思慧的德裔美国丈夫对西藏问题的认识[转载]

hellenal

思慧的德裔美国丈夫对西藏问题的认识[转载]
http://cache.tianya.cn/publicforum/content/funinfo/1/1128724.shtml
　　前言：
　　
　　 西藏事件在美国越来越发烧，而我那可爱的德裔老公自始至终都坚定地站在中国一边。身为软件公司总裁的他最近接到美国一个人权组织的倡议书，欲向美国政府施加压力杯葛中国奥运。老公激愤之下竟写下一篇浩浩荡荡的反驳信。我读后又惊又喜：没想到他作为一个外国人对西藏问题竟然有这样深刻的认识！他的很多观点对我都有启发。老公的信在三月十八日发出，至今未收到任何回音。我现将其翻译成中文，如有不妥处敬请参照英文原文。
　　
　　 2008年是中国的盛世。我们全家真诚地祝愿世界更加了解中国，支持北京奥运。中国，加油啊！！
　　
　　 思慧
　　
　　 四月八日写于美国硅谷
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　 译文如下：
　　
　　 R(发信者，我将其名隐去)，今天早上我收听了NPR(National Public Radio, 美国国家公共电台)有关西藏的节目，那个访谈的内容让我非常吃惊。
　　
　　 首先，是有平常的对dl喇嘛持有同情心的美国人，在承认了普通的汉族中国人在暴乱中被当作武装藏人的袭击目标后，却说“这种袭击是对中国政府政策的合理和可以理解的反应”。如果那些平民是犹太人而武装分子是巴勒斯坦人，或者那些平民是世界其他国家人民的话，还会有任何美国人站在那些别的时候被称作是恐怖分子 的人一边吗？
　　
　　 中国政府一直下很大的力气来发展西藏的经济，可能是希望富了以后的藏人会更快乐而不会成为宗教分子或分裂分子。最辉煌的成就是修了到西藏的铁路，考虑到所经过的巨大山川这是一项非常昂贵的工程，一些人甚至希望在将来的一天此铁路会修到印度。(印度人也对此非常感兴趣)。铁路创造了更多的经济发展的新机会，也从藏外带来了更多的移民。NPR的一位栏目主持将这条铁路引用成中国的一个新防御攻势并宣称由此造成了西藏内部的抵抗运动。这是让我吃惊的第二件事。通常，当我聆听别的偏远不发达地区人民发泄愤怒的话，他们通常会这样抱怨：“本地的经济是一潭死水毫无起色，我们的孩子没有未来，我们需要政府做点什么来帮助发展本地的经济。”这次倒真奇了，首次有人表态不想要一个更好的经济环境。
　　
　　 过去，当我想到西藏，我会立刻条件反射地反对共产主义，希望被“压迫”的西藏人得到解放。我也曾希望过台湾独立因为中华人民共和国是共产主义和不自由的。可我现在已经不这样看中华人民共和国了。中国是一个在发生着巨大变化的国家并且有一个强权的政府。这种状况可能会随时间逐渐改变，但是现在看来中国需要这样一个能做正事的政府，专心搞建设，而不是一味担心民意测验结果以寻求联任。我曾经和许多印度人交谈过，他们都希望有一个像中国一样的印度政府。如果您将中国想象成美国而西藏和台湾要造反从我们这里分裂出去，您可能就会对分裂分子没有那么同情了。至少林肯总统就是这样。
　　
　　 我现在将西藏问题看成是一个落后腐朽的生产力无法生存而被更先进的生产力所代替，看起来是无管治的或至少是没有被充分利用的疆域被占领。西藏问题没有这样极端，但同样的替代程序曾令北美印第安人的文化消失。历史上中国从十二世纪起就开始控制西藏。蒙古人在1271年占领中国，中国的元朝，在1244年占领西藏。从此中国在西藏都有不同程度的主权实施，所以中国宣称拥有西藏主权的历史比欧洲所有的疆界都要长。中间只有一次在1913到1951年由于英国的殖民干涉和中国国内的内战和动荡，(以及第二次世界大战和日本入侵)，西藏有过实际的自治。当中国在1951年恢复主权时，它给予了西藏正确的特殊自治权力但在东面的一些边区，更靠近人口聚居的中国内地，藏人和其他中国人一样经历了熟称的“全面土地改革”的共产主义改造。这引起了旧的土地所有者(贵族和佛教僧侣)的强烈反对和武装造反。造反传播到拉萨而在1959年被彻底击溃。这就是dl喇嘛离开西藏的时刻。
　　
　　从我所知道的情况来看，西藏在一九五一年以前不是一个好的栖身之地。绝大多数人民是农奴或是奴隶，一种非常穷困和落后的国家的标志。对在西藏地区的普通藏人来说，dl喇嘛离开后情况只会变得越来越好而且完全的土地改革也在西藏地区普遍实施了。所以无论是从经济还是人权的角度，中国占领西藏之后普通藏人都获得了好处。(是的，尽管想象中华人民共和国会给人们带来人权好像很不可思议，但这就是事实！)尽管如此，找出藏人对汉人不满的机会还是太多了！对我而言，这是我转变对西藏和中国的看法的主要原因。我认为，西藏现在保持是中国的一部分非常有意义，并且随着时世的变迁它只会越来越成功地整合入中国。唯一和这个不可逆转的潮流对抗的是那些旧贵族。这些旧贵族强行推行一种为自我服务的与世界其他地区完全脱节的落后的生活方式。也许改造西藏的最好方式应该让那些受压迫的劳苦大众自己起来反对他们的旧主人，这就会包括一些可预见的无政府混乱和经济的困境。(这种事件可能会在西藏的邻居尼泊尔发生，虽然尼泊尔显然比西藏要先进的多。)中国的占领避免了动乱的必要。可是由于我们西方人对旧藏政权的支持，一直以来当地藏人的不满都被高音广播，甚至被怂恿。现任dl喇嘛吸引人的个性以及藏传佛教是非暴力和吸引人的哲学更助长了这种情况。而铁的事实却是人们仍然把宗教当成来进行分裂(区分我们和他们)和拒绝进步的政治力量。如果把藏人换成是伊斯兰人，我们还会这样同情他们吗？
　　
　　我确信即将来到的奥运会是这场骚乱的一部分。中国把奥运当成是一次显示的机会，把可能的抵制当作一场灾难。我们每个人都知道与和奥运会之后相比，奥运会前中国政府对任何挑衅的反应都会是微弱的。我甚至听到传言说dl喇嘛本人曾对本周最初的示威大加鼓励说“这是我们推动独立的最好机会”。
　　
　　 在欣赏dl喇嘛本人的同时，我不能支持他作为一个政治领袖。原因在于：
　　
　　1)我不希望把宗教信仰和政治混淆，2)不管dl喇嘛得到了多少西方传媒的支持，我不可能支持他的政治观点。
　　
　　 很遗憾我对您未加思考的所谓支持“受压迫人民”的倡议写下这么一大篇的说教。如果您认为我的论点有价值，请让我知道。
　　
　　 请向J(发信者的妻子)问候并向其他所有朋友们致敬！
　　
　　 Y(我的德裔老公)

[size=-1] 作者：总有第一次　回复日期：2008-4-11　22:40:18

　　附原文：
　　
　　 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
　　From: Yxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
　　Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:58 PM
　　To: 'Rxxxxxxxxxx'
　　Subject: RE: Tibet
　　
　　Rxxx, I listened to an NPR program about the situation in Tibet this morning and the dialog was fascinating.
　　
　　The first thing that surprised me was that we had normal Americans (however sympathetic to the Dalai Lama ) acknowledging that normal Han Chinese were targets of violence from the militant Tibetans but this “was a reasonable and understandable reaction to the Chinese government’s policies”. If the civilians had been Israelis and the militants were Palestinian, or civilians anywhere else for that matter, would any Americans sided with those who at other times would be called the terrorists?
　　
　　The Chinese government has tried to develop the Tibetan economy, maybe with the thought that wealthier Tibetans would be happier and less religious and separatist. The crowning achievement of this was the railroad to Tibet (a very expensive engineering feat given the mountains to scale) that some people hope to extend to India one day. (The Indians are very interested too.) This railroad is creating much new economic opportunity as well as more immigrants from outside Tibet . This railroad was cited by the one of the NPR panelists as one of the new Chinese offenses that forced the civil unrest. This was the second thing that surprised me. When I hear the complaints from other remote low economic activity areas, the complaints are usually the opposite: “The local economy is stagnant, there is no future here for our kids, we need the government to do something to help the local economy.” This is the one time when the locals apparently don’t want a better economy.
　　
　　In the past, when I thought about Tibet , I used to have an anti communist knee jerk, wishing freedom for the "oppressed" Tibetans. I also wished independence for Taiwan because the PRC was communist and anti freedom. I don’t think of the PRC like that any more. China is a country going through tremendous changes and with a government that is firmly in charge. This will probably change over time, but for now it is good to have a government that can do what is right, to build infrastructure, and not always have to worry about opinion polls and getting re-elected. I have talked to many Indians who wished they had a government like the Chinese. If you imagine that China was the US and Tibet and Taiwan wanted to secede, you probably would be less sympathetic to the secessionists. At least Lincoln was.
　　
　　I now view the Tibet issues as an inferior economic system being unable to defend itself against a stronger economy that is taking over what looks like unclaimed or at least under exploited territory. It is less extreme, but it is the same process that wiped to the Native American culture. Historically China started controlling Tibet in the 1200s. (The Mongols who conquered China in 1271, the Yuan dynasty, took Tibet in 1244. China has exercised some control over Tibet ever since, so the Chinese claim to rule Tibet is more ancient than any border in Europe . The only time Tibet had real self determination was between 1913 and 1951 because British interventions and China ’s internal turbulence and civil wars (and WW2 and Japanese invasion). When China reasserted itself in 1951, it gave Tibet Proper special autonomy but some outlying areas in the east, closer to populated China , were treated as China Proper which meant “full land redistribution” communist style. This was opposed by the old local land owners (aristocrats and monasteries) who rebelled. The rebellion spread to Lhasa but was crushed in 1959. This is when the Dalai Lama left.
　　
　　From what I can tell, Tibet was not a good place to be in 1951. Most people were serfs and there were even slaves, signs of a very poor and backwards country. For the average Tibetan in Tibet Proper, things only got better when the Dalai Lama left and full land distribution was implemented in Tibet Proper too. It is always possible to play an “us versus them” game, just look at the “ethnic cleansing” in old Yugoslavia , and the same happened in Tibet . While the average Tibetan benefited from the Chinese takeover, both economically and from a human rights perspective (imagine how strange it is to think of the PRC as the bringer of human rights, but it is true!), it was always easy to find Tibetans resenting the Chinese. To me, this is the main reason I have changed my view on Tibet and China . It seems to me that it makes perfect sense that Tibet stay part of China and as time goes on becomes more and more integrated. The main opposition to this inevitable trend is the old elite. This elite pushed a self serving and backwards way of life that was completely non competitive with the rest of the world. The normal way of fixing Tibet would have the oppressed majority kick out the old oppressors on their own, including predictable problems such as some level of anarchy and economic hardship. (This may happen in neighboring Nepal , even though Nepal is much more advanced than Tibet was.) China ’s takeover avoided that necessity, but because of our support for the old regime there is always a ready loudspeaker for, and instigator of, any local discontent. It helps that the current Dalai Lama is very charismatic and that Tibetan Buddhism is non violent and attractively philosophical. The crass truth is still that people want to use religion as a divisive (us versus them) and non progressive political force. Would we be as sympathetic if the Tibetans were Islamic?
　　
　　I’m certain that the upcoming Olympics are part of the reason for the current unrest. China views the Olympics as a coming out event, and views a possible boycott as a disaster. Everybody knows that the Chinese response to any challenge will probably be more muted than it will be after the Olympics . I have even heard rumors that the Dalai Lama himself encouraged the initial demonstrations this week as “our last chance for independence”.
　　
　　While I like the Dalai Lama as a person, I can’t support him as a political leader because a) I prefer not to mix religion and politics, and 2) I can’t support the politics of the Dalai Lama regardless of how good PR he gets.
　　
　　Sorry for writing such a long and preaching response to something that probably seemed like a no-brainer gesture in support of an "oppressed" people. Please let me know if you think my arguments have any merit.
　　
　　Please say hi to Jxxx and everybody else!
　　
　　Yxxxxxxx