[07. 1.11 PBS 回應Tony Martin (有關西藏問題) ] 持續更新中...

ltbriar

原文:
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:25 pm    Post subject: In response to Tony Martin (in relation to the Tibet issue)

’m becoming quite adept at turning the other cheek, though whether of the upper or lower anatomy must remain a matter for fascinating conjecture,for as all good readers of Plato will know, all ideal phenomena of the upper kind have their imperfect (indeed, sometimes odiferous) counterparts in the world below.

So now it's time to deal with sundry affairs: Tony Martin, you begin your critique of my position by personally insulting me, before launching into a vitriolic ramble, and one that is based on a misreading of my position. “Your whole theory relating to Tibet is very similar to all of the other respondents supporting the continued illegal Chinese occupation of a sovereign nation,” you say. “Your position appears to be similar to other invaders of land in our history, or to the various slave trading states over the years. Namely,don’t look at how badly off Tibetans are now in comparison to the rest of China and the world, but rather look at how well off they are compared to how they might be if their invading masters weren’t so benevolent and here to help them.”

I have presented no theories whatsoever relating to Tibet, nor haveI ever justified the Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet.
I did, however, point out that life for the majority of Tibetans has been improving under Chinese governance since the 1980s, and I did so because the weight of empirically verifiable evidence shows this to bethe case.

Let us look at the evidence. If Tibetans were so fiercely suppressed,and if Chinese leaders in Beijing were really out to Sinocize Tibet by increasing the ethnic ratio of Han to Tibetan, then why are all Tibetan families permitted to have up to three children, and are only fined small amounts of money if they exceed this number? Tibetan families in Tibet average 3.8 children, larger than Tibetan families in India. In fact, the population of Tibet in 1959 was only about 1.19 million.Today however, the population of Greater Tibet is 7.3 million, of which, according to the 2000 census, 6 million are ethnic Tibetans. If we consider the Tibet  Autonomous Region only, then according to the census conducted in 2000, as referred to in Wikipedia,“there were 2,616,300 people in Tibet, with Tibetans totalling2,411,100 or 92.2% of the current regional population. The census also revealed that the Tibetan's average lifespan has increased to 68 due to the improving standard of living and access to medical services.”  In 1950 the average lifespan was only 35, and “infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 to 0.661% in 2000.”

As Barry Sautman, who is Associate Professor of Social Science at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology points out in his study on Tibet and the (Mis-)Representation of Cultural Genocide,“the state sponsored transfer [of Han Chinese] to Tibet is on a small scale. From 1994 to 2001 the PRC organized only a few thousand people to go to Tibet as cadres. Most serve only 3 years and then return to China. Those who move on their own to the Tibet Autonomous Region usually return to China in a few years. They come for a while, find the cities of Tibet too expensive, and then return to China. Some of the72,000 Chinese who maintain their hukou [household registration] in Tibet don't really live there. Pensions are higher if your household is registered in Tibet.”

These facts are supported by articles in the Columbia Journal of Asian Law and by an Australian Chinese demographer in Asian Ethnicity in 2000,and show that the claims of ethnic swamping in Tibet are misleading."What I think these articles show,” says Barry Sautman, “is that there is no evidence of significant population losses over the whole period from the 1950s to the present. There are some losses during he Great Leap Forward but these were less in Tibetan areas than in other parts of China. Where these were serious were in Sichuan and Qinghai, but even there not as serious in the Han areas of China. There are no bases at all for the figures used regularly by the exile groups. They use the figure of 1.2 million Tibetans dying from the 1950s to the 1970s, but no source for this is given. As a lawyer I give no credence to statistics for which there is no data, no visible basis."

In fact, as Michael Parenti has pointed out in his article on Friendly Feudalism: the Tibet Myth,“both the Dalai Lama and his advisor and youngest brother, Tendzin Choegyal, claimed that ‘more than 1.2 million Tibetans are dead as a result of the Chinese occupation.’ But the official 1953 census - six years before the Chinese crackdown -recorded the entire population residing in Tibet at 1,274,000.33 Other census counts put the ethnic Tibetan population within the country at about two million. If the Chinese killed 1.2 million in the early 1960s then whole cities and huge portions of the countryside, indeed almost all of Tibet, would have been depopulated, transformed into a killing field dotted with death camps and mass graves - of which we have not seen evidence. The thinly distributed Chinese military force in Tibet was not big enough to round up, hunt down, and exterminate that many people even if it had spent all its time doing nothing else.”

Tibetans in exile and their supporters seem to pull such figuresout of a hat in the same way that the Chinese exile Harry Wu does inrelation to the number of mainland prisoners (see my piece On the Nature of Chinese Governance and Society for details).

Barry Sautman also convincingly challenges claims that the Tibetan language is being devalued and replaced by Chinese. "92-94% of ethnic Tibetans speak Tibetan,” he notes. “Instruction in primary school is pretty universally in Tibetan. Chinese is bilingual from secondary school onward. All middle schools in the TAR also teach Tibetan. In Lhasa there are about equal time given to Chinese, Tibetan, and English.”

There is also an upsurge of the performing arts, poetry and painting by Tibetans, which many visitors to Tibet today cannot fail to notice, all of which are encouraged and funded by Beijing, though of course the growing tourist market also plays an important role in encouraging Tibetans to continue practicing their traditional arts and crafts, albeit, in a commodified form.

Importantly, Sautman, like me, has observed surprisingly “fewaspects of Chinese culture in Tibet, but there are many aspects ofWestern culture, such as jeans, disco music, etc.”

Barry Sautman’s views are by no means marginalised within Western academia either Tony. Colin Mackerras, Professor Emeritus of International Business and Asian Studies at Griffith University, Australia, for example, remarked that Suatman’s book “is a courageous and long overdue study of a highly emotional and extremely important topic’ in that it meticulously details and documents “the processes of cultural change in religion, the arts, language, migration and various other aspects” which are rightly attributed “mainly to Westernised modernity.”

Another interesting and insightful study is the one carried out by Melvyn C. Goldstein, who is Professor and Chairman, Department of Anthropology, and Director of the Center for Research on Tibet at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, and Cynthia M. Beall, who is Professor of Anthropology at Case Western Reserve University. Their study, titled The Impact of China’s Reform Policy on the Nomads of Western Tibet,was carried out over a 16 month period in the Tibet Autonomous Region,and was supported by grants from the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China, the Committee on Research and Exploration of the National Geographic Society, and the National Science Foundation.

It’s worth quoting at length from their conclusion:
“The new Chinese economic and cultural policies implemented in Tibet following Hu Yaobang's investigation tour in May of 1980 have produced a major transformation in Phala. Following decollectivisation, the nomads' economy immediately reverted to the traditional household system of production and management, which, enhanced by the concession on taxes, has led to an overall improvement in the standard of livingeven though local-level officials have not completely implemented anopen (or negotiated) market system. The new policies have also led to increasing involvement in the market economy and dramatic social andeconomic differentiation. Equally important, the post-1980 policieshave fostered a cultural and social revitalization that has allowed the nomads to resurrect basic components of their traditional culture….lifein Phala today is closer to that of the traditional era than at anytime since China assumed direct administrative control over Tibet in1959. The post-1980 reforms created conditions whereby the nomadic pastoralists of Phala were able to regain control of their lives and recreate a matrix of values, norms, and beliefs that is psychologically and culturally meaningful. The new polices have, in essence, vindicated the nomads'  belief in the worth of their nomadic way of life and their Tibetan ethnicity.”

Tyler Denison reached similar conclusions in his study, titled Reaffirmation of ‘Ritual Cosmos’: Tibetan Perceptions of Landscape and Socio-Economic Development in Southwest China, published quite recently in the Spring 2006 edition of the University of New Hampshire Undergraduate Research Journal.

“Rather than finding Tibetan tradition being destroyed by Chinese rule and the influx of people, goods and ideas from the modern world,” concludes Denison, “I witnessed first hand the importance of Kawa Karpo and the ritual cosmos in the lives of the Tibetans of Deqin county: it has not been diminished. Tibetans’ enduring perception of the landscape as a ritual cosmos cannot be termed a static reality of tradition, butmore a dynamic cultural process, as they are continually renegotiating and redefining their beliefs in light of new social and economic realities.”

So much then Tony, for your claims of cultural genocide. And by the way, most Tibetans, if you ever get a chance to visit Tibet and to converse with the Tibetan locals, will tell you that they are not “forced”  to learn Chinese, but rather, do so keenly, and on the expectation that being fluent in both Chinese and English will help to empower themselves by broadening their future employment opportunities.

Tony, I hereby charge you with having a patronising attitude towards the Tibetan people – they are not passive victims, and you really shouldn’t deny them of any agency. In fact, as Tsering Shakya has pointed out in a paper he wrote for the New Left Reviewback in 2002, "Tibetans are indeed well represented on bodies like the National People’s Congress and the People’s Consultative Conference. In fact I would go further and say that they are over-represented, given the size of the Tibetan population." And don't forget the role that many Tibetans themselves played in the destruction of monastries and the various perscutions that took place in Tibet during the Cultural Revolution. Let's not deny the people of Tibet of any agency.

Your assertion that Western journalists make their observations of Tibet in the presence of “Chinese Communist Party lackeys” also demonstrates your ignorance. Journalist and tourists alike are quite free to wander about most parts of Tibet (provided they have PSB permits) without the accompaniment of officials.

You asked me to provide you with evidence of journalists having met Tibetans in Tibet who have expressed the view that the positives of Chinese rule outweigh the negatives.

Let us take attitudes towards the Beijing to Lhasa railway forstarters. In the lead-up to the opening of that railway, the Dalai Lama expressed fears that the railway was going to aid in the Sinocisation of Tibet, and this was quickly seized on by Tibetans in exile support groups throughout the Western world as a development that would aid in Beijing’s alleged policy of genocide. Such claims of course, excited the imaginations of many ordinary Tibetans, many of who not surprisingly then expressed suspicions about what the new train line would bring them. But as many tourists and journalists to Tibet soon discovered, many urban ethnic Tibetans felt as though the positives would outweigh the negatives, and this is because an increasing number of Tibetans now have a very real material stake in the new economy.Their living standards are improving, and although Han retailers and small businesses stand to benefit more from increases in tourism and trade, the fact is that this will likely change as more and more Tibetans accumulate sufficient enough capital to start up enterprises of their own. And many Tibetans know this. Jonathon Watts, of The Guardian newspaper, reported that  “Among the four or five unscheduled meetings Ihad with Tibetans, most were looking forward to the economic benefits the line is expected to bring: 2.5m tonnes of cargo and 1m tourists and business people.”

Indeed, Tibetans are divided on the issue of whether or not the benefits of being a part of China outweigh the negatives. “Tibetans are divided,” noted Jonathon Watts. There are those “independence activists” who expressed disapproval of the railway because they are against being a part of China, and who therefore regard the new line as evidence that Beijing is out to further entrench their rule, while others acknowledged the good that the trains might bring. “I was surprised to find a living Buddha make one of the strongest arguments in favour of the railway,” wrote Watts. "’We've been too backward, too isolated for too long,’ said the lama, who asked that his name not be used. ‘The rest of the world is in the 21st century. We are still in the middle ages.’ A more predictable advocate was the governor of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, Jampa Pahtsok. "It is unimaginable to have a high growth rate without a railroad.’” (see The Guardian, Sep.20, 2005)

And life is improving for many Tibetan farmers also, as Goldstein and Beall’s research (mentioned earlier) shows. When Dexter Roberts came across villagers in Northern Tibet’s Nagqu Prefecture, he discovered that most of the villagers (barley farmers and herdsmen) were quite content. “Life isn’t bad at all”, he quoted one villager as saying. (see "Tibet: Caught in China’s Two Hands", Business Week Online, Sep.19, 2003).

Tony, I have never argued that most Tibetans don’t want some form of self-government. I simply said that I think it is presumptuous to say that the majority of Tibetans want independence. I stand by that. Maybethey do? But to assert with confidence that most want independence without supporting such a claim with any empirically verifiable evidence of a quantitative nature is questionable, especially when there is a growing amount of qualitative evidence to show that Tibetansare divided on such issues. Even the Dalai Lama himself says that he no longer wants total independence from China, but instead, some form of self-government.

Take a closer, more objective look at Tibet today. The mass protests have stopped. As Robert Barnett, author of Lhasa: Streets with Memories (published by Columbia University Press) stated in an interview back in April 2006, “Tibet has become a dispute in which the main weapons are forms of economic change that have benefits and drawbacks: the market, the leisure industry, mass tourism, population shift, uneven wealth, and consumerism.”

It won’t be all that much longer Tony, before Lhasa’s main thoroughfares find themselves hosting McDonald’s, KFC, and Pizza Hut fast food outlets, along with Starbuck’s and other such global enterprises. And don’t be too surprised if some of the license holdersturn out to be ethnic Tibetans.

Tony, you argue that “Tibet and Tibetans might [have] been very different had China not invaded, but for sure they would be sovereign masters of their own destiny.”

Bollocks! How many ordinary Tibetans were ever the “masters of their own destinies”? I’m not justifying China’s invasion and occupation of Tibet, which was carried out for geopolitical reasons, and largely in response to continual incursions by Britain and Russia, and which therefore needs to be viewed in the context of the Cold War. The Kuomintang of course consistently made it clear that they intended on invading and occupying Tibet, and had they defeated the PLA, they probably would have gone on to do just that. Had that been the case, I bet the the U.S. State Department wouldn't have objected.

But let us not romanticise the life of Tibetans prior to the invasion either. As Michael Parenti (and many others like Leigh Feigon, in hisbook Demystifying Tibet) has documented, Tibet “was a retrograde theocracy of serfdom and poverty, where a favoured few lived high and mighty off the blood, sweat, and tears of the many. It was a long way from Shangri-La.”

And “whatever wrongs and new oppressions introduced by the Chinese in Tibet, after 1959 they did abolish slavery and the serfdom system of unpaid labour, and put an end to floggings, mutilations, and amputations as a form of criminal punishment. They eliminated the many crushing taxes, started work projects, and greatly reduced unemployment and beggary. They established secular education, thereby breaking the educational monopoly of the monasteries. And they constructed running water and electrical systems in Lhasa.”

[ 本帖最后由 ltbriar 于 2008-7-28 06:02 编辑 ]

ltbriar

Finally, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the Tibetans in exileand their supporters have consistently exaggerated the human rightsabuses that have taken place in Tibet, as Barry Sautman and others haveconvincingly demonstrated. Such exaggerations from the Tibetancommunity in exile come as no surprise though. As Michael Parenti says:

“For the rich lamas and lords, the Communist intervention was acalamity. Most of them fled abroad, as did the Dalai Lama himself, whowas assisted in his flight by the CIA… throughout the 1960s, theTibetan exile community was secretly pocketing $1.7 million a year fromthe CIA, according to documents released by the State Department in1998. Once this fact was publicised, the Dalai Lama's organisationitself issued a statement admitting that it had received millions ofdollars from the CIA during the 1960s to send armed squads of exilesinto Tibet to undermine the Maoist revolution. The Dalai Lama's annualpayment from the CIA was $186,000. Indian intelligence also financedboth him and other Tibetan exiles. He has refused to say whether he orhis brothers worked for the CIA. The agency has also declined tocomment….Today, mostly through the National Endowment for Democracy andother conduits that are more respectable-sounding than the CIA, the USCongress continues to allocate an annual $2 million to Tibetans inIndia, with additional millions for ‘democracy activities’ within theTibetan exile community.”

The Tibetan issue is by no means clear-cut. It is complex, and inconstant states of flux. Even Tibetan specialists find it difficult tofit together images and realities, and so one might imagine how muchmore difficult it is for the great majority who make no pretence toknowledge about Tibet and who, if interested, seek guidance in theformulation of their own images. Those who seek such guidance from theplethora of publications produced by the numerous existing Tibetansupport groups should therefore read them with some considerablecaution, given their obvious bias.

I am not a Tibetan specialist, by any means, but I have more confidencein the findings of independent academic researchers (who present moreobjective, more soberly balanced views that are based on empiricallyverifiable research data of both a quantitative and qualitative nature)than I do in both the claims of official Chinese sources and of thevarious Tibetans in exile support groups.

Oh, and by the way Tony, your puerile attempt to discredit me bydismissing me as an employee of the Chinese government really ispathetic, and only serves to further demonstrate the height of yourignorance. I have been in China now for five years, not four, and I amnot, and never have been, employed by the Chinese government. I teach auniversity preparation program at a Chinese private university inHangzhou for a Sydney-based college, and I am paid an Australiansalary, in Australian dollars, by my employer of over 15 years, theN.S.W. Department of Education and Training. There is absolutely nopressure on me to “two the Partly line” – in fact, nobody here has everinterfered with my teaching.

I suggest, Tony Martin, that you take a sedative and calm down. A few laxatives will no doubt help!

M.A.Jones
Hangzhou

原文連結:  
http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496347#496347

ltbriar

翻譯:



我逐渐颇精于平和地面对挑衅, 虽然高低剖析仍是匪夷所思的, 一如所有善读柏拉图者皆知, 上层世界一切完美现象都有在下层跟它们相对的不完美(的确, 有时不堪予闻的)对立面。

故现该算点杂帐的时候了: Tony Martin, 你在评论我的立场里始先作人身攻击,继转为尖刻闲话, 都是源于错读了我立场。你说:“你整个对西藏的理论是跟所有其他支持中国继续非法占领一个主权国家的回应者很相似的。”“你的立场似乎跟我们历史上的其他侵略者,或跟历来各个买卖奴隶的国家很相似。即是, 甭看西藏现在比中国及世界其他地方有多差,而是跟要是入侵他们的主子不是那么仁慈和援助他们的情况相比较, 他们如今是多好。”

我从来没提出什么有关西藏的理论, 也绝未认可中国入侵及占据西藏。
可是, 我曾指出在中国管治下自1980年代以来,  大多数藏人生活获得改善,而我这样做是因为事不离实有可确认的证据显示情况就是那样。


让我们看看证据。如果藏人确是被无情压迫, 而如北京的中国领袖真要以提高汉藏族裔比率来汉化藏人的话,那么为什么藏人家庭可以最多生三个小孩, 而且如果他们超生的话只用交很少的罚款?西藏家庭平均有3.8个小孩, 比在印度的西藏家庭还要多。 事实上, 1959年西藏人口只有119万人。可是, 今天大西藏的人口是730万,根据2000年普查, 其中600万是藏族。如果我们只考虑西藏自治区, 那么根据2000年普查, 一如Wikipedia所引,“西藏人口为2,616,300, 其中西藏人共2,411,100或 占现时地区人口的92.2% 。 该普查同时透露西藏人平均寿命因生活水平改善及有医疗服务而延长至68岁。”1950 年的平均寿命只有35岁, 而“幼儿死亡率从 1950年的43%in 1950下降至2000年的0.661%。”

正如香港科技大学社会科学副教授沙伯力(Barry Sautman)在他研究西藏及文化灭族的(失)实陈述 Tibetand the (Mis-)Representation of Cultural Genocide中指出“政府支助[汉人]入藏是小规模。从1994至2001年, 中国只安排了数千人到西藏任干部。多数人只逗留三年然后就回中国(内陆)。那些自己迁移到西藏自治区的通常几年后就回中国(内陆)。他们来一会, 发觉西藏城市都很贵,然后就回中国(内陆)。72,000名中国人当中有些仍然保存他们在西藏的户口却不真正在那里居住的。户口登记在西藏, 退休金会高一些。”


哥伦比亚亚洲法律期刊及澳洲一位华裔人口统计学家2000年于亚洲种族渊源所发表的论文也都支持这一事实,证明种族淹没的指控是误导的。沙伯力说“我想这些论文显示的是缺乏证据证明从1950年代迄今整段期间有重大人口消失。在大跃进时有过一些减少, 但是西藏的减少比中国其他地区为少。严重人口降减是在四川与青海,即便如此也不够中国汉人地区的严重。流亡组织人士经常使用的数字是完全没有根据的。他们指自1950至1970年代有120万藏人死亡,却没有提供消息来源。身为一个法律人, 我对没有数据, 没有参考来源的统计是不予采信的。

事实上, 迈克尔·帕伦蒂(Michael Parenti)在他的友善的封建:西藏神话一文内就指出, “dl喇嘛, 他的顾问也是弟弟丹增曲杰都声称‘超过120万藏人因中国占领而死亡。可是1953年 – 中国镇压六年之前 - 官方普查记录居住在西藏的全部人口为1,274,000人。其他普查数字计算境内藏族人口约为两百万左右。如果中国人在1960年代初杀了120万人, 那么所有城市以至大部份农村, 的确差不多整个西藏,都应已十室九空, 遍布死亡集中营和无数墓冢的杀戮屠场 – 但我们看不到这样的证据。薄弱的中国驻藏军队就算耗上全部时间精力也不足以围剿, 缉捕和消灭那么多人。

西藏流亡份子及其支持者似乎从帽子随手捞出这些数未, 跟中国流亡人士吴弘达对大陆监狱囚犯人数的做法如出一辙(详细请参阅我的中国统治性质与社会一文)。

沙伯力也很具说服力的挑战了藏文被贬抑而由中文取代之说。他提到“92-94%藏人说藏语, 小学教育差不多全用藏语教授。中学开始加入中文作双语。西藏自治区内所有中学都有教授藏语。在拉萨, 教中文, 藏文与英文的时间是大约相等的。”

ltbriar

翻譯 (續上: 二)


愈来愈多藏人从事演艺, 诗歌及绘画工作, 是众多西藏游客不可能无睹的, 这全都是由北京拨款鼓励的。当然, 旅游市场发展也大力鼓励藏人继续承传弘扬他们传统艺术, 手工艺, 虽然, 是以商品形式出现。

更重要是, 沙巴利跟我一样讶异地发现“西藏的中国文化痕迹不太多,却有很多西方文化风尚, 如牛仔裤, 廸士高等。”

Tony, 沙巴利的观点在西方学院界绝非寥寥可数。举例来说, 澳洲格里菲斯大学国际商学及亚洲研究中心名誉教授马克拉斯(ColinMackerras)就说沙伯利的著作“是对一个高度敏感兼极为重要的议题期待已久极具胆识的研究。”因为它精细详尽记载了“在宗教,艺术, 语言, 迁移及其他不同方面的过程”,而这一切都正是“大部份由于西式现代化所造成的。”

另一有趣而精辟的研究是由俄亥俄州, 克里夫兰, 华盛顿天主教大学(Case Western Reserve University)人类学系教授也是西藏研究中心主任梅尔文·戈尔斯坦(MelvynC. Goldstein), 与也是该大学人类学教授辛西娅·比尔(CynthiaM. Beal)做, 名为中国改革政策对西藏西部牧民的影响 。在西藏自治区研究超过16个月, 获国家科学院与中国学术交流委员会, 美国国家地理协会研究与探险委员会, 和美国国家科学基金支助支持。

他们的结论值得费些篇幅引述：

“胡耀邦于1980年5月巡视后在西藏落实的新中国经济及文化政策让帕拉(Phala)发生重大变化。随着农业集体化解体,尽管当地官员还没完成建设开放(或差强人意)的市场系统, 牧民经济立即回复传统家庭制的生产和管理, 再加上税务优惠使生活水平整体获得改善。新政策也导致人民参与市场经济, 及社会经济发生变异。同样重要的是80后政策孕育了文化与社会的回春, 进而让牧民恢复他们传统文化中一些基本元素…今天帕拉的生活比1959年中国直接管治西藏以来的任何一个时期都更接近传统时代。80后的改革营造新条件让帕拉牧民重新掌控自己生活和建造在心理上, 文化上都有意义的一套价值,标准和信念。新政策主要来说是维护了牧民对他们游牧生活方式及藏族身份的信念。”

泰莱·丹尼森(Tyler Denison)在他最近在新罕布什尔大学本科研究学报2006春季版发表的研究:重申“仪式秩序”：中国西南部山水和社会经济发展的西藏感觉, 也得到同样的结论。


丹尼森总结:“与其发现西藏传统被中国统治和大量现代社会的人, 货及思想涌入而被破坏,我第一手见证了雪山神女峰与仪式秩序对德钦县的藏人生活的重要性 : 它从来没有被削弱。藏人长久以来视山水为仪式秩序的感觉不能以静态传统概念名之,而是一动态的文化过程, 因为他们是不断按新社会和经济现实来调整与重新定义他们的信念的。

Tony, 你所称的文化灭族就不外如是。还有, 如你真有机会去西藏和跟当地藏人谈谈, 多数藏人会告诉你没人“逼”他们学中文,相反, 他们起劲学, 希望中英文流利的话会让他们开拓自己未来就业前途。

Tony, 我说你对西藏人摆出高倨优越姿态 – 他们不是被动的受害者,而你也真的不该拒绝他们参与任何机构。事实上, 一如次仁夏加(Tsering Shakya 注:西藏历史学者)在2002年新左评论一篇文章指出,“西藏人在一些如全国人大和全国政协等机构有充分代表性。事实上, 以西藏人口比例,我甚至该进一步说, 他们是过度被代表的。”还有别忘许多藏人自己在文革时参与毁灭破坏西藏寺院及其他迫害事件中扮演的角色。我们不应拒阻西藏人民参与任何组织。

你那西方记者是在“中共人员”在场情况去作观察的坚称也显示你的无知。记者跟游客一样能在西藏大部份地区没有官员陪同, 自由来往(只要他们持有公安局PSB许可证)。



[ 本帖最后由 ltbriar 于 2008-7-25 13:31 编辑 ]

ltbriar

翻译 (续上: 三)

你跟我要证据证明记者在西藏真遇上表现中国统治好处比坏的多的藏人。

咱们先由北京拉萨铁路民调说起。直至那铁路通车前, dl喇嘛担心铁路将加强西藏华化,这马上被西藏流亡份子的西方支持组织抓去变成是帮助所谓北京灭种政策的发展项目。这些指称当然激起许多普通藏人的胡思乱想,毫无疑问他们当中于是对新铁路的功用表示怀疑。可是随着许多到西藏的游客及记者很快发现, 许多郊区藏人感到正面影响将远远抵消负面影响, 而这是因为愈来愈多藏人如今在新经济里占有很重大的实际利息。他们生活水平在改善,同时虽然汉族商人和小企业肯定从旅游及商业发展中获利更多, 事实这情况在更多藏人累积足够资本创业时就极可能改变过来。许多藏人都清楚这点。卫报的乔纳森·瓦特报导说“在跟四到五个未有预约的西藏人谈话后, 他们大多对铁路带来的经济利益有所期待:2.5公吨的货运和上百万名的游客及商旅。”

诚然, 西藏人对作为中国一部份是否利大于弊有意见分歧。乔纳森·瓦特注意到“西藏人意见不一。”有“藏独活跃份子”因反对属于中国一部份而不赞成铁路, 认为新铁路是北京巩固管治的证明。但也有其他人肯定铁路可能带来的好处。“我很讶异找到一位活佛对铁路作出最强力的支持论点”,瓦特写着。那要求不要发表名字的喇嘛说“我们太落后, 孤立太久。世界其他地方已是21世纪, 我们仍留在中世纪里。”一个比较能预估的支持者是 西藏自治区人民政府主席向巴平措(JampaPahtsok)“要有高发展率而没有铁路是不可想像的。””(见卫报2005.9.20)

正如戈尔斯坦及比尔的(前述)研究显示,许多西藏农民的生活也在改善中。当罗谷（Dexter Roberts）遇到北西藏那曲地区的村民时,他发现大多数村民(大麦农民和牧民)都很知足。“生活真的不坏。”他引述一个村民的话。(见“西藏：被抓在中国两手之中”商业周刊2003.9.19)

Tony, 我从来没有争辩多数西藏人不希望某形式的自治政府。我只是说我认为声称大多数西藏人要求独立是很冒失的。我坚持这看法。也许他们想?但缺乏可验证的量化经验证据支持下而武断称大多数藏人要求独立是经不起推敲的, 特别是有陆续多的质量证明显示西藏人在此问题上分化的。连dl喇嘛自己也说他不再要求完全从中国独立,而是某形式的自治政府。

更仔细, 更客观地看看今天的西藏。大规模抗争已停止。正如拉萨：带着怀念的街道一书(哥伦比亚大学出版社出版)的作者巴耐特（Robert Barnett）在2006年4月一次访问中表示, “西藏变成一个争议, 它主要武器是以经济改变有利也有弊的形式：市场, 消闲工业, 广泛旅游业, 人口迁移, 财富不平均,与消费主义。”

Tony, 不用太久,拉萨主要大道就会满是麦当奴, 家乡鸡, 披萨屋等快餐店, 还有星巴克与其他类似的国际企业。而且别太讶异那些持牌人居然是藏族。

Tony,  你反驳说“要是中国没入侵, 西藏跟西藏人可能[已]很不同,无论如何他们都当家作主决定自己命运。”

荒谬! 有多少西藏人从前曾有成为“自己命运的主人”?我不是说中国入主占据西藏有理, 那是出自地缘政治考量, 也很大程度上是对英俄持续入侵的反弹, 故而必须从冷战背景来分析。国民党当然一直明确他们准备攻占西藏,要是他们打赢了人民解放军, 他们多半那么做。如果是那样的话, 我敢打赌美国国务院准不会反对。

但我们也不必把被据前的西藏生活来粉饰美化。一如帕伦蒂(还有许多人如利·费贡在他解密西藏一书)记录, 西藏“从前是一个倒退的农奴及贫困的神权政体, 少数特权生活优渥在吸取多数人的血汗泪水。它离香格里拉遥不可及。”

同时“纵然中国在西藏千差万错以至新压制, 1959年后他们取消了免费劳力的奴隶制度与农奴制度,终止了鞭笞, 残害身体, 截肢等酷刑惩罚。他们取消了许多苛捐严役,创建工作工程, 大量减少失业与乞讨人口。他们成立现代教育, 破除寺院垄断教育专利。同时他们在拉萨建设供水与电力系统。”

最后, 一如沙巴利及其他人有力证明, 我们不应忽略西藏流亡份子和他们的支持者一直在夸大在西藏的人权侵犯情况。这些西藏流亡族群如此夸大其实不足为怪, 正如帕伦蒂说：

“对有钱的喇嘛和地主富豪, 共产党当年的干预是场灾难。他们大多远走他乡, 就像dl他本人一样在中央情报局(CIA)协助下逃亡。根据1998年(美国)国务院发布的文件显示,整个1960年代, 西藏流亡组织每年都暗里获中央情报局$170万元的支助。当此事曝光后, dl喇嘛的组织自己立即发出一份声明承认它在1960年代收取中央情报局数以百万元, 用以遣派流亡人民组成的武装部队到西藏去颠覆毛泽东的革命运动。dl喇嘛每年从中央情报局获支付$186,000。印度情报组织也对他及其他西藏流亡者金钱资助。他拒绝透露他或他的兄弟们是否为中央情报局工作。情报局也拒绝评论…今天, 美国继续每年拨款$200万给在印度的西藏人士,另外还对西藏流亡组织提供上百万计资助用于“民主活动”, 大部份是以国家民主基金和其他比中央情报局听来较体面的管道输送的。

西藏问题一点都不明朗简单。它是复杂而且一直在变化的。就是西藏专家学者也觉得难以把印象与现实连到一起, 可想而知对那些不假装自己懂西藏及那些有兴趣却凭空想像自以为是的人而言,了解西藏有多困难。故此, 那些依赖无数支持西藏团体泡制血花四溅的刊物来判断的人就应相当慎重地看这些资料,因为它们是明显地偏颇的。

不管怎看, 我不是西藏专家, 但我较相信独立学者研究者的观察结果(他们较客观, 理性平衡的意是建立在可验证的量化和质化的经验调查数据之上的), 而非中国官方来源与不同支持西藏流亡份子的组织的说法。

噢,还有Tony, 你把我看成中国官员来损毁我诚信的稚气作法是可悲的,那只再次展示你是何等无知。我在中国五年了, 并非四年, 而我不是, 也从未为中国政府雇用。我在杭州一所中国人的私立大学里替一家在雪梨的学院任教一个大学先修课程,我是领澳洲薪酬的, 老板是15年来聘用我的新南威尔斯教育培训部。我绝对没有什么“2. 党的路线”的压力– 事实上, 这里从来没有谁曾干预过我教学情况。

我建议,Tony Martin, 你吃一片镇定剂来冷静下来。要不, 试试几片泻药,肯定有帮助!

M.A.Jones 杭州

seanhu

WillJ Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:40 pm    Post subject: Re: In response to Tony Martin (in relation to the Tibet iss
【回复原文】
Simply stated, WOW. You actually put together a coherent arguement backed with cited evidence. This has got to be the first time I've ever seen such a display of effort on the internet. I applaud you professor Jones for actually putting time and effort into trying to sway the viewpoints of a person who totally does not deserve your time.

I have read the posts in the other topic in which you've contributed. Because I am not quite familiar with the China - Tibet subject, I do not really have an opinion on this controversial subject. I guess the only way for me to really know what's going on in Tibet and China is to trust the only source that I can trust, myself. I hope that in the future I can visit both places and see for myself just what is going on.

That being said, what I do intend on commenting on is your show of respect of other people's opinions, and Tony's lack thereof. I am surprised you even took the effort to reply to such immature people who post nothing other than insults and stereotypical accusations, in order to get their points accross. Egotistic people like that pollute the internet and feel the need to vent their anger at anyone who opposes them. If a person really has confidence in his or her opinions and knows there are facts that support it, they would not need to deride others in addition to their argument.

My advice to you is, ignore such people like I always do. Do not ever insult them back as it will only feed the troll. You cannot change a person's opinions if even they don't understand the subject matter from which the opinion is formed upon.

Jones, the internet needs more people like you.
【回复链接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496398#496398
【中文翻译】
真是让人惊奇。你论证通畅证据有力。这是我第一次在网上见到这样的一幕。我真的很赞赏你-琼斯(Jones)教授-能花时间和精力批驳一个完全不值得你花时间的人的观点。

我读了你在其他话题中的发言。我不是中国-西藏问题专家，在这个争议性的话题上还没有独到见解。我想能让我了解西藏和中国到底正在发生什么的唯一方式就是只相信自己。我希望未来能够亲自去两地看看到底正在发生什么。

既然说了，我真正想评论的是你尊重别人观点的态度，而托尼(Tony)正好缺少这点。我很惊讶你甚至花力气回复那些仅会借用辱骂和陈词滥调的控诉来表达自己观点的幼稚的人。那些夜郎自大的人污浊了互联网并且向任何反对他们的人宣泄愤怒。如果一个人真的对自己的观点自信，并知道有事实支持，他不用在争辩之外附带嘲讽他人。

我对你的建议是，像我一样忽视这样的家伙。用不着攻击他们引火上身。你无法改变一个并不了解事情本身的人的观点。

琼斯(Jones)，网络需要想你这样的人。

seanhu

M.A.Jones Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:56 pm    Post subject: Re: In response to Tony Martin (in relation to the Tibet iss
【回复原文】
Dear WillJ - thank you most sincerely for your kind words of encouragement. I should tell you though, that I am not a professor. I am actually a high school teacher of English literature, film studies and history, though I now teach for N.S.W. TAFE colleges, which are tertiary institutions, funded by the N.S.W. State Government. They run various programs in universities throughout China, and I am very fortunate to be able to live and work here on the mainland, especially given that I am on an Australian teacher's salary.

I have posted two other pieces on this forum which you might also be interested in reading. I do not claim any of my assessments as "truth" and since I am not a China expert, I rely on a combination of my own observations and experiences, together with the sober and balanced research of others, in order to formulate my own set of opinions and analyses.

I am therefore more than happy to have my positions challenged, to have the strength of my arguments tested, but to be challanged convincingly, alternative viewpoints need to be backed by empirically verifiable evidence.

All the best WillJ, and thanks again for your feedback.

M.A.Jones
Hangzhou
【回复链接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496412#496412

【中文翻译】
WillJ – 诚挚感谢你的鼓励之辞。我需要告诉你我不是一个教授。我为新南威尔士州政府资助的技术与继续教育学院工作，是教授英语文学影视赏析和历史的中学教师。他们(新南威尔士技术与继续教育学院)在全中国有许多项目，我很幸运能够在中国大陆生活和工作，特别是我还领着澳大利亚教师的薪水。

我在这里论坛上还发了另外两个帖子，你可能你有兴趣一读。因为我不是中国问题专家，我没有声称我的任何评论就是“事实”，我复合自己的观察和经历以及别人冷静和客观的研究成果来阐明我的观点和分析。

我因此更乐意接受对我观点的挑战，以检验我的论点的力度，但是需要的是让人心悦诚服的挑战，不同的观点需要可以复验的证据的支持。

WillJ祝你万事顺利，并再次感谢你的反馈。

M.A.琼斯(Jones)
写于杭州

seanhu

Tibetan Photo Project Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:55 am    Post subject: Re: In response to Tony Martin (in relation to the Tibet iss

【回复原文】
Mr. Jones,

I am going to take you up on your desire to be challenged in that your research is incomplete.

I would only suggest that you consider adding contact with the Tibetan communities in exile to your research.

Since you argue the number of Tibetans, then their numbers in exile become more significant when measured against your total population numbers.

Between 1000 and 3000 Tibetans attempt to go into exile each year. Given that you refute the larger number of Tibetans killed or that they even existed, then again, this becomes a more significant number against your smaller assessment. The number of Tibetans who go into exile are counted through refugee processing proceedures in both India and Nepal.

I have conducted personal interviews with several Tibetans who are free to speak in exile and they offer little praise for the Chinese and the overall treatment of Tibetans or any serious level of respect for their language or culture. The Tibetans I have talked to usually speak 3 or 4 languages and are or have attended college even though they recieved little or no education from the Chinese.

As you must be aware, a Tibetan nun was shot by Chinese forces and the official report was that the troops were being attacked until a video emerged from a climbing expedition.
http://www.savetibet.org/news/newsitem.php?id=1036
Video at
http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?news=15183

On the 1.2 million killed, agreed that the number could be considered in dispute but only because the population itself was not accurately counted but by all estimates, the Chinese wiped out 1/6 of the population. In 1989, the Dalai Lama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize "on behalf of the 1.2 million Tibetans" who were killed by the Chinese forces and policies. The respected body of the Nobel committee has never found reason to refute his number.

The Tibetan government in exile and Tibetans in exile are the first to recognize that much of the concept of Tibet has been romanticized by the West and that in going into exile they walked out of an ancient time and stepped into the modern world.
See our interview with the Director of Information for the Tibetan Government in Exile
http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1703909&ml=fu%3d1623166%26fx%3d&

or another voice from a Tibetan documentary filmmaker might also present you with a Tibetan view of China from a Tibetan perspective that seems to be absent from your research credits
http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1531496&ml=fu%3d1623166%26fx%3d&

As an refugee population in India, and by indian standards the Tibetans have risen from what was basically living in boxes when they came out of india beginning in 1959 to a series of strong communities within india.

As refugees, they are reaching their achievements, (most) without of the benefits of citizenship.
http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1507135&ml=fu%3d1623166%26fx%3d&

I think that while you present a researched position, the research is incomplete without adding a respectable amount of time with the Tibetan community in exile.

Visually and Respectfully Yours, The Tibetan Photo Project

【原文链接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496502#496502

【中文翻译】
琼斯(Jones)先生

我将如你所愿挑战你的观点，我认为你的研究不完整。

我仅想提醒你考虑将流亡藏人社团加入你的研究。

既然你论述了藏人的数目，那么将流亡藏人的数据计入你提到的人口总数之中显得尤为重要。

每年有有1000至3000藏人试图流亡。虽然你驳斥了大量藏人被杀的事实，然而这部分(流亡藏人)相比你较小的估计是不容忽视的数目。流亡藏人的数目在印度和尼泊尔被当作难民程序统计的。

我对好些藏人进行了个人采访，他们流亡在外能够自由表达，他们对中国人对待藏人以及他们的语言和文化么可没什么好话。我交谈的藏人通常能讲3到4种语，即便没有接受中国人的教育也正在或已经接受了高等教育。

你应该知道一个藏族尼姑被中国军队射杀，官方的说法是部队收到了攻击，直到一部出自登山探险队的视频浮出水面(才揭示了真相)。
http://www.savetibet.org/news/newsitem.php?id=1036
视频在：
http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?news=15183

对120万人被杀，我承认数字存在争议但仅仅因为人口总数本身没有被精确统计，但是中国人(确实)产灭1/6的人口。DL喇嘛在1989年“代表被中国军队和警察杀害的120万藏人”接受了诺贝尔奖。受人尊敬的诺贝尔委员会并没有找到任何理由否认他的数据。

西藏流亡政府和流亡藏人是第一波意识到西藏已经被西方浪漫化了，他们通过流亡从一个旧时代走入了现代世界。

请看我们对西藏流亡政府信息部主任的采访
http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1703909&ml=fu%3d1623166%26fx%3d&

另一个来自藏族纪录片制作者的声音能从一个藏人的观点给你展示藏人对中国的看法，这是你的研究论据中缺失的
http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1531496&ml=fu%3d1623166%26fx%3d&

作为在印度的难民(印度的标准)，藏人已经从1959年伊始封闭的生活圈子成长为印度一些列强大的社团。

作为难民，他们取得了他们的成就，虽然(大多数)没有公民的权益。
http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1507135&ml=fu%3d1623166%26fx%3d&

我想当你表达基于研究的观点时，没有充分加入流亡藏人社团观点的研究是不完整的。

尊敬您的，藏人影像志项目

seanhu

M.A.Jones Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:12 am  Post subject: Re: In response to Tony Martin (in relation to the Tibet iss

【回复原文】
Tibetan Photo Project - thank you for your thoughtful response to my arguments above. Your point that my research is incomplete without taking into account more the claims of the Tibetans in exile and their numbers, is a valid one, and so I shall address this a little later in the day, when I have a little more time on my hands.

As far as the figure of 1.2 million killed goes, I am more convinced by those who dismiss this figure as implausible and as greatly exaggerated, and for all the very reasons that Michael Parenti does, as already outlined in my piece above.

Warren W. Smith, in his book Tibetan Nation: A History of Tibetan Nationalism and Sino-Tibetan Relations, also dismisses the 1.2 million killed figure. Smith is clearly sympathetic to the Tibetan cause, yet he dismisses this figure as a gross exaggeration after carefully analyising the dubious and very often-repeated figure of 1.2 million lost due to Chinese mis-rule. He also dismisses the Tibetans in exile claim that Chinese documents acknowledge 87,000 deaths during the 1959-62 rebellion.

The recent shooting of the nun is of course horrifying and inexcusable, and a clear sign that serious human rights abuses continue to occur in Tibet. My position, however, is one that is based on the bigger picture, and when we examine the existing available empirically verifiable evidence, it is clear that Chinese rule has also brought about many overall improvements to the lives of the ethnic Tibetan population - at least on a macro-economic level, and I think it is reasonable to expect that such improvements will continue to develop with the march of time.

You say that "between 1000 and 3000 Tibetans attempt to go into exile each year" and that given that I refute the larger number of Tibetans killed or that they even existed, that this then "becomes a more significant number against [my] smaller assessment." I'm sorry, but I don't really understand your point here, given that significant numbers of Tibetan "refugees" actually return to Tibet each year - which, incidentally, has been the case for decades.
Warmest regards,

M.A.Jones
Hangzhou

【原文链接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496511#496511

【中文翻译】
Tibetan Photo Project- 感谢你对我上面论点的关切回应。你的观点认为我的研究中没有进一步采用流亡藏人的主张以及计算他们的数量而显得不完整，这是对的。我会在晚些当我手头更空些的时候谈谈这点。

对于120万人被杀的数字，鉴于我已经在前面提到的麦克•派伦帝(Michael Parenti-译者注：美国著名政治学家)给出的那些理由，我更信服于那些认为这一数字是被夸大和不可信的人，

瓦伦•W•史密斯(Warren W. Smith)在他“西藏民族：西藏民族主义和汉藏关系历史”一书中也否定了120万被杀的数字。史密斯明显是同情藏人的事业的，同样对这一不断被重复的120万人在中国错误管制下丧生的可疑数字给予了否认，并在精确分析后认为总数是被夸大的。他同时否认了流亡藏人声称的中方文件承认1959-1962年叛乱期间87000人死亡的数字。

近期射杀尼姑的事情当然是惊人和不可宽恕的，这是西藏人权侵害继续在发生的明显证据。然而，当我们检视业已存在的可验证的证据后，我的观点基于更大的视角，就是显然中国的统治给藏民生活带来了许多全面性的提升- 至少在宏观经济角度，并且我认为有理由相信这样的进步将随着时间继续推进。

你说“每年有1000到3000藏人试图流亡”，并说我驳斥了大量藏人被杀的事实，然后说这“相较我过小的评估更大的一个数目。”很抱歉，我未能理解你这里索要表达的观点，因为每年有大量的藏族“难民”返回西藏- 这十几年的情况就是如此。

最热诚的敬意

M.A.琼斯(Jones)
写于杭州

seanhu

这个discussion thread不错，呼吁翻译组的同伴一起分工翻译:-)

值此召唤下，此楼待稍后请管理员删除吧！

ltbriar

首先, 謝謝seanhu一起翻譯

PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) 公視是為355非商業電視台提出優質紀錄片及戲劇節目的機構。
每年通過公開籌款來募集營運。 所以公視能較獨立及能有許多非主流異見聲音。
這一論壇已關閉作為歷史檔案而已, 它是跟公視的 China from the Inside紀錄片同時產生的,
有關China from the Inside 紀錄片, 大家可連結http://www.pbs.org/kqed/chinainside/
紀錄片內容分四個部份： 權力與人民, 婦女情況, 自然轉變, 自由公義, 裡面有許多是對中國情況的批評批判。
seanhu翻譯其中那名為 Tibet Photo Project 的, 是來宣傳藏獨, 替自己網頁打廣告和鬧事的
被許多人投訴, 讓論壇主持不得已開欄徵詢意見, 是否要封他的帳號。
由此, 我們可看到:
1. 藏獨的無賴, 不擇手段, 我們不能像他們一樣無恥。
2. 老外管理論壇顯示的民主作風。
3. 西方人士也是能辨別是非, 對這些無賴行徑(如此人利用簽名來宣傳打廣告) 也是看得一清二楚的。

taoecho

LTBRIAR AND SEANHU：

非常感谢您们的工作，如果有需要，我非常愿意加入到你们的翻译工作中来，请短消息联系我。

其次，我注意到在4月9日已有一名网友AGENTSMITH，发帖向大家推荐MA JONES在PBS的发言。http://bbs.m4.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=10676&highlight=M.A.%2BJones

在这里提及，为了感谢你们所有人的努力，让我有机会读到这么有说服力的文字。再次谢谢！

ltbriar

【回應原文】
cctang
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:57 am
>>I have conducted personal interviews with several Tibetans who are free to speak in exile and they offer little praise for the Chinese and the overall treatment of Tibetans or any serious level of respect for their language or culture. The Tibetans I have talked to usually speak 3 or 4 languages and are or have attended college even though they received little or no education from the Chinese. (Notes: posted previously by Tibet Photo Project)

If your personal interviews mirror widely established reports on this issue, then you have to concede the vast majority of those who cross the border into India/Nepal do *not* do it for cultural or political reasons. Two primary reasons are cited:
- education in English with possible career prospects overseas,
- an opportunity to receive a blessing from HHDL, perceived by religious Tibetans as a living God.
Just as Muslims and Catholics have thrown aside other considerations when their religious duties call, Tibetan Buddhists respond similarly. You must surely be aware that many of the 3000 Tibetans that cross into Nepal/India every year eventually return to Tibet after receiving a personal blessing from the HHDL.
Would you disagree that if the HHDL returned to Tibet tomorrow, even if the dominant religious/political system in the TAR remained unchanged, that the numbers going into exile would quickly evaporate into nothing?

【原文鏈接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496511#496511

【中文翻譯】
cctang 貼於: 2007年1月12日, 星期五, 凌晨2:57
(引述Tibet Photo Project回應 : 我訪問了好些流亡在外, 能自由發表意見的藏人，他們對中國人, (中國人)對藏人的整體待遇, 或對他們語言和文化都沒什麼美言。我交談的那些藏人通常能講3到4種語言，即使從中國人那裡沒受教育或很少的教育, 現在不是完成大專教育就是正在唸大專。

如果你的採訪是映這議題己有的廣泛報導的話, 那麼你必須承認越境去印度/尼泊爾的大部份人並不是基於文化或政治理由。兩個理由被舉:
-        接受英語教育在國外獲取較佳的前途;
-        有機會獲西藏信徒心目中的活佛, 達賴喇嘛的祝福。
就像穆斯林與天主教徒在獲[神召]時, 拋開其他一切羈絆, 西藏佛教徒也是同樣的反應。你一定清楚每年越境到尼泊爾/印度的人裡, 有很多人在獲得達賴喇嘛祝福後最後是回家的。
要是達賴喇嘛明天回藏, 儘管西藏自治區的宗教/政治系統維持不變, 流亡的人口會迅速蒸發歸零, 你不會否認這說法吧?

ltbriar

【回應原文】
M.A. Jones
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:25 am
Yes cctang, I agree entirely. That's why, in fact, the overwhelming majority of Tibetans who enter India as so-called "refugees" are young. For example, according to figures cited in the Tibet Bulletin of May-June 2005, children under 13 made up 20.58% of the total number of Tibetan refugees who entered India between the months of January to August, 2004. Those aged between 14-25 made up 40.23% of the total - so 61.21% were aged 25 or under.

As noted by P. Klieger et.al, in a study titled "Tourism, Politics and Relocation in Tibet", published in the December 31, 1988 edition of Cultural Survival Quarterly, many exiles, even back then, returned frequently on temporary trips "without renouncing their status as refugees or as patriots." Among the motivations for returning to Tibet, which were based on interviews with many young Tibetans in south Asia and Nepal, "were (1) to reaffirm their identity as Tibetans by visiting their homeland and (2) to make money as individual entrepreneurs, tour guides, 'culture brokers' and tradespeople in the booming foreign tourist market....Being largely adept in English and the history of Tibet according to the Tibetan government-in-exile" made them "eminently qualified for these tasks. Returning refugees, indeed, became native agents who could successfully compete with the Chinese in the development of tourism in Tibet, serving as an alternative to the Chinese historical propaganda aimed at these foreign visitors. Working in the tourist trade in Tibet, then, became not only an economic activity but an act of patriotism as well."

Those older, poorer Tibetans who face few promising economic prospects in their homeland, are happy to agree to send their children to India for a free education on the promise that their children will return better equipped to make a living. The Indian journalist Mohammed Ahmedullah has interviewed many Tibetan refugees: "Some of the escaped Tibetans I spoke with," he reported, "gave me the impression that their escape had been financed by someone else - perhaps the government-in-exile. Otherwise, how could poor peasants who earn less than a dollar a day raise the $150-250 it costs to pay for their escape?" he wrote in an article for the March-April 2000 edition of the Atomic Scientists.

So the West, as Klieger point outs, through the agency of foreign aid, "has become the new 'patron' of the Tibetan government-in-exile. Although donors probably did not intend for this modern humanitarian aid to fuel Tibetan nationalism, because it is coextensive with the traditional practice of patronage, exile institutions and individual refugees have largely interpreted it as such."

You can see where I'm leading to here. In her study titled "The Problem with 『Rich Refugees' Sponsorship, Capital, and the Informal Economy of Tibetan Refugees" (published in Modern Asian Studies, 2006), Audrey Prost, of the Department of Anthropology, University College London, points out that "the Tibetan refugees in India have found employment in a number of different economic sectors, among them agriculture, trade and tourism. Dharamsala's population is mostly employed in public services (the government sector) and private business, and by Tibetan standards constitutes a rather elite segment within the refugee community. Although the Tibetan government's census reports low unemployment in Dharamsala, many exile Tibetans are employed part-time or on salaries that barely enable them to meet the costs of daily life. Some surveys have even reported as much as 80% unemployment among Tibetan youths. Many of Dharamsala's families are living on the threshold of poverty despite being reported as employed, and are dependent on external funds to provide education for their children. This under-reported poverty is implicated in the growth of informal economies of exchange and reciprocity, such as sponsorship (rogs ram).

"The majority of Tibetan exile families in Dharamsala," adds Prost, "receive some form of rogs ram for their children to see them through primary and secondary education, after which studies have to be financed either by the family, or again by foreign sponsors. Most newly arrived refugees I have spoken to argued that the term rogs ram is specific to exile and to the relationship which foreigners foster with Tibetan refugees either individually, or through a fundraising organ."

Prost's observations are supported by those of Klieger's, who writes: "Western tourists visiting such large refugee settlements as Dharamsala in northern India and Kathmandu in Nepal are often considered as potential 'bestowers of gifts,' in the traditional patron-client categorisation system. Deliberately maintaining refugee status in exile rather than assimilating into the host society is an ideal usually equated with patriotism in diaspora communities. Tibetan exiles have political incentives to retain legal refugee status in south Asia."

They quite clearly also have financial incentives to retain their legal refugee status. In order to maintain sympathy and financial support from Western patrons, the Tibetan Government in Exile needs to maintain a constant influx of arriving "refugees". Financing journeys is but one incentive used to entice poor Tibetans to make the journey to India. The promise of providing their children with an education is another, as it the promise to provide religious blessings from the Dalai Lama himself.

The Tibetan Government in Exile and their supporters rarely mention the fact that so many refugees return to find employment, or that various incentives are offered in order to entice or to facilitate such journeys. Instead, for obvious reasons, they choose to present to the world a rather different narrative.

I have no doubt that many of the Tibetan refugees now living in India are genuine, that there are indeed those who have experienced real persecution at the hands of Chinese authorities. Many, I know, have indeed suffered terribly under Chinese rule, and have had good reason to escape. The traumas that some Tibetan refugees have suffered under Chinese rule have been verified by psychological assessments, and are hardly deniable.

But this is simply not the case with the majority.

Finally, I should add to this too, the fact that the Tibetan Government in Exile is by no means the only party with a financial incentive in bringing over large numbers of refugees. As Ed Douglas reported in The Guardian of October 28, 2002, an entire industry of smugglers exist to guide groups across the Himalayas during the winter season, when border patrols are less active. "Palkyi, 16, claimed she had paid $700 (£370) to smugglers who guide groups over the Himalaya mountains," reported Douglas.

And the nun that was fairly recently shot dead by an over-zealous Chinese border patrol guard whilst making the trek to Nepal was a typical Tibetan "refugee", in that she was young and motivated by the prospect of an education. According to The Guardian, she was aged 17, and was "shot in the back by Chinese border guards as they tried to stop a group of 73 refugees crossing the Nangpa La, a 5,800 metre pass 15 miles west of Everest, to Nepal...The nun was Kelsang Namtso from Nagchu prefecture, the only daughter in a family of six. Like many Tibetans, she had no access to education and planned to study at the Dolma Ling nunnery in India." And like most of these young people, she was "sold" the dream of being able to gain a great education in India by profiteers. As Daniel Pepper, of The Christian Science Monitor reported in the October 25, 2006 edition, the nun in question, Kelsang Namtso, "managed to save nearly $1,400 for the arduous journey through the Himalayas. Half would go to the smugglers."

The cowardly murder of this young woman is of course inexcusable, and the person or persons responsible ought to be held accountable for their behaviour. Sadly, such occurrences are thought to occur almost yearly, which is probably true. It's just that in this case, the word got out, along with video footage.

Still, this doesn't change the fact that the majority of Tibetans who make this journey do so for educational and spiritual reasons, not because they supposedly face systematic human rights abuses under Chinese governance. As further evidence in support of cctang's case, Daniel Pepper, of The Christian Science Monitor, also noted that "the estimated 2,500 to 4,000 Tibetans who try to reach India every year via Nepal, pay smugglers to bring them to India because obtaining the official travel permits and a passport can be too difficult. Most come seeking an audience with the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, who resides in Dharamsala, in northern India."

Pepper then backs up his statement with the following qualitative evidence:

"'Our aim only is to get the blessing of His Holiness the Dalai Lama,' says Ms. Wangmo, one of the nuns. 'We were planning to go back afterwards, but now it won't be possible after the trouble in the pass. If we go back to Tibet, the Chinese will definitely arrest us.' The nun killed was typical of the many Tibetan refugees who make the journey: she was poor, young, and religiously motivated. At least half of those making the journey from Tibet are children, sent by parents who want their children to grow up with a strong Tibetan identity and who often cannot afford school fees at home. Among the group of Tibetans that just arrived in India, the youngest was a 7-year-old girl, Deki Pantso, who came without her parents." [emphasis added is mine]

I rest my case.

M.A.Jones
Hangzhou
【原文鏈接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496511#496511


【中文翻譯】
M.A.Jones
貼於: 2007年1月12日, 星期五, 凌晨7:25
cctang, 你說得對。我完全同意。這就是為什麼絕大多數湧入印度的所謂“難民”都是年輕人。舉例說,在2005年五-六月號的西藏導報(Tibet Bulletin)引述的數字裡,年齡低於13歲的兒童佔了2004年1至8月進入印度的西藏難民總數的20.58%,
14至25歲的則佔總數的40.23%- 那麼, 有61.21%就是年齡在25歲以下的。
P. Klieger等人在1988年12月31日文化求存季刊(CultureSurvival Quarterly)中一個名為“西藏旅遊業, 政治與親移”的研究中就指出, 就是在那時候, 許多流亡份子在“不透露他們到底是流亡或愛國份子身份”下, 經常回鄉作短暫停留。對在南亞及尼泊爾許多年輕藏人的訪問中, 回藏的理由“有(1)回鄉重新確認他們的藏族身份, 和(2) 在蓬勃的外國遊客市場裡, 作為個體戶企業家, 當導遊, “文物掮客”來賺錢。由於英文流利, 流亡政府授予的歷史知識使他們勝任有餘。 誠然, 回流的難民成了在地代理, 能成功與中國人在發展西藏旅遊業的競爭對手, 也充當外國遊客對中國歷史文宣以外的另一選擇。如此,在西藏旅遊業工作不單是經濟活動, 而也是愛國表現了。

那些年紀較大, 在家鄉沒多出路較窮的藏人,自然樂於送他們孩子去印度受免費教育,期許孩子們學有所成回來更好謀生。印度報人MohammedAhmedullah訪問不少西藏難民。他說“我交談過的一些逃來的藏人給我的印象是他們出逃是獲別人資助的 – 也許是流亡政府。不然, 一天收入不足一塊錢的貧農,怎能拿出$150-200支付他們的逃亡費用?”這是他在2000年三/四月號原子科學家Atomic Scientists中寫的。

一如Klieger指出,西方透過外援“成為西藏流亡政府新的“施主”。雖然捐者並非有意使這現代人道救援來資助西藏民族主義,但因與傳統的施受共生並存,流亡組織及個別難民大多認為如此。

你們可看我是從那(方向)得此論的。倫敦大學學院人類學系的AudreyProst在她名為“[富難民],贊助者,資金及西藏難民非正式經濟的問題”(在2006年現代亞洲研究 Modern Asian Studies發表)的研判裡指出“留印的西藏難民在幾個不同經濟行業裡找到工作,其中有農業,貿易與旅遊業。達蘭薩拉人口主要是受僱於公共事業(政府公共事業)及私人企業,以西藏標準在難民社群中屬比較高等的。雖然西藏(流亡)政府的統計數字顯示達蘭薩拉的失業率很低,許多流亡藏人只是兼職或是薪金不足日常生活所需。有些調查甚至報導年輕藏人的失業率高達80%。儘管是被報成是受僱,許多達蘭薩拉的家庭是生活在貧窮邊緣,而需要外來救助才能供孩子受教育。這種報導不足的貧窮意味著非正式的交易與回報,如援助(rogs ram)。

Prost又說“在達蘭薩拉的大多數西藏流亡家庭都接受某種的援助他們孩子的小學及中學教育,繼後的學習就得由家庭自費,或再次接受外國贊助。許多跟我談過的新抵步難民辯稱援助一詞是流亡者特有的,而外國人跟西藏難民的關係要嘛就是個人,或是透過一個籌款機制。”

Prost的觀察也為Klieger所看到的支持,後者寫著:“到訪北印度像達蘭薩拉或尼泊爾像加德滿都這些大規模難民聚居地的西方遊客每每在“施主-受施”的傳統分類系統裡是被認定為潛在的“贈禮者”。故意維持難民身份而不融合到東道國往往在流亡社群裡被等同於愛國主義的最佳選項。在南亞的西藏流亡人士有政治利因去保留合法難民的身份。”

他們明顯地還有經濟利因去保留合法難民的身份。為了獲取西方捐助人一直以來的同情和財政支助,西藏流亡政府需要保持永遠不斷的“難民”湧入。資助旅費只是其中一種使藏人赴印度的誘餌。答應為他們孩子提供教育是另一種方法,就跟答應讓他們獲達賴喇嘛親自祝福一樣。

西藏流亡政府與它的支持者極少提到有許多難民返藏尋找工作,或他們提供種種利誘,又或是資助旅費來讓他們成行。相反地,為了明顯理由,他們選擇向世界說另一套來。

我不懷疑許多現居印度的難民是真的難民, 是真有個別曾受中國機關真正迫害過的。我知道許多曾在中國治下被慘害,他們有很好理由出逃。有些西藏難民經心理鑑定證實的確曾受中國管治迫害,這是無容否定的。

但這明顯不是大部份人的情況。
(待續)

ltbriar

(續上)

最後, 我需要補充一點, 事實上西藏流亡政府並非提供經濟利誘大量難民的唯一方。Ed Douglas2002年10月28日在衛報The Guardian報導說, 有一個完整的人口偷渡集團帶領著一組組的偷渡者在冬季邊防較鬆懈時越過喜馬拉亞。Douglas報導寫著:「Palkyi, 16歲, 說她付了700元(370英鎊)給領她那組人越過喜馬拉亞的偷渡集團。」

而那個最近在越境赴尼泊爾途中, 被過度積極的中國邊防槍殺的女尼就是一個典型的西藏「難民」, 她年輕而且被接受教育的機會鼓動。根據衛報, 她年齡17歲, 而是「在中國邊防試圖阻止一組73名難民越過在額菲爾士峰(即珠穆朗瑪峰)以西15里處長達5,800公里名為Nangpa La的山隘時, 被邊防從背後擊斃的。該女尼是從Nagchu來名叫Kelsang Namtso, 是家中6個孩子中的獨女。跟許多西藏人一樣, 她沒有受教育機會, 而計划去印度的Dolma Ling寺求學。」而像許多這樣的年輕人一樣, 她是給牟利之徒「推銷」了一個可以在印度獲得最好教育的美夢。Daniel Pepper 也在2006年10月25日的基督科學觀察The Christian Science Monitor中報導那名女尼 Kelsang Namtso「想法為這越過喜馬拉亞的艱苦旅程儲存近$1400, 一半是讓那些偷渡集團拿去。」

把這女子從後射殺的懦夫式謀殺自是不可恕, 該負責的人或那些人應該為他們行為被繩之於法。可嘆的是這些事情被認為是年年都有發生, 而極可能真的如此。只是今次事件, 隨著錄像流出而公之於世而已。

即便如此, 仍然無改事實, 大部分西藏人選擇此途的都是為了教育及信仰原因, 而不是據他們所稱被中國政府有系統的侵犯了人權。作為cctang所指的進一步理據, 基督科學觀察The Christian Science Monitor的Daniel Pepper也指出「估計每年為數2,500到4,000名試圖自尼泊爾抵印度的西藏人之所以付費給偷渡集團領他們去印度, 是因為申請官方旅遊許可證或護照非常困難。多數人都是為了來參見住在北印度達蘭薩拉的藏傳佛教精神領袖而已。」

Pepper再用以下證據來支持他的論點:

「一名女尼Wangmo說 『我們的目的只是來得到達賴喇嘛的祝福。我們計劃之後會回寺, 但如今山隘事故之後, 恐怕不行了。如果我們回西藏, 中國(政府)肯定逮捕我們。」被殺女尼是這旅程上許多西藏難民的典型: 她貧窮, 年輕, 而且受信仰驅使。從西藏踏上旅途之中最少有一半是孩子, 被他們父母送走的。他們希望孩子長大成有濃厚西藏自我的人, 而且也是往往無法在地供孩子唸書的。在剛抵印度的一團西藏人當中, 最年輕的是一名7歲叫Deki Pantso的女孩, 她是孤身獨自上路的。[斜體加強是我(Jones)加上去的]

我的陳詞到此為止。

M.A.Jones 杭州

ltbriar

【回应原文】
M.A. Jones
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:21 pm
It's also interesting to note that there are numerous politicians and academic researchers from India who don't believe that the yearly influx of Tibetans into India ought to be classified as "refugees". But the problem for the Indian and Nepalese governments, is that if they were to start denying these Tibetan pilgims entry into their borders as "refugees" then the plethora of Tibetans in Exile support groups throughout the Western world would voice enormously harsh criticisms of them - criticisms and charges that the Western media would then pick up on and report uncritically.

Some independent travellers to this region report what they actually see, and occasionally you come across one daring enough to call a spade a spade. Timothy Doye, for example, titled his travelogue to India as follows: A Pilgrimage to India: Three Tibetan monks travel overland to India on foot. In it he describes his encounters and conversations with three Tibetan "pilgrims".

"Dorje, Dhondrup and Sonam came from a small village in Kham, a Tibetan province" of China, he writes. "They say the villagers there live traditional lives. They grow barley, potatoes and peas and they keep yak, sheep and goats. They celebrate the festivals and even young kids still wear traditional clothes. Two Chinese live in the village and they are married to Tibetans."

I have travelled throughout the Kham region myself, back in 2002, and I was pleasantly surprised by just how "Tibetan" these communities have remained, although the Lama monastic village of Songzanlin, just outside of Zhongdian (in Yunnan Province) was undergoing extensive restoration while I was there, and I could see that the writing was on the wall - that, like most such places throughout the entire world, it was destined to exist in a commodified form.

Doyle then goes to write the following:

"Human rights activists blame the Chinese occupation of Tibet for the death of 1.2 million Tibetans. Activists also accuse Chinese authorities of responding to Tibetan political and cultural dissent with imprisonment, torture and the transfer of thousands of Chinese subjects into Tibet. The monks have heard of the Chinese atrocities but say they don’t know much about the situation. But they are firm in their opinion that the Dalai Lama should return to their country. 'It was good when the Dalai Lama lived in Tibet,' says Dorje. 'We think that if he came back it would be good for sentient beings and for the Tibetan people. He is a great Lama and he can guide us properly.'"

Interesting how these monks had only "heard of the Chinese atrocities" but were not very aware of them.
"Parents normally send children to monasteries around ten years of age but young adults commonly decide on their own to leave family life and join a monastery," continues Doyle. "During childhood each of the three monks attended school for three years and then quit to work with their families. After leaving school and going to work they separately contemplated joining the monastery. 'When we wanted to become monks,' says Sonam, 'we asked our families and they said it would be a good idea.'"

And what were the monk's motivations for wanting to come to India. Doyle explains:

"The three monks feel a monk’s life is easier than a householder’s life. 'Householders have to deal with worldly existence,' says Dorje. 'We don’t have to look after families. If you want to go to India you can go and not worry. The householder worries all day and he doesn’t have time to practice religion.' The three monks see the chance to become a monk and practice the Tibetan Buddhist path as a great opportunity to accumulate merit, clear obstacles and position themselves for a favourable next life, a life one step closer to Buddhahood and liberation from earthly existence.

In other words, economic and religious - a lifestyle choice, in essence.

And of course the smuggling industry was there to help encourage them to make their decision so that they could provide them with their profitable services.

"After a few weeks in Lhasa the three monks along with 40 other Tibetans packed themselves into the back of a truck. For a fee the passengers would be driven to a remote location on the Tibet-Nepal border and guided south through the main Himalayan range to Kathmandu where they would be received by the reception committee for Tibetan refugees and given passage to India."

All very organised, from the Nepalese and Indian end as well.

And these particular three monks saw themselves NOT as refugees, but as pilgims. By the time they reached Nepal, they had exhausted their food supplies and were hungry, so they approached some locals for help. As Doyle writes:

"The monks explained that they were on pilgrimage to India and that they needed food."

Many members of the Nepalese police regard the pilgrims as sources of wealth, as easy targets to rob from. "At one point seven Nepali police arrested the three monks. They ordered the monks to strip. The monks didn’t know any Nepali. They said 'Dalai Lama', 'Dalai Lama,' to indicate that they were pilgrims. The police took their money, a silver bracelet, a watch and a sheepskin jacket. The monks asked for some of the money. The police gave them Rs. 250. The monks asked for more and the police beat them, threw them outside the check post and tossed their bag to them, saying, Dalai Lama go—Go and see the Dalai Lama.'"

"Officials at the Tibetan refugee reception center in Kathmandu asked the monks why they had left Tibet. The monks said that they had come to see the Dalai Lama and the Buddhist holy places of Nepal and India. The reception officials asked them if Chinese rule affected their decision to leave Tibet. Not really, they said. But if the Dalai Lama still lived in Tibet they doubt they would have tried to visit Nepal and India. When they had completed their pilgrimage they intended to return to Tibet."

So once again, yet more evidence, this time of a qualitative nature, to support cctang's case, which is obviously the one that I maintain as well. The overwhelming majority of those Tibetans who venture across the Himalayas each year to India are NOT refugess, but are pilgrims, and most of them do so with the intention of returning.

But the Tibetans in Exile of course prefer to give the rest of the world the impression that these pilgrims are refugees escaping torture and abuse, and that's because the Tibetans in Exile government has both political and financial incentives to do so - as I discussed in my earlier response above.
M.A.Jones , Hangzhou

【原文链接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496511#496511

【中文翻译】
M.A. Jone 贴于: 2007年1月12日, 星期五, 晚上 11:21
还有一样让我觉得有趣的是从印度来的无数政客和学术研究者不认为每年涌入印度的藏人应被列为“难民”。但印度及尼泊尔政府为难的是, 一旦他们否定这批越境西藏朝圣者为“难民”时, 西方多不胜数的西藏流亡政府的支持组织将极严厉地批评他们 - 然后这些批评指控就会被西方传媒接下去唱和和作负面报导。

有些游客独自到这一带旅游的把所见所闻揭露, 有时候还真有一两勇敢得可称“黑是黑白是白”的。举例来说, Timothy Doyle就以“印度朝圣行：三名西藏喇嘛徒步跋涉赴印”A Pilgrimage to India: Three Tibetan monks travel overland to India on foot为他印度见闻游记。里面他对自己跟这三名西藏“朝圣者”的相遇及对话有如下描述：

“Dorjem Dhondrup和Sonam来自西藏康区(Kham, 译注：Jones称为西藏一省, 可见连他也搞不清地区跟省的分别了。)的一个小村落。他们说那里村民都过着传统生活。他们种大麦, 马铃薯, 跟豆, 养殖牦牛, 绵羊和山羊。他们庆祝节日, 连小朋友都穿上传统衣服。有两个汉人(译者注: Chinese应指是汉人)住在他们村, 都跟藏人结了婚。”

我自己也在2002年在康区到处旅游, 我很欣慰地发现这些社群保持处在一个多么“藏”的模式。虽然我去的时候,中甸(云南境内)外的松赞林喇嘛村正在大兴土木进行修葺工程, 我看到墙上写着字 – 而一如整个世界所有这种地方, 那些字是有意被作为商品化形式存在的(译笔注：估计Jones是说他看到墙上有广告宣传字样)。

Doyle接着写：
“人权运动组织指责中国进占西藏杀害了120万藏人。他们也指控中国政府囚禁, 残害西藏政治文化异见份子, 而且把数以千计的汉人移民西藏。这些喇嘛曾听说有关中国的暴行, 但说他们对情况所知不多。可是他们很坚决认为dl喇嘛应该回去。“dl喇嘛在西藏时很好”Dorje说,“我们觉得他回来对众生和西藏人都好。他是个伟大的喇嘛, 他能正确指导我们。”

对为什么这些喇嘛只“曾听说有关中国的暴行”但对情况所知不多很好奇, Doyle继续写,“家长一般把年约十岁的孩子送去寺院, 但年轻人则是自己决定到寺院出家的。三个喇嘛都是在童年念了三年书就辍学在家中工作。三人离开学校工作后分别决定出家。Sonam说“当我们决定出家, 征求家人意见时, 他们都说是好主意。”

那么是什么驱使这些喇嘛来印度呢? Doyle解释：“这三名喇嘛觉得喇嘛的生活比在家人生活容易。Dorje说‘在家人要烦恼在世上存活。我们不用照顾家庭。如果你想去印度你就可以去, 不必顾虑。在家人整天烦恼, 他没时间去修行。’三名喇嘛对出家奉行藏传佛法一途视为积功德, 除障碍, 求来生更好生活的极好机会, 可以来生更向成佛更进一步, 和从俗世解脱。”

换言之, 本质上是经济和宗教上生活方式的抉择。

当然, 其中有偷渡集团帮忙鼓励他们作决定, 好能为他们提供高盈利的服务。

“在拉萨数星期后, 这三名喇嘛连同另外40名西藏人挤上一辆卡车后面。付了费的乘客将被载往西藏-尼泊尔边境一个偏僻地点, 然后被带领往南越过喜马拉亚山岭到达加德满都, 那里他们由一个西藏难民的接待处接应, 带他们往印度。”

一切都极有组织地安排, 包括尼泊尔跟印度那端(的安排)。

而这三名喇嘛并不把自己当难民看待, 而是朝圣者。抵尼泊尔的时候, 他们耗尽干粮, 饥肠辘辘, 于是他们向当地人求助。Doyle这样写的：

“这些喇嘛解释他们往印度朝坚途中, 而他们需要食品。”

许多尼泊尔警察视朝圣者为财源及抢劫的肥羊。“有一次7名尼泊尔警察把三名喇嘛逮捕。他们命令喇嘛脱光衣服。那些喇嘛不懂尼泊尔语。他们说“dl喇嘛”,“dl喇嘛”来表示他们是朝圣者。那些警察拿走他们的钱, 一个银手镯, 一个手表和一件羊皮夹克。喇嘛要求拿回一点钱, 警察给了他们250尼泊尔卢比。喇嘛要求多给些, 却被警察殴打, 把他们扔到检查站外, 边说‘dl喇嘛去吧 -  去见dl喇嘛’边把他们的包包扔给他们。”

“加德满都西藏难民接待处的官员问这些喇嘛为什么离开西藏。那些喇嘛说他们是为去见dl喇嘛, 和尼泊尔及印度的佛教圣地。接待处官员问他们中国统治有没有影响他们离藏的决定。他们说, 事实上并没有。但如果dl喇嘛仍在西藏, 他们怀疑自己会尝试来尼泊尔和印度。当他们完成他们朝圣之旅, 他们计划回去西藏的。”

所以, 再一次地, 这次更有力的证据支持cctang的论点, 很明显也是我一直所持的看法。每年冒险越过喜马拉亚去印度的西藏人里, 有绝大部份不是难民, 而是朝圣者, 而且他们大多数都是打算之后要回(西藏)去的。

但西藏流亡组织当然希望给世界一个假象：这些朝圣者是因被迫害和(人权)被侵犯而出逃的难民。那是因为西藏流亡组织既有政治原因, 也有经济原因去那么做 – 正如我稍早前在上面回应说的那样子。
M.A. Jones, 杭州

ltbriar

【回應原文】
sarahravensworth
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:00 am
M.A.Jones, don't expect Western journalists to let the truth get in the way of a good story. They know that in order to sell their newspapers and to maximize their ratings, they have to continue using all the old Cold War rhetoric when describing places like China, and when referring to the Tibet Question.

Why? Simple: tell people what they already know to be the "truth" and they'll love you for it, and will lap it all up with infectious enthusiasm. Tell them something new, and they'll hate you for it. But that's human nature for you.

【原文鏈接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496511#496511

【中文翻譯】
sarahravensworth貼於: 2007年1月13日, 星期六, 凌晨 2:00
M.A. Jones, 不要希望西方記者會讓真相妨礙了一個引人入勝的故事。他們曉得：如果要讓他們的報紙大賣, 把他們評級達到最高, 他們在描述像中國這樣的地方, 和提及西藏問題時, 必須用盡一切舊日冷戰文筆手法。
為什麼? 很簡單：告訴人們他們早已認為是「事實真相」, 那麼他們才會因此喜歡你, 而且會傳染賁亢地加鹽加醋。告訴他們截然不同的新狀況, 他們會因此恨死你。但告訴你, 那就是人性。

M.A. Jones
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:47 am
Thanks for your comments Sarah Ravensworth.

You congratulate me for speaking out about the financial and political motivations of the Tibetans in Exile Government, but in fact, many people are now starting to speak out.

Tibetan specialist A. Tom Grunfeld is one of them. He is SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor at Empire State College, of the State University of New York, and specialises in the teaching of modern East Asian history with an emphasis on China and Tibet. He has been travelling and living in that region since 1966, and has published several books and over 150 articles and book reviews, including the well received The Making of Modern Tibet. If there is anybody who is an "expert" on Tibet, he is.

Grunfeld has pointed out that the "exiled Dalai Lama's money and power only continues as long as there are many stateless refugees. Consequently, it [has been] to the benefit of the exile leadership to keep the masses of Tibetans in children's homes, transit camps and temporary facilities for decades. For the same reasons, the Dalai Lama's 'government' opposes mixed marriages between Tibetan exiles and Indians and opposes masses of exiled Tibetans applying for citizenship in India - even though this legal status would make their lives much easier. Meanwhile it is common for the wealthy Tibetan upper class to apply for non-Tibetan status - including two of the Dalai Lama's brothers who are U.S. citizens."

Grunfeld also has a great deal to say about the hypocrisy of the Dalai Lama and his theocratic side-kicks. For example, Tibetans in exile and their supporters are constantly harping on about how Tibet's schools teach in the Chinese language rather than in the Tibetan language, and accuse the Chinese of cultural genocide for doing so.

Grunfeld also has a great deal to say about the hypocrisy of the Dalai Lama and his theocratic side-kicks. For example, Tibetans in exile and their supporters are constantly harping on about how Tibet's schools teach in the Chinese language rather than in the Tibetan language, and accuse the Chinese of cultural genocide for doing so.

Yet the lamaists adopted English as the main language of instruction in their exile school system in Dharmasala. The Dalai Lama himself justified this practice in his 1990 autobiography on the grounds that English is "the international language of the future." Fine. Schools in the Tibetan Autonomous Region also teach English, just as they also teach Tibetan as a language, though most subjects are taught in Chinese. And there is a very good reason why most subjects in Tibet are taught in the Chinese language too, I might add: there are precious few books and teachers available to teach many advanced political and scientific subjects in the Tibetan language. Simple as that.

Is the Tibetans in Exile Government also guilty of cultural genocide then, for teaching everything in the English language?

And as A.Tom Grunfeld also notes, there is plenty more hypocrisy: "the Tibetan upper class exiles make a fetish about 'Tibet's traditional culture' yet in reality many have contemptuously shed this traditional culture, sending their children to expensive English boarding schools. The Dalai Lama's authorised biographer, Roger Hicks, describes how, by the late 1960s and early 1970s, the younger generation of this elite had become largely Westernised."

And finally, as Grunfeld so rightly also points out, and as I too have been arguing all along on this thread, "China, including the Tibetan Autonomous Region, has undergone dramatic changes. Tibet has roads, schools, hospitals, a burgeoning middle class, internet cafes, karaoke bars, discos, and some 100,000 tourists annually. Religion is widely practiced. There are thousands of Tibetan officials, CCP members, and military recruits in Tibet. Indeed, many of the most ardently anti-Dalai Lama officials are Tibetan."
M.A. Jones

M.A. Jones貼於: 2007年1月13日, 星期六, 凌晨 4:47
謝謝Sarah Ravensworth 妳的回應。
妳讚賞我說出西藏流亡政府經濟和政治動機, 其實, 許多人已開始暢言了。

西藏專家譚•戈倫夫（A. Tom Grunfeld）就是其中之一。他是 美國紐約州立大學帝州學院（State University of New York Empire State college）SUNY優秀教授, 專攻教授特別是有關中國和西藏方面的現代東亞史。從1966年以來, 他就在那地區遊歷及居住, 發表多本書, 及超過150份文章及書評, 包括很受歡迎的《現代西藏的誕生》(The Making of Modern Tibet)。如果有西藏的「專家」的話, 那該是他了。

戈倫夫指出「流亡達賴只有當尚有無數無國可投的難民時, 他的財源與權力才能延續。故此, 數十年來[一直以來]把大量西藏人留在孤兒院, 過度營, 及臨時設施是對流亡領袖有利的。同樣原因, 達賴政府反對流亡藏人與印度人通婚, 也反對大量流亡藏人申請歸化印度籍 - 那怕這種合法身份能令他們生活過得更好些。另一方面, 有錢的上層西藏人士卻通常申請非西藏國籍 – 包括達賴的兩名兄弟, 都是美國公民。

戈倫夫對達賴及他的神權夥伴們的偽善還有許多話說。比如, 流亡西藏人士及他們支持者一直唱和著西藏的學校如何以中文而不是藏語來教學, 於是指控中國人藉此進行文化滅族。

然而, 在達蘭薩拉的流亡學校系統裡, 喇嘛以英語為主要教學語言。達賴喇嘛自己為這做法在1990年的自傳中辯解說因為英語是「未來的國際語言」的原故。那好吧, 西藏自治區裡的學校也教在教藏語的同時作為語言來教英語了, 雖然多數學科是以中文教授的。而且我還可以補充: 有很充分的理由為什麼在西藏要以中文來教授多數學科的。 那里根本沒有足夠藏語的教材和師資足以用藏語教授許多高程度的政治及科學科目的, 就是那麼簡單。

以英語來作一切教學語言, 那西藏流亡政府是否也是犯了文化滅種的罪呢?

戈倫夫也再指出, 還有許多許多的虛偽:「上等的西藏流亡人士把 '西藏傳統文化'奉若神明, 然而在事實上卻輕蔑不當回事, 把他們的孩子送到昂貴的英語寄宿學校去。達賴喇嘛任命的自傳作者 Roger Hicks 描述, 從60年代晚期至70年代初, 這些精英的年輕一代是如何大部份變成西化的。

最後, 戈倫夫精準地指出, 而我也在這裡一直在爭辯著, 「中國, 包括西藏自治區在內, 都經歷了巨大變化。西藏有了道路, 學校, 醫院, 一個迅速成長的中產階級, 網吧, 卡拉OK, 廸士高, 和每年上十萬的遊客群。處處可見宗教。那裡有上千的西藏官員, 共產黨員和軍人都是從西藏招募的。確實地, 最激烈反對達賴喇嘛的官員中, 許多都是西藏人。
M.A.Jones 杭州

Ambivalent
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:51 am
M.A.Jones you have produced a convincing argument. I have always been ambivalent towards the Tibetan cause because like all separatist movements, they push a chauvanistically nationalist agenda, in the same way that the Irish Republicans do, and all other such groups throughout the world. And power always corrupts. The old Tibetan elite, as you have shown, are just continuing to run their traditional caste/class system in India.

Ambivalent貼於: 2007年1月13日, 星期六, 晚上10:51
M.A. Jones, 你製造了一個具說服力的辯解。我一直對西藏訴求相當矛盾的, 因為一如所有分離主義者, 他們推動一個大沙文的民族主義議程, 就像北愛共和軍跟世界其他類似組織那樣。權力永遠是腐化的。舊西藏精英, 一如你所示, 只是在印度延續他們傳統的種姓制度而已。

ltbriar

Tibet Response Network
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:10 pm
I'm not one to see "reds under the bed" but Mr. Jones has a great deal of time on his hands to write long, complex pieces on Tibet and China. I don't even have time to read them all, let alone write pieces of that length and complexity. Is school out at the moment?

Anyway, taking at face value your "bio" of Aussie English teacher in China five years - you may know a great deal about China and Chinese history but you're less well informed on the Tibetan government in exile and His Holiness.

HH is a devout Buddhist who (unlike some Tibetan monks it is true) lives according to his vows. When not travelling he lives a simple life and works hard to accomplish his two main goals - the preservation and propagation of the Buddhist Dharma and the preservation of Tibetan culture.

Tibetans in India are taught English as a second language to Tibetan - they need this lingua fanca to be able to communicate and get by in their country of adoption. In China they are taught Chinese because it is the language of their illegal occupiers and most of the teachers don't speak Tibetan.

It is true that a number of Tibetans come to India as pilgrims. Others come for education, hoping to return to Tibet. It is equally true that many come as political refugees and are recognised as such by both the UN and the Indian government.

On the question of the exile government having financial and political motives..... show me any government that does not.

Bottom line. China invaded Tibet under force of arms. China denies Tibetans basic freedoms and rights and imprisons, tortures and executes Tibetans without benefit of open trial. When China holds an open , free referendum of all Tibetans on whether they want "two systems, one country" government, Tibetan government or Chinese government I'll start listening attentively to the Chinese apologists. Until then I'll continue to regard them as just that; apologists for an anachronistic, hypocritical dictatorship.
David Meanwell
Tibet Urgent Response Network - working with Tibetans for Tibet

【原文鏈接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496511#496511

【中文翻譯】
Tibet Response Network貼於: 2007年1月13日, 星期六, 晚上7:10
我並非「草木皆兵」之人, 但Jones先生手上那麼多時間去寫那麼又長又繁有關西藏與中國的文章。我甚至沒空一一看完, 甭說寫那麼又長又繁的東西了。學校現在放假了嗎?

好吧, 算你如自稱一個老澳英文教師在中國教了五年的履歷是真的, 你也許對中國及中國歷史很瞭解, 可你對西藏流亡政府和達賴上師他卻沒那麼瞭解。

上師他是個很虔誠的佛教徒, (不像一些西藏喇嘛, 是真的) 他按照他的發願來生活的。在不旅行時, 他生活簡單, 很努力去實現他兩個主要目標 – 保存及宏揚藏傳佛教和保存西藏文化。

印度的西藏人是以英語當為藏語以外的第二語言來教授的 – 他們需要這新共同語言來在他們東道國裡溝通及應付日常生活。在中國他們被授以中文, 那是因為中文是他們非法佔領者的語言, 而大部份教師不懂藏文。

有些西藏人是作為朝聖者來印度。其他來受教育, 希望回到西藏去。但 同樣屬實的是許多是政治難民而且是同時被聯合國與印度政府承認的。

至於流亡政府有經濟及政治動機….. 請你說說那個政府不這樣。

底線是: 中國武力入侵西藏。中國否決西藏人基本自由和權利, 並在沒有予以公開聆訊就囚禁, 折磨, 及處決西藏人。要是中國舉行公開自由的公投, 讓所有西藏人決定他們是要「一國兩制」政府, 西藏政府或中國政府, 我才會仔細聽那些中國辯護者說什麼。在此之前, 我置之不理, 那些為過時, 虛偽獨裁者辯論的人。

David Meanwell
Tibet Urgent Response Network - working with Tibetans for Tibet
西藏緊急回應網絡 – 與藏人為西藏工作

ChineseHawkeye
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:30 pm
Tibet Response Network
I feel astonished you did not realized who those exiles and lama were? Why do you insist slavery return to Tibet? I have no clue where you got the information that "China invaded Tibet under force of arms. China denies Tibetans basic freedoms and rights and imprisons, tortures and executes Tibetans without benefit of open trial".

Do not repeat those silly propaganda from liars. Please go to Tibet province in China yourself and see with your own eyes. I promise CCP would not follow you as long as you do not shout "free tibet" on street there, lol.

ChineseHawkeye貼於: 2007年1月13日, 星期六, 晚上9:30
西藏緊急回應網絡
我感到震驚, 你對那些西藏流亡份子跟喇嘛過往是什麼人竟全不知底蘊? 你為什麼堅持奴隸制度重回西藏? 我摸不著頭腦你從那裡來的資訊說「中國武力入侵西藏。中國否決西藏人基本自由和權利, 並在沒有予以公開聆訊就囚禁, 折磨, 及處決西藏人。」

不要重覆那些騙子的白痴文宣啦。請你親自去一下中國裡的西藏省, 用自己眼睛去看看。我答應你, 你要不在那裡隨街叫嚷「西藏獨立」, 共產黨是不會跟蹤你的。哈哈哈

M.A. Jones
Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:39 pm
Dear David Meanwell,
You say that the Dalai Lama lives a 「simple」 life when not travelling. Perhaps, but he still lives a very privileged life when in Dharmasala by comparison with his fellows in exile. And he certainly does know how to live it up while on the road. Every time the Dalai Lama visitis his movie star friends in Los Angeles for example, he stays in the Presidential Suite at the Huntington Ritz-Carlton Hotel, which normally rents for $3000 a day!

I like to base my assessments on empirically verifiable facts David, and in order to come to a fair and balanced assessment, it is always necessary to examine the big picture, which requires access and attention to quantitative as well as qualitative evidence.

If you were to take a closer look at the real situation for incarnate lamas (or tulkas), both inside and outside of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, then you would appreciate the fact that they do not live 「simple」 lives compared to most, but rather, lives of privilege and comparative material wealth. This applies to tulkas living in the TAR as well as to those like the Dalai Lama in Dharmasala.

Allow me to be lazy (I do in fact have limited time, as it is the last week of the term before my students begin preparations for their final assessments) by quoting at length for you the findings of a study by Pamela Logan titled 「Tulkas in Tibet」, published in the Winter 2004 edition of Harvard Asia Quarterly:

「The transformation of Old Tibet into an integral part of China has meant big changes for tulkus. Yet paradoxically, it has led to greater, not less, power for some. The Karma Kagyu sect, for example, has played second fiddle to the Geluk Sect since the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama. In Old Tibet, the Karma Kagyu held perhaps five hundred monasteries, which maintained loose ties to one another. Economically, these monasteries derived their sustenance from offerings given by local people. These ordinary supporters were subsistence farmers and herdsmen, who tithed grain, meat, butter, animals, and land. A portion of their offerings would have been distributed to the tulkus according to their rank. The highest ranked tulku in the sect is the Karmapa, and he would have had some degree of influence over much of these assets, in addition to his own labrang, or estate. It was a comfortable existence, but it had limitations, too.

....Contrast this to the modern situation. While within Tibet itself, the Karma Kagyu are still a distant second place, the school has been remarkably successful in propagating overseas. The Karmapa's followers are said to number five million globally, and some have claimed his assets to be worth over $1.2 billion. This staggering sum is disputed by many, and I have been unable to discover how it was calculated. Nevertheless, the aggregate wealth of the centres owned by various charities and used for Karma Kagyu worship around the world is astonishing. They operate meditation centres in 34 countries on six continents, including dozens in America, Europe, and Asia. Most of these are simply associations, but some are actual properties, a number of them located on prime real estate in the cities of London, Hamburg, Dublin, Barcelona, Essex, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Hong Kong. They also operate dozens of centres in India.」

So Tibetan incanate lamas, living in the TAR, are doing very well under Chinese rule, it would seem!

「Even lesser tulkus enjoy deep devotion from ordinary Tibetans. Pewar Rinpoche is a minor Sakya sect tulku who keeps a modest labrang in Derge, a small town in eastern Tibet. He spends a good deal of time travelling, but when word reaches Derge that he is coming home, people line the streets, as many as 24 hours in advance. When he is in residence, a constant stream of callers come seeking blessings or advice. They bow low as they enter the room, tears in their eyes, and approach Pewar Rinpoche in the manner of supplicants approaching a king. Each caller, no matter how poor, contributes a tattered bill to the pile on the table beside Pewar Rinpoche's great throne-like chair. Although his house – like most in the town – still lacks a flush toilet, he is not short of cash, food, or gifts.」

Yep, and the theocratic elite living outside of the TAR, in Dharmasala also receive plenty of such gifts.

Over the last 25 years, a portion of China's new wealth has 「trickled up the narrow, winding dirt roads to the Tibetan plateau」 and the standard of living for Tibetans has consequently been improving, as I have already argued. 「As the climate of fear lifted,」 says Logan, 「families again began tithing alms and sons. Despite serious political instability in Lhasa, tulkus in most parts of Tibet found that the resources at their disposal were slowly increasing. Punctuating this slow rise were occasional uprisings against Chinese rule at some rebellious monasteries. The resulting crackdowns led to imprisonment for the ringleaders, who sometimes included tulkus, and restraints on movement. But the majority of tulkus kept their heads low, and managed to avoid these problems. By the mid-1990s, many had attained a fairly comfortable Tibetan lifestyle and restored the most important temples in their monasteries. Their wealth continued to increase, and so, like many others belonging to the rising middle class, they discovered a new use for disposable income: travel.」

Yes, today's Tibetan incarnate lamas are doing very well. Pamela Logan again:

「In 2000 I visited a Buddhist monastery located on the remote grasslands of eastern Tibet. There was not a tree within three hours' drive, and the land supported only a sparse scattering of herdsmen. Nevertheless, the monastery was thronging with people. Hundreds of workers were in the final stages of constructing a grand new temple. The monks were busily preparing for a great dedication ceremony that would soon take place. Workers were also constructing a hospital, a primary school for local children, and a hotel to house the many hundreds of expected guests. To finance these projects, seven million yuan (almost US$900,000) had been raised by a local tulku from his followers. The donors were not in Tibet, nor were they from overseas. They were in the eastern Chinese regions of Shanghai, Guangzhou, Zhejiang, and Fujian. Many tulkus have discovered that Chinese cities are not only good places to spend the winter, shop, and eat well; they are also good places to collect new students and raise funds. I know a number of tulkus who have established second homes in Chengdu, the largest metropolis in the vicinity of the Tibetan plateau. From there they travel to other Chinese cities. More than a few of them have obtained Chinese passports and travel abroad to places such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan. Although many of them do not speak Mandarin well, they seem to fascinate their Chinese followers.」

So much for all of the hyperbolic claims of the Tibetan Government in Exile and its supporters. The Tibetan Government in Exile know damn well how good their counterparts in the TAR are doing under Chinese rule too, which is why even the Dalai Lama himself now concedes that Tibet is better off under Chinese rule. 「To remain with the People's Republic of China is in our interest,」 he said, adding that China was an economically powerful Asian nation. (Reported by the PTI news agency in December 2006, and picked up and reported by many mainstream newspapers throughout the world).

Tibetans in Exile support groups claim that Tibetans in the TAR are prevented from free religious practice. This is simply not the case either, as many observers to Tibet today will testify to. Pamela Logan again:

「A tulku's most basic responsibility is to his sangha, his religious community. In modern Tibet, Buddhist practice is monitored by the Religious Affairs Bureau, a branch of the Chinese government; therefore, tulkus must tread a careful path through a maze of conflicting demands. If they serve as abbots, they are supposed to participate in periodic 'patriotic re-education' campaigns, and to uphold various rules concerning things like the number of monks at their monastery. Because of their influence, they may be asked to speak out in favour of government campaigns. However, most tulkus I know do not seem much impeded by government-imposed duties. They spend much more time on their traditional responsibilities. Every monastery has a calendar of religious activities in which the local tulkus are expected to take part, and a senior tulku will probably lead. Monks gather in their monastery's main assembly hall, where they sit for hours chanting in unison from printed scriptures, usually to the accompaniment of ritual instruments such as drums, horns, and bells. At times, the chanting is punctuated by other rites such as the giving of an offering, the destruction of an effigy, or the distribution of sanctified gifts such as water, protection yarn, or medicine. A great deal of detailed knowledge is required to understand these rituals and to keep to the complicated script.」

Barry Sautman's research on the present situation of religious practice in Tibet let him to the exact same conclusions.

As for the Dalai Lama himself, he seems to spend more time moving around the planet with the skilled opportunism of a political chameleon, preaching mysticism to Western New Agers rather than participating in traditional Tibetan religious rituals. Let us not forget that he lent his support to the conservative religious forces of the West by signing the "Seamless Garment" anti-abortion statement, he supports nuclear testing, and he even lent his support to Pinochet. Do you remember that David? Think back to April 1999, when His Holiness, along with Margaret Thatcher and the first George Bush, called upon the British government to release Augusto Pinochet, the former fascist dictator of Chile and a longtime CIA client who had been apprehended while visiting England. The Dalai Lama urged that Pinochet not be forced to go to Spain where he was wanted to stand trial for crimes against humanity, though he was careful to add to his call that we, the world, should "not forget about what happened." Well, why should it surprise anybody that His Holiness the Dalai Lama should come out and ask to world not to force the ageing Pinochet to stand trial - since he and his government in exile are also funded by the CIA? Yes David, His Holiness certainly does live by his vows, which I suspect probably read something like this: thou shall not be disloyal to one's own benefactors, regardless of what they ask me to do or to say!

And the Tibetan Government in Exile, as Pamela Logan and countless others have observed, 「is virtually run by tulkus, just as it was in Old Tibet. The Dalai Lama is at the top. Samdhong Rinpoche heads the Kashag (a body comparable to the Cabinet), and once chaired the Assembly. The Dalai Lama's special envoy to Washington is Lodi Gyari Rinpoche, another tulku. And the list goes on.」

And the tulkus of Dharamasala are quite prepared to purge their political rivals too. As the British journalist Christopher Hitchens reported back in 1998, 「supporters of the Dorge Shugden deity - a 『Dharma protector' and an ancient object of worship and propitiation in Tibet - have been threatened with violence and ostracism and even death following the Dalai Lama's abrupt prohibition of this once-venerated godhead. A Swiss television documentary graphically intercuts footage of His Holiness, denying all knowledge of menace and intimidation, with scenes of his followers' enthusiastically promulgating 『Wanted' posters and other paraphernalia of excommunication and persecution.」

You say David, that while many of the theocratic elite in Dhamarsala do not live according to their vows, the Dalai Lama does. This may or may not partially be the case, but so what? The world doesn't revolve around His Holiness, does t? The fate of the world's entire Tibetan population does not hang on his shoulders, despite what some might like to think. In fact, he is becoming increasingly insignificant. Tibetans in the TAR are moving on, and many of the more educated, as Pamela Logan and so many others have noted, are becoming increasingly cynical about lamaism, as their understanding of the world becomes increasingly more complex. Many of them enjoy frequenting kareoke bars more than they enjoy attending religious festivals and fundraising events. Even the Tibetan youth in India are becoming increasingly Westernised and detached from lamaism, as the recent controversy over the staging of the Miss Tibet pageant, held in India, goes to show. The Aisa Times reported how the Tibetan government-in-exile is opposed to the competition, calling it "un-Tibetan and untraditional". The government even set up billboards at high-visibility locations throughout Dharamsala expressing opposition to the beauty contest and urging all Tibetans to boycott the pageant.

Let me repeat here that I have never denied the fact that human rights abuses occur in Tibet, or that some of the refugees who flee into India are not genuine refugees deserving of refugee status. My argument is that these days, the overwhelming majority of those who make the journey into India from Tibet are not refugees, but are religious pilgrims, and that they should not therefore be given refugee status, which is partly why so many politicians and academics in both India and Nepal are now arguing for consequent changes in policy.

David, you point out that "On the question of the exile government having financial and political motives..... show me any government that does not."

(to be continued)

ltbriar

(continued from above)

True, all governments formulate policies that are based on both political and financial considerations, but this doesn't excuse the Tibetan Government in Exile from deliberately misleading the world on the real reasons why so many of these thousands of "refugees" from Tibet visit Dharmasala each year, does it?

I am not an apologist for the Chinese government, but I am not an apologist for the Tibetan Government in Exile either. I strive for fairness and balance when formulating my own assessments, which is why if you read my posts more carefully you will see that my comments on China's governance of Tibet are made not without criticisms.

Finally, let me conclude here by saying that I agree with those like A.Tom Grunfeld for example, who argue that although it is important to condemn human rights abuses, we "must also acknowledge the significant gains in personal freedoms for the vast majority of China's citizens," and that we must "support the moderate elements in the Chinese government by portraying Tibet in a more realistic fashion," by engaging more with Tibetan officials from the TAR "and by not pandering to the Tibet Lobby."

Why?
Because as Grunfeld argues, the success of the international campaign for Tibet "has led to a proportional deterioration in cultural conditions for the people of the TAR, since Tibet's high profile has bolstered the authority of the Chinese hardliners." Moreover, publicity from outside Tibet encourages hardline separatists to continue their struggles against Chinese rule, which, from the point of view of Chinese hardliners, increases the threat of instability, and therefore the need to make further crackdowns."

Pamela Logan appears to agree with this assessment too, and hopes that any future 15th Dalai Lama will prove to be "less divisive".

London and Californian based Tibet lobby groups might "Meanwell", but they are misinformed, prone to exaggeration, over-emotional, and more likely to harm the plight of the Tibetan people than to improve it.
M.A.Jones
Hangzhou

M.A. Jones貼於: 2007年1月13日, 星期六, 晚上11:39
親愛的David Meanwell:
你說達賴喇嘛不旅行時生活「簡單」。也許如此, 但相對追隨他流亡達馬薩拉的人來說, 他仍然是過著特權生活。在旅途時, 他當然曉得如何活得更好些。比如說, 每次他去羅省探訪他那些明星朋友時, 他都入住Huntington Ritz-Carlton酒店的總統套房, 那是要一天$3,000房租的!

David, 我喜歡以可經驗驗證的事實作自己評估的依據, 而為了能有公正平衡的評估, 就必須掌握及關注一切量與質的事證來研究大環境,

如果你仔細研究在西藏自治區以內及以外的轉世喇嘛(或圖嘉)的真實情況, 那你就該清楚他們相較大眾來說, 一點都不生活「簡單」, 而是過著特權和比較富裕的物質享受。這對西藏自治區裡的圖嘉和在達馬薩拉像達賴喇嘛那樣的圖嘉都是一樣適用的。

容許我懶惰些(事實上我時間有限, 因為這是我學生準備期終考前學期的最後一週了), 我只長篇幅引述Pamela Logan在她於2004冬出版的哈佛亞洲季節風裡名為「在西藏的圖嘉」的研究結果:

「把舊西藏轉化成為中國一部份對圖嘉們代表著鉅大轉變。但自相矛盾的是, 它使他們某些人擁有更多, 而非更少權力。舉例說, 噶瑪噶舉派自達賴五世以來就是次於格魯派的。在舊西藏, 噶瑪噶舉擁有約五百座寺院, 彼此鬆散地連繫著。在經濟上, 這些寺院的生計由當地人供養。一般施主善信都是僅可維生的農戶和牧民, 課什一稅地奉獻穀物, 肉食, 酥油, 牲口和土地。他們的供養中的一部份被按等級分配給各圖嘉。派裡最高級的圖嘉是大寶法王噶瑪巴, 而除了他自己的僧侶學校(labrang)或不動產外, 他對大部份資產有某程度的影響權力。那是很舒心的生活, 但也有一些侷限。

…以此與現代情況相比。雖然噶瑪噶舉在西藏仍是遠遠居第二位, 但在海外則顯著地得以弘揚。噶瑪巴的全球追隨者據稱有500萬, 據說他的資產總值達12億美元以上。這筆難以置信的數目受許多人質疑, 而我也一直沒法找出是如何算出來的。無論如何, 眾多慈善組織於全球擁有用作噶瑪噶舉信仰的中心累積的財富是驚人的。他們在6大洲34個國家經營冥想中心, 其中包括12家在美洲, 歐洲及亞洲。它們大部份是社團, 但有些是真正的產業, 其中有坐落於倫敦, 漢堡, 杜拜, 巴薩隆那, 艾塞克斯, 紐約, 芝加哥, 三藩市, 及香港的黃金地段。他們也有幾十所中心在印度。」

故此, 在西藏自治區的西藏傳世喇嘛, 在中國管治下似乎過得非常好!

「就是地位稍次的西藏圖嘉也享受一般西藏人的虔誠信奉。 本錯仁波切(活佛), (譯者註: 謝謝西藏小子協助提供 Pewar Rinpoche的譯名) 是較小的薩迦派的圖嘉, 在西藏東部一個小鎮德格有一家僧侶學校。他經常出遊, 但當他回家的訊息傳達時, 人民在街上列隊迎接, 甚至是提早24小時前便迎候。他駐鍚時, 來謁人流不息來求祝福或受教。他們一入內便叩首, 眼淚滿眶,就跟乞求國王般地走近本錯仁波切。每個求謁者, 不管多窮, 都往本錯仁波切巨大寶座似的椅子旁的枱幾上成堆的錢上投下殘破的鈔票。雖然他的房子 – 一如鎮上多數地方 – 還沒有抽水馬桶, 但他不愁沒錢, 食物或禮物。」

說對了, 那些生活在西藏自治區外的神權精英們, 在達馬薩拉也收到無數這類的禮物。

在過去廿五年裡, 有一部份中國的新財富已「細水長流從那狹窄曲折塵土道路流往西藏高原」, 而西藏人的生活水平因此如我所論的獲得改善。Logan說: 「當恐懼氣氛消除, 家家戶戶開始增耕草甸和添丁。雖然拉薩政治嚴重不穩, 但西藏大部份地區的圖嘉們發現他們能支配的資源慢慢增多了。讓這增長間歇停下的是一些較反叛的寺院時而發生對抗中國管治的動亂。隨之而來的鎮壓往往是為首者被捕, 而有時包括了一些圖嘉, 於是增長就受阻了。但大多數圖嘉都低姿態, 而設法避免生事。90年代中, 他們許多都達到相當安逸的西藏式生活, 也重修了多數重要的寺院。他們財富不斷增加, 於是就像許多中產新富一樣, 他們發現新的花錢方法: 旅遊。」

對呀, 今天的轉世喇嘛們過得挺滋潤的。Pamela Logan再說:

「在2000年我探訪了西藏東部偏僻草原上的一所佛寺。三個鍾頭的路途上看不到一棵樹, 遼闊的土地上只有稀疏散佈的一些牧民。但寺院裡卻擠滿人。上百名工人正在忙於修建一座新大殿的最後工程。僧侶們都為盛大的開光大典作籌備而忙碌。工人們也在蓋一座醫院, 一座為當地小孩開辦的小學, 和安置預計來觀禮的數百名嘉賓的飯店。為了這些工程, 一名當地的圖嘉向他的善信募了RMB700萬(約折US$90萬)。那些善長並非來自西藏或海外, 而是在東面的中國地區如上海, 廣州, 浙江及福建。許多圖嘉發現這些中國城市不只是避寒, 購物, 美食勝地; 而且還是收徒弟及籌款的好地方。我認識數位圖嘉都在最近西藏高原的大城市, 成都,有第二住處。他們從那裡再去其他中國城市。他們不止數人都有中國護照, 而出國到像香港, 新加坡, 及台灣去。雖然他們不大會說普通話, 但似乎他們對中國信眾極具吸引力。
西藏流亡政府和他們支持者誇張的指控就是這麼回事了。西藏流亡政府心知肚明他們在西藏自治區的同寅在中國管治下過得很好, 這是為何連達賴喇嘛自己也轉為承認在中國管治下西藏變得更好。「留在中華人民共和國對我們有利」他說, 還說中國是亞洲經濟強國。(據2006年12月印報托新聞社的報導, 而由許多主流通訊社引述向全球發佈。)

西藏流亡政府的支持組織聲稱在西藏自治區的西藏人不許有宗教信仰自由。這根本非實情, 因為現今許多到過西藏的觀察家都能證明的。Pamela Logan 又說:

「一個圖嘉最基本的責任就是對他的僧伽, 他的信仰團體負責。在現今西藏, 佛教活動是由中國政府一個部門, 宗教事務局管理; 所以圖嘉們必須在互相矛盾的訴求迷宮中小心行事。作為僧侶, 他們被期待按期參與「愛國再教育」運動, 和遵守一些如對他們寺院僧侶人數的規定。由於他們的影響力, 他們也許被要求對政府運動美言一下。但多數我認識的圖嘉們似乎沒有被政府所加的職責所阻礙。他們花更多時間在自己傳統職責上。每秉寺院都有一個宗教活動的日曆表, 而當地的圖嘉多數都須要在一高級圖嘉帶領下出席的。僧侶在寺院大殿集合, 在那裡坐上數小時一起依照經典印本來誦讀, 通常有法器如鼓, 角及鈴伴著。其中, 誦經會被其他儀式如獻供, 破瓦, 分發聖水,護身繩符或靈藥等聖物所打斷。瞭解這些儀式和記誦那些複雜的經文是需要很豐富的知識的。」

沙巴利就西藏現狀對其宗教習俗的研究讓他也有相同的結論。

至於達賴喇嘛本人, 他似乎與其參予傳統西藏宗教儀式, 倒不如多花時間當政治變色龍的投機本事來周遊列國, 跟一些西方新世代宣揚神秘論。我們別忘了他曾支持西方保守宗教陣營而簽署所謂「天衣無縫」的反墮胎宣言(註:指1971年Eileen Egan提倡的生命保護應是全面的, 見http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seamless_garment) 他又支持核試, 而且他還支持皮諾切特(註: 智利獨裁者, 見http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5 ... A%E5%88%87%E7%89%B9)。 David, 你記得這些嗎? 追溯1999年4月, 活佛上師跟撒徹爾夫人, 老布希, 要求英國政府釋放前智利法西斯獨裁者奧古斯托.皮諾切特及一名在英國被捕的長期中情局線人。達賴喇嘛要求不要把皮諾切特送往以人道罪行通緝審訊他的西班牙, 雖然他很小心在呼籲加上, 我們, 全世界, 不應「忘記發生的事實」。因達賴喇嘛跟他的政府也同樣獲中情局資助, 為什麼我們需驚訝他應站出來要求世界不要把年老的皮諾切特送去受審? 對嘛, David, 活佛上師當然依照他誓言生活, 但我懷疑那該是這樣寫的: 「你不能不忠於你的施主,不管他們要我做什麼或說什麼!」

而西藏流亡政府, 一如Pamela Logan與數不盡的其他人所觀察, 「是完全由圖嘉所控制, 就像在舊西藏那一樣。達賴喇嘛在最上, 桑東仁波切(Samdhong Rinpoche)率領噶廈(Kashag)(一個像內閣的機構), 而曾經一度主持人民議會。達賴喇嘛派去華盛頓的特使洛第嘉日(Lodi Gyari Rinpoche)是另一名圖嘉。然後名單一直列下去。」

達馬薩拉的圖嘉們似乎對清除政敵也很有一手。英國記者Christopher Hitchens 在1998年報導:「西藏歷史上受供奉崇拜的多傑雄天-大力金剛護法神(雄天宗)的信眾 – 自達賴喇嘛宣佈禁令信奉這一度被崇拜的神後, 就受到暴力, 流放以至死亡恐嚇。一個瑞士電視台的紀錄片以剪接活佛上師否則對一切威脅恐嚇知情的圖片, 組合另一圖片內追隨者興奮地發佈「通緝」海報和逐出教會及迫害的其他器材。」

David你說, 在達馬薩拉許多神權精英並不按照自己誓言生活, 達賴喇嘛卻是。這或是或非只是一半如此, 可是那又怎樣? 世界並不是圍繞著活佛上師轉的, 是吧? 世界所有西藏人口的命運也不繫於他一身, 那怕有些人是那麼想。事實上他是愈來愈不重要。西藏自治區的藏人往前走, 而許多受較高教育的, 如Pamela Logan及其他許多人都指出, 愈來愈多人認識世界更深後, 對喇嘛教不以為然。他們許多人喜歡去卡拉OK吧比去參加宗教節日者為多。就連在印度的西藏年輕人也愈來愈西化而遠離喇嘛教, 就像最近在印度舉辦西藏小姐選美的爭議所顯示的一樣。亞洲時代雜誌報導西藏流亡政府如何反對比賽活動, 指稱為「去西藏化及去傳統化」。政府還在達馬薩拉顯眼地點到處矗立廣告板表態反對選美並要求所有西藏人杯葛選美活動。

讓我在此重申, 我從未否認過在西藏有侵犯人權的事實, 或逃入印度的一些難民並非是真正難民而應獲難民資格。我爭論的是現在, 絕大多數從西藏到印度的人並非難民, 而是朝聖者, 於是他們不應獲難民身份。這也是為什麼許多印度及尼泊爾政客和學者在吵著陸續改變政策的部份原因。

David, 你指出「至於流亡政府有經濟及政治動機….. 請你說說那個政府不這樣。」

對, 所有政府都根據政治及經濟考量來擬定政策, 但這不是容許西藏流亡政府就為什麼每年有那麼上千的「難民」從西藏去到達馬薩拉的原因上故意誤導世界, 對吧?

我也不是為中國政府的辯護, 但我也不是西藏流亡政府辯護者。我盡力在自己評論時達到公正與持平, 因此你如細閱我貼文時, 我對中國管治西藏上並非沒有批評的.

最後, 讓我在此總結一下, 我認同像戈倫夫那些人的論點, 雖然指責侵犯人權很重要, 我們「必須也承認大多數中國人民獲取了許多重要的個人自由」, 而我們必須「更真實去描繪西藏情況以支持中國政府的穩健派」, 與更多西藏自治區的西藏官員接觸, 「而不是逢迎西藏的遊說人員」。

為什麼?
因為戈倫夫說, 西藏的國際運動成功「已導致西藏自治區人民的文化條件相對的退步, 因為西藏的高調助長了中國官方的強硬派。」還有, 西藏境外的宣傳鼓勵了激進分裂份子持續與中國政府對抗, 而從中國強硬派角度來說, 是提高了不穩定的危機, 而於是乎有需要進一步壓制。」

Pamela Logan似乎也同意這樣的評估, 而希望未來任何的15世達賴喇嘛將會是「較少分化」的。

位於倫敦及加州的西藏遊說團體可能出於「善意」, 但他們是被誤導, 傾向於誇大瓜實, 過於情緒用事, 而更有可能危害西藏人的境況而不是去改善它。
M.A.Jones 杭州

[ 本帖最后由 ltbriar 于 2008-5-25 10:18 编辑 ]

悉尼华人

up。。。。