), Tibet was formally incorporated into the Chinese territory of the Yuan Dynasty. Yuan Emperor Kublai entrusted the power of administering the Tibet region to the Sakya Sect, setting up the General Council (renamed Political Council in 1288) which was a central government organ exercising administrative power over the country's Buddhist affairs and Tibetan affairs. The Yuan government instituted the system of imperial preceptor, whose job was to confer titles on political and religious leaders; to delimit administrative divisions; to appoint local officials; to take census, to collate and stipulate revenue and taxes; to divide the Tibet region into thirteen Wan Hu (ten thousand households). The heads of Wan Hu were conferred upon and appointed directly by the Yuan Court. There were three Chief Military Commands of the Pacification Commissioners' Offices, which took charge of garrison troops and the administrative affairs of the various Wan Hu Offices in Tibet proper and other Tibetan areas. (This paragraph was from the historical records at authoritative China websites. I cannot do it otherwise since Yuan dynasty was about AD 1270—1370, and no other country can provide a detailed records on this subject. )
7) This type of integrity had kept its steadfastness until the 19th century, when China’s Qing dynasty was vitally crippled by the opium trade imposed by the English. In 1888, The English invaded Bhutan and from there launched its first attack on Tibet. The invasion met Tibetan’s fierce resistance (see http://scholar.ilib.cn/A-xzdxxb200403002... In 1904 the English army, headed by Francis Younghusband, launched its second invasion on Tibet. “Younghusband slaughtered 1,300 Tibetans in Gyangzê. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_You... In the Chinese records, the British had slaughtered over 5000 Tibetans in all at the end of the invasion. The Anglo-Tibetan Treaty of 1904 was forced upon the Tibetans. This was at a time when the Tibetans’ usual protector, China’s Emperor, could not even protect himself from the uprisings inside; neither could he keep the European powers from the outside at bay. (The Qing Dynasty ended in 1911.)
8) But In 1906 the English made the Anglo-Chinese Convention with Qing Emperor. It confirmed the Anglo-Tibetan Treaty of 1904; Britain agreed "not to annex Tibetan territory or to interfere in the administration of Tibet" while China engaged "not to permit any other foreign state to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet". In the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, drafted by the British, Britain also recognized the "suzerainty of China over Tibet" and, in conformity with such admitted principle, engaged "not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government” (The above was from Wikipedia.(Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Sven_...
9) In 1914, China was in chaos. The English seized the chance to shovel “the Simla Convention” down Tibetan and China’s throats. By this treaty the English would partition Tibet into two, Inner Tibet and Outer Tibet. (By the way, this treaty was the main cause of border dispute between India and China.) China resisted it, to no avail. In the end, Tibetans signed the treaty under the English pressure, whereas the China government refused to sign. Soon the World War I started, absorbing the whole world into it. When it ended, China found itself emerged as a victim at the hand of the Japanese despite that China sided with the Allies. So the revolution ensued. Young Chinese were going abroad in droves to find ways to save the country. They got support from Russia while the English and Americans refused (for the obvious reason that they intended to keep their Extraterritoriality, a form of colony over which China had no sovereignty). This was a main reason that the Chinese Communist Party was growing fast and popular among the Chinese mass. Then, the War of Anti-Japanese invasion, the World War II and the Civil War ensued. Tibet was in neglect.
10) In 1949, the Peoples’ Republic of China was established. Mao Zedong declared that the new China shall “abolish all unequal treaties forced upon the peoples of China by the foreign powers.” This certainly includes treaties coerced upon the ethnic Tibetans by the English. The Communist Party Army, called Peoples Liberation Army (PLA), chased the Nationalist Army, supported by the US and UK, down to the far ends of China territory, including the Tibet. Tibetans joined forces of the Nationalist army to resist. They were simply not a match. But Mao Zedong had no intention to crush or overthrow Dalai Lama regime. It was kept intact. Dalai Lama’s theocracy and its privilege basically were same as it had been. Dalai Lama was all happy when he was invited to Beijing to sign a agreement with Mao in 1951. Four years later he and another Lama were at top of the Central Chinese government and the PLA undertook the defense of Tibet. The century-old tradition came back; and Dalai gave a praise speech about it when he addressed the National Peoples Congress. All went well until,
11) Well, here comes a part that is hard to relate. Even if I can describe it, you would probably not believe it. Part of reason is that the Hollywood, the media and the publishers had rarely exposed it ( for the purpose we do not yet know); Part of reason is its uniqueness in the way that Dalai Lama regime governs its people before 1959. It was a serfdom in an extreme form plus a theocracy in highest degree. Here is a story told by my friend, who happened to be an aid to another Panchan lama, Panchan is the second in Tibetan theocratic hierarchy. But unike Dalai Lama, Panchan stayed in China and he lived in Beijing. About 1986, Panchan took a tour in the southwest Tibet, He took my friend with him. What shocked my friend (he is not an ethnic Tibetan but an ethnic Man Chinese) is that the region was so religious, so lama worshiping, that the whole entourage could hardly move Panchan out of crowd for the next village, What blocked their progress is not only the pious crowd, but also the money that thrown at them by the Tibetan villagers. For every 10 -20 meters, Panchan’s limo driver and my friend had to stop in order to remove the paper money piling up over the windshields. This was about 1985, when China was about to develop, the interior China remained poverty-stricken, even so inside the Tibet. But those pious villagers gave Panchan all they got, When money was gone, they start throwing bronze bracelet, bead necklace or whatever they believe value-worth at the entourage. This was their first time to see a Panchan, a reincarnation in their belief. They had no reason to reserve, since their life was ma
[*]1 year ago 他第二条留言如果没人翻译的话，我认领了。
squirrelnyc 发表于 2009-4-3 03:43 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
谢谢，我正好没时间全部翻译。他的第一条留言我只翻译了引用的部分，还有2-3段没翻。
如果你有时间，请一定读一读学者迈克尔帕伦蒂(Michael Parenti)的论文"友好的封建制度：西藏神话"。
我分别读了三个版本:2003，2004和2007年的。比较遗憾的是后来修改中他删除了不少对ZD不利的内容，增加了指责中国政府侵犯人权的内容。
2003
http://www.swans.com/library/art9/mparen01.html
2004
http://www.doublestandards.org/parenti2.html
2007
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html About Examiner.com
Launched in April 2008, Examiner.com serves 60 major markets across the country and is quickly becoming the premier online brand for local information and events. We are a division of the Clarity Media Group, owned by the Anschutz Company, one of the largest media companies in the country.
Our content is contributed by passionate, informed people known as Examiners. Examiners are people in your community with a common desire to share their knowledge and expertise with others. Examiners are college students, civil servants, retirees, doctors, musicians, magazine editors and stay-at-home parents.
请版主帮忙编辑一下1楼，背景材料那里关于Examiner.com的介绍有错。
把以下文字换成上头的英文介绍
The Examiner 是一个由Leigh和John Hunt在1808年创立的周报。
John Forster 1835年成为该杂志的文学编辑，此后1847-1855年的编辑是Albany Fonblanque。投稿者包括英国著名作家狄更斯等。
该杂志在1886年停刊。
在西藏的穆斯林第一个留言完整翻译版（楼主翻了2，3，4段，我翻了1，5，6段）
每一千个中国人中，有3到4个是藏族。而在他们聚集的中国西部地区，人口也只占中国总人口的5％。那么没有太多中国人（也就是你所说的中国汉人）没有和藏族人亲自交流过，这有什么奇怪的呢？另外，你有没有和任何在大藏区生活的非藏族人交流过吗？我们也居住在这块土地上，为什么你们要忽略我们的存在？
藏人只占青海人口的20%。我们非藏族占了80%。达赖喇嘛主张的大藏区里头，半数以上的人口是非藏族。我们也不是移民。千百年来羌族人居住在青藏高原的东部，而那时藏族不过是雅鲁藏布江村庄里的一些部落。自从成吉思汗征服了青海(700多年前) ，蒙古人就一直生活在这里，在此之前许多其他民族陆陆续续搬来这里，我们都已经在这里生活了几百年了。
如果流亡西藏政府成为我们的政府，在其100%的藏族背景下，每一个政府官员都将是藏族人，以及一部不允许任何人挑战达赖喇嘛作为宗教领袖和政治领袖地位的宪法。可以肯定的是你们对藏人的担忧对我们而言将是一个实际问题，那时我们是不是将“快乐地看着我们的语言和文化灭绝？”
许多人在西方利用“独特的语言和文化”作为支持西藏独立的一个主要理由。事实是，700年来西藏一直是中国的一部分，而且仍然保留着你们称之为独特的语言和文化。许多其他少数民族几千年来都生活在中国，我们仍然有我们独特的语言和文化，为什么只因为一个(藏族)的语言和文化背景，我们的国家就应该分裂，如同西方媒体要求的？如果因为文化和语言给予西藏独立，那么是否也应该允许其他20个传统民族独立于西藏之外？
今天，很多藏族都在学习中文，这样他们就能有更好的工作机会。这和很多在中国和美国的中国人学习英语来提高自己的就业能力有什么区别呢？我当然同意藏族人应该可以选择不学习中文（他们目前就是这样做的），但是请不要忘了，中文是中国的主要语言，几乎每个人都说中文，你要想取得成功，就得学中文。我们生活在全球化的时代。英语不是我的母语，但是你真的觉得我会说英语是一件坏事吗？若非如此，我有怎么能读懂jack的这篇文章并且在这里留言呢？
不管怎么样，我支持在汉藏人民之间进行更多的沟通。但是生活在这里的其他民族也应该加入到讨论中来。藏族作为人类的一支，并没有什么特别的。忽略其他民族就是种族主义的表现。我不是说您是种族主义者，但是既然您似乎也进行了客观的研究，我觉得我应该向您指出我刚才提到的那些意见。
a Muslim in Tibet says:
Every 3 to 4 out of 1000 people live in China is ethnic Tibetan, especially considering less than 5% of the Chinese population live in the western section of China where Tibet is. Are you surprised not many Chinese (what you meant was "Han Chinese") have talked with Tibetans? Also, have you talked with any non-Tibetans living in this Greater Tibet area? We live in this land, why should we be ignored?
Tibetans only make 20% the population of Qinghai. We, the non-Tibetans, make up 80% of the population here. We also form more than half of the population in this Greater Tibet area claimed by the Dalai Lama, and we are not immigrants. Qiang people dominated east part of Tibet plateau for thousands of years when Tibetans were still some tribes in the Yarlung Zangbo villages. Mongolians have lived in Qinghai ever since Genghis Khan conquered here (700 years ago), many other ethnic groups moved here earlier than that, some followed and we all have been living here for hundreds of years.
If the exiled Tibet government becomes our government, with their 100% Tibetan background, every single government official being an ethnic Tibetan, and with a constitution that does not allow anybody to challenge the Dalai Lama's position both as a religious leader and political leader (the head of the government). It is also for sure what you are worried about Tibetans would be a practical problem for us. Are we then, going to be "happy watching our language and culture disappear?"
Many people in the west use "distinctive language and culture" as a main reason to argue for Tibet independence. The truth is, Tibet has been a part of China for 700 years, and still has a language and culture you call distinctive. Many other minority ethnic groups have lived in China for thousands of years, and we still have our distinctive languages and culture, so why should our country break up now because of one (Tibetan) language and culture as the media in the west call for? If Tibet should be granted independence because of culture and language, should the other 20 traditional ethnic groups all be granted independence from Tibet
Today, many Tibetans learn Chinese so they have more opportunities in finding better jobs, what is that so different from many Chinese learn English to find better jobs, both in China and in the US? I definitely think Tibetans should have a choice of not learning Chinese (which they do), but keep in mind, Chinese is the dominant language in China, almost everybody speaks it, you just have to learn it to be successful. We live at a time of globalization. English is not my native language, but do you think it's a bad thing for me after all that I can speak English? How else can I read Jack's article and write a comment here?
' a, t0 Y; ^1 W& y9 A2 v+ \+ X. K求真务实 理性交流* Ci- N/ U1 t& x+ J8 m# b
Anyway, after all, I support the communication between Han Chinese and Tibetans. But all the other ethnic groups living here should be included in this discussion. Tibetans are not so special as humans. Ignoring the rest ethnic groups is racist. I am not saying you are, but since you seem to sure you have done objective research. I feel I have to point out to you the things I have just said. 在西藏的穆斯林第二条留言翻译版：
我在youtube上看到你的频道，所以过来看一下。我对您在这个领域的研究非常佩服。谢谢您提出了这个西藏问题中最为重要的议题。我不想把这个评论变为长篇大论，但是我会写我自己感触最深的一点，这也是给所有访问这个网页的读者看的。
西藏既不是一个只有一种文化的地理政治意义上的地区，也不是百分之百的佛教地区，虽然我感觉西方媒体一直以来别有用心地误导公众，让他们以为西藏只有一种文化，而且全民信教。特别是当我们在谈论西藏问题时，我们讨论的并不仅仅是“西藏自治区”，而是达赖喇嘛及其流亡政府所定义的“大藏区”（包括西藏、青海、以及四川甘肃和云南的部分地区）。我非常担心，这个大藏区一旦独立，就会成为他们宪法中所规定的佛教神权统治。这对居住在这个区域上千万的非佛教徒来说，将会是一场灾难。考虑到穆斯林和佛教徒在过去，特别是民国时期的关系，穆斯林将会成为重灾区。最糟糕的情况就是我们都会被驱逐出去，达赖喇嘛在他的五点和平计划中把这一条写得很明白。
即使我们不被驱逐，我们也不要西藏流亡政府来统治，因为这个政府是由佛教僧人担任领导，他们并不是任人唯贤，而是根据转世来决定领导的人选。以青海（他们称为安多）为例，如果青海成为独立西藏的一部分，就会出现不公平的情况。穆斯林（青海境内有回族、撒拉族、东乡族、维族和哈萨克族）在青海的人口要超过藏族，这里还有汉族、蒙古族、土族、布依族……一共有41个民族都在青海大量聚居，凭什么要让一个佛教僧人来担任政府领导？如果我们可以让一位宗教领袖来担任政府的领导，那么既然青海的穆斯林更多，为什么我们不能有一位穆斯林哈里发（译注：穆斯林国家政教合一的统治者，类似藏族的达赖喇嘛）来做领导？
中国的回族穆斯林，军阀马氏家族曾经是青海的统治者，并且于1912年至1949年担任省长（民国时期）。现在的这位达赖喇嘛于1937年就出生在这里。马氏家族掌权之前，中国的清王朝是这里的统治者，马氏家族之后，是中华人民共和国。我们坚决不要一个佛教僧人来担任政府领导。他们以前也试图征服青海，但是他们的部队（西藏佛教徒）被马家军（穆斯林部队）打得溃不成军。
就好像你们西方人一样，我们也要政教分离，更不要被其它宗教的统治阶级所领导。我听说，在达赖喇嘛所认定的大藏区中，基督教是傈僳族和彝族中最为普遍的宗教。记住，我们都在这里生活了几千年，有的民族在这里的历史比藏族还要长。西方人为什么认为我们要流亡藏人来统治我们？难道就因为他们和某些西方人走得更近吗？
不要把一个佛教僧人强加给我们。在我们眼里，目前的中国政府也许并不太好，但是这要比佛教神权统治更加公平。我们希望更加民主，而不是倒退。
原文：
a Muslim in Tibet
says:
Hi, I saw your link on one of the youtube channels and I thought i'd check it out. you really impressed me with your research on the subject. Thanks for bringing out one of the most important points in the whole Tibet issue. I don't want to turn my comment into a long essay but I will write down one thing I feel very strong about, and this is to all the people who read this webpage.
Tibet is neither a mono-cultural geopolitical entity, nor a one-hundred percent Buddhist area, even though I feel the media in the west have been purposely misleading people to believe so. Especially if this Tibet we are talking about is not "Tibet Autonomous Region", but this "Greater Tibet Area" defined by the Dalai Lama and the exiled govt. (which includes Tibet, Qinghai and part of Sichuan, Gansu and Yunnan) I am very worried if this Greater Tibet area, if independent, will become a Buddhist theocracy as what their constitution says so. That will be a disaster for the millions of non-Buddhists living here, especially Muslim, considering the relationships of Muslims and Buddhists in the past, especially during the time of the Republic of China. The worst thing can happen is that we all get expelled by them as what Dalai Lama has stated in his five point peace plan.
bbs.m4.cn% [$ Q0 A0 d. g. A9 F
Even if we don't get expelled, we don't want the exiled Tibet government which has a Buddhist monk as the head who is not choose by merit but incarnation. Take Qinghai (claimed by them as Amdo) as example, it would be very unfair in Qinghai becomes part of the independent Tibet. Muslims (Hui, Salar, Dongxiang, Uyghurs and Kazakhs are the ones in Qinghai) have a larger population than Tibetans in this province, and there's also Han, Mongolians, Tu Zu, Buyei, ... 41 ethnic groups in total have large communities in Qinghai, why should a Buddhism monk be the head of the government? If we were going to have a religious leader as the head of the government, why can't we have a Muslim Caliph as our government head in Qinghai since we have a larger population?( U; ]3 P* M; S3 g$ _$ S! [" r
Chinese Hui Muslim, the Ma family warlord was already the ruler and provincial governor of Qinghai (part of the Republic of China) from 1912 to 1949. The current Dalai Lama was born here in 1937. Before the Ma family, it was Qing China who ruled here, after the Ma family, it is People's Republic of China, we certainly do not want a Buddhist monk as our government head. They tried to take over Qinghai before, but their troops (Tibetan Buddhist) were crashed by Ma's army (Muslims troops).
Same like all you guys have in the west, we want Religion and Politics to be separated, especially if the ruling class is not even from our own religion. From what I heard, in parts of Yunnan and Sichuan where the Dalai Lama claims, Christianity is the largest religion among the Lisu and Yi people. Remember, we all have lived here for thousands of years, some have been living here for a longer time than the Tibetans. What on earth makes people in the west think we want the exiled Tibetans to be our rulers? Just because they are closer with some people from the west?
Do not push a Buddhist monk on top of our head. The current Chinese government might not be good in your eyes, but it's much more fair than a Buddhist theocracy. We want move towards democracy, not move backwards. 把简介也翻了得了。麻烦斑竹/管理员贴到第一个帖子里去，谢谢。
关于Exmainer.com
Examiner.com成立于2008年8月，为全国（应该是美国）60多个主要市场提供服务，很快便成为提供当地信息和活动的主要网上品牌。我们是Clarity Media Group的一个分支，由Anschutz Company所有，是本国最大的媒体公司之一。
我们的内容由Examiner，也就是富有热情、消息灵通的人士所提供。Examiner是您社区中的一份子，愿意和他人分享知识和阅历。Examiners中有大学学生、公务员、退休人员、医生、音乐家、杂志编辑以及驻家父母。
About Examiner.combbs.m4.cn8 K$ u9 v! v- a
Launched in April 2008, Examiner.com serves 60 major markets across the country and is quickly becoming the premier online brand for local information and events. We are a division of the Clarity Media Group, owned by the Anschutz Company, one of the largest media companies in the country.
Our content is contributed by passionate, informed people known as Examiners. Examiners are people in your community with a common desire to share their knowledge and expertise with others. Examiners are college students, civil servants, retirees, doctors, musicians, magazine editors and stay-at-home parents.
, U+ u" u( ]* u8 E( _- y" t 如果你有时间，请一定读一读学者迈克尔帕伦蒂(Michael Parenti)的论文"友好的封建制度：西藏神话"。
我分别读了三个版本:2003，2004和2007年的。比较遗憾的是后来修改中他删除了不少对ZD不利的内容，增加了指责中国 ...
rlsrls08 发表于 2009-4-3 04:02 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
我读的第二个西方人写的驳斥流亡政府达赖喇嘛的文章就是他写的（第一篇是那个在PBS的BBS上舌战群雄的老外jones）。好像他是左派吧，不是科班出身的藏学家。藏学圈子里似乎比较烦这样的人，对他评价不高，但是又没法轻易驳倒他，也郁闷。
你试试GOOGLE一下，会发现不少网站提及。
http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/section.php?id=106
rlsrls08 发表于 2009-4-3 03:38 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
太好了。下回见到他们的人，就有话说喽。 Squirrelnyc, 谢谢你帮忙翻译!!
好像他是左派吧，不是科班出身的藏学家。"
我觉得他是个政论家。从个人简历上看不到太多内容。