[英国 Spiked 北京2008系列 之一] 西藏热衷者不会给西藏自由

dakelv

【英国 Spiked 北京2008系列 之一】为什么西藏事务热衷者不会给西藏以自由
【标题】Why Tibetophilia won't set Tibet free 为什么西藏事务热衷者不会给西藏以自由
【来源】http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4852/
【翻译】dakelv
【声明】本文翻译仅限Anti-CNN使用，谢绝转载。
【译注】本文是Spike Online 的 “2008北京：挑战对中国的污蔑”系列文章之一。全系列一共有二十篇文章。

【原文】Why Tibetophilia won’t set Tibet free

Brendan O'Neill

Westernpro-Tibet campaigning is driven less by a passion for freedom, than bydisgust with modernity - and a view of the Chinese as ‘subhuman’.
‘Tibet, Tibet!’ With those two words (well, one word repeated),Bjork caused a storm of controversy at her concert in Shanghai lastweek. The Icelandic warbler has joined a long list of celebrities,commentators and sportsmen who plan to use the platform provided by theBeijing Olympics to protest against China’s occupation of Tibet.



If Bjork’s squealing of the T-word is anything to go by, these protestswill confirm what lies behind the adoption of the Tibetan cause by manyin the West today: not a passion for freedom, but a distaste formodernity. Tibetophilia is driven less by solidarity with Tibetans thanby disdain for the old ‘yellow peril’ - the Chinese - who are seen astoo modern, too calculating and too materialistic.


The people of Tibet, like the people of China itself, should be freeto determine their own destinies and affairs. They need democracy andfull and unfettered freedom of speech, rather than to be controlled and‘looked after’ by China’s authoritarian Stalinist regime (1). However,anyone who wants, truly, to see more freedom in both Tibet and Chinashould steer clear of the celebrity-fronted, Prince Charles-endorsedpro-Tibet lobby - for, ironically, this campaign is underpinned by itsown deeply patronising, borderline colonialist view of Tibetans asinnocent, child-like creatures, and by a desire to preserve Tibet as apure, green, mystical land for the benefit of wealthy Westernersdisillusioned by Western modernity.


Pro-Tibet campaigners seem always to be outraged by two things inparticular: China’s incessant modernisation of Tibet, and its refusalto allow the Dalai Lama to return and assume his ‘rightful’ position asTibet’s leader.



Currently, pro-Tibet activists are particularly agitated by China’sconstruction of the Gormo-Lhasa railway, a spectacularly ambitiousproject that will allow trains to run from the heart of China intoTibet. They claim the railway will damage Tibet’s environment and ‘wipeout Tibetan identity and culture altogether’ (2). They also campaignfor China to engage in direct dialogue with the Dalai Lama, currentlyliving in exile in India, and to recognise him as the ‘spiritualleader’ of the Tibetan people (3).


These two aspects of pro-Tibet campaigning show what lies behindTibetophilia. First there is the desire to save Tibet from anythingthat looks or smells modern: from Chinese jobs, industry, railways.Apparently such things are a threat to Tibetans’ ‘way of life’, whichis honourably simple, rustic and rural. This paternalistic defence ofnatural and childlike Tibet from rampant, industrious China isperfectly captured in a poster made by the British campaign group FreeTibet. It asks ‘Whose side are you on?’, and shows on one side aChinese official sitting in a train, surrounded by modern weaponry andpumping out grey smog into the environment, and on the other side,wise-faced Tibetans in traditional dress surrounded by their happy,leaping farm animals. (See the poster here
(pdf): notice how the Chinese official and his troops have distinctlyyellow skin, goofy teeth and slitty eyes, while the Tibetans haveeither pale or brown skin and wear serene expressions. Even in trendy,PC campaigns, it seems, yellow skin tone is used to denote ‘BadEasterners’.) The message of the poster is clear: China is modern, andthus wicked, and Tibet must be protected from anything so new-fangledas railways or factories.


Atthe same time, campaigners’ unquestioning support for the Dalai Lamasuggests they see Tibetans as an immature people who need a godlikefigure to lead them. The Dalai Lama was never elected by anybody;rather, in a process that makes Britain’s House of Lords seem almostmodern and democratic (I said almost), he was handpicked by a tiny sectof monks who believed that he represents one of innumerableincarnations of the Buddhist entity Avalokitesvara.



Indeed, some writers on Tibet have pointed out that the idolisation ofthe Dalai Lama by Western activists and officials, and of course bysome Tibetans, might actually undermine the development of democracy inTibet. In her book The Tibetan Independence Movement: Political, Religious and Gandhian Perspectives,Jane Ardley writes: ‘[It] is apparent that it is the Dalai Lama’s roleas ultimate spiritual authority that is holding back the politicalprocess of democratisation. The assumption that he occupies the correctmoral ground from a spiritual perspective means that any challenge tohis political authority may be interpreted as anti-religious.’ (4)

In elevating the Dalai Lama to the position of unquestionablerepresentative of the Tibetan people, pro-Tibet activists are helpingto stifle ‘the opportunity for opposition and the expression ofdifferent views’ (5) - the very lifeblood of democracy. Indeed, someTibetan Buddhist groups that have challenged or questioned theauthority of the Dalai Lama have found themselves denounced andsuppressed by the Dalai Lama’s people (6). Western activists’celebration of the Dalai Lama as a ‘saviour’ of Tibet is akin toBritain being under occupation and campaigners around the world hailingPrince Charles, or worse, Dr Rowan Williams, as our true, brave,godlike spokesperson.

Tibet has long been the plaything of people disillusioned by the modern world. Since James Hilton wrote Lost Horizonin 1933, in which Tibet was depicted as ‘Shangri-la’, Tibet has beenused and abused, turned into an idealised land of goodness and purityby aristocratic and artistic elements in the West who despise the paceof change over here, and who like the idea of a completely natural,archaic, politics-free land ‘over there’.
In his 1991 book Sacred Tibet, Philip Rawson wrote:‘Tibetan culture offers powerful, untarnished and coherent alternativesto Western egotistical lifestyles, our short attention span, ourgradually more pointless pursuit of material satisfactions...’ (7) Inother words, the driving force behind Tibetophilia today is notpolitical solidarity with the Tibetans, and certainly not any positiveargument for full democratic equality for Tibetans, but rather a senseof disgust with Western life. It is a deeply narcissistic project,where ‘the West perceives some lack within itself’ and seeks to findfulfilment in the always-preserved ‘pure East’ (8).

This is why pro-Tibet campaigning can so easily slip into uglyChina-bashing. In the morality tale constructed around Tibet, Chinacomes to be seen as the evil representative of modernity, a faceless,smog-producing people who are ruining Western activists’ spiritualbackyard in Tibet. As Donald S Lopez Jnr argues in his fascinating bookPrisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West:‘The invasion of Tibet by [China] was and still is represented as anundifferentiated mass of godless Communists overrunning a peaceful landdevoted only to ethereal pursuits… Tibet embodies the spiritual and theancient, China the material and the modern. Tibetans are superhuman,Chinese are subhuman.’ (9)

Too much of today’s pro-Tibet campaigning is underpinned by twothings: self-loathing for our own, apparently over-modernisedsocieties, and a semi-colonialist view of Tibetans as spiritualchildren and the Chinese as evil automatons. No wonder it can attractthe support of such an archaic, illiberal figure as Prince Charles.Tibetophilia will do nothing whatsoever to increase the freedom of thepeople of Tibet, or the people of China.


【原文截图】



【译文】

为什么西藏事务热衷者不会给西藏以自由

作者：Brendan O'Neill


西方支持西藏的运动的驱动力更多的不是出于对自由的热情，而是对现代化的厌恶和中国人是“次人类”这种观点。

“西藏！西藏！” 喊完这两个词后（嗯。应该是一个词喊了两遍），比约克在她上周在上海的演唱会上引发了一场争议的风暴。这位来自冰岛的歌手加入了一大串名人，新闻解说员和运动员的行列，这些人计划用北京奥运提供的平台来抗议中国对西藏的占领。

如果比约克发出的这个“T”字幕开头的词【译注：英文里西藏（Tibet）的首字母是“T"】有任何价值的话，这些抗议将证实当今西方很多人热衷于西藏事务背后的原因  -这个原因不是对自由的热情，而是对现代化的厌恶。热衷西藏事务者的动力更多的是出于对以前所谓的“黄祸”，即中国人的蔑视，而不是出于对西藏人的声援。因为中国人被认为太现代，太精明，而且太注重物质享受。

西藏人民，和中国人民一样，应该自由决定他们自己的归宿和事务。他们需要民主和充分的、不受任何约束的言论自由，而不是受中国独裁的、斯大林式政府的控制和“照顾”。然而，任何一个想真正在西藏和中国看到更多自由的人都应该对那些名人领头的、得到查尔斯王子赞同的支持西藏的游说活动敬而远之，因为具有讽刺意味的是，这种游说运动体现了它本身那种把西藏人看成是孩童般无邪的生命的屈尊纡贵、殖民主义者的观念，同时也表达了那种出于对厌倦了西方现代社会的西方有钱人考虑而要把西藏保持成一个纯洁的、绿色的神秘之地的欲望。

支持西藏运动的参与者似乎一直对两件事情耿耿于怀：一个是中国对西藏毫无止息的现代化，另外一个就是它拒绝让达赖喇嘛重返西藏并重归其“合法的”领导人地位。

目前，支持西藏的活跃分子对中国修建格尔木-拉萨铁路感到尤其不安，这个壮举将使火车能从中国的腹地一直开入西藏。

关于支持西藏运动的上述两个事实显示了热衷西藏事务者的面目。首先是他们把西藏从任何看起来或者闻起来有现代意味的东西里解救出来 -与中国有关的工作、工业、铁路。很明显，这些东西是对西藏具有尊严的简单、乡土味的、田园般“生活方式”的一种威胁。这种旨在把自然、孩童般的西藏从无孔不入的、工业化的中国手中拯救出来的家长式的保卫战在一个名叫自由西藏的英国组织的一张海报里表现的淋漓尽致。这张海报上有这样一个问题“你站在谁的一边？”海报上，一边是中国官员坐在一列火车上，身边满是现代化武器，火车向周围喷出灰色的烟雾。在另一边，则是身着传统服装的面容充满睿智的老者，周围是欢蹦乱跳的牲畜。（请见这张海报【译注：链接已被删除】，并注意中国官员及军队的士兵长有很明显的黄色皮肤，滑稽可笑的牙齿和眯缝眼，而西藏人的皮肤不是苍白的就是黄褐色的，而且他们表情宁静。即使在新潮的个人计算机促销活动中，似乎黄色皮肤也用来代表“坏的东方人。）这张海报的意思很清楚：中国是现代的，所以是邪恶的；西藏应该受到保护，使之不受诸如铁路和工厂这样的任何新东西的影响。

与此同时，运动人士对达赖喇嘛不加疑问的支持也说明他们把西藏人民看成是尚未成熟的民族，需要一个神一样的人物来引导他们。达赖喇嘛从来不是由民选产生的；反之，他是以一个使英国的上议院看起来都几乎显得既现代又民主的（我是所几乎）过程而挑选出来的 - 他是由一个相信他代表着佛教里众多的观音化身之一的一个小教派里的僧侣钦点的。

的确，一些西藏方面的作家已经指出，某些西方活跃人士和官员，当然还有西藏人，对达赖喇嘛的偶像化，其实可能会不利于西藏民主化的进程。JaneArdley在她写的《西藏独立运动：政治，宗教和甘地主义观点》一书中写道：“很明显，达赖喇嘛的至高无上的精神权威的角色正是阻碍民主化的政治进程的原因。认为他从精神角度来说占领着道德高地就意味着对他的政治权威的任何挑战都可能会被解释为反宗教。”

支持西藏的活跃分子将达赖喇嘛提高到一个不容怀疑的西藏人民的代表这样一个位置，他们这样做实际上是在帮助抑制“任何提反对意见的机会和不同意见的表达” -而这些正式民主的根源。的确，有些曾经对达赖喇嘛的权威提出挑战或者疑问的西藏佛教团体，他们的命运就是被达赖喇嘛的人斥责和压制。西方活跃人士把达赖喇嘛歌颂为西藏的“救主”，就好像英国如果遭到占领而全世界的运动人士高喊着查尔斯王子，或更次之，Rowan Williams博士【译注：目前（第104世）坎特伯雷大主教】的名字，并把他作为我们的真实、勇敢而又如神明一般的代言人一样。

西藏一直是对现代社会心灰意冷的人们手中的玩物。自从詹姆斯·希尔顿于1933年在《失落的地平线》一书里把西藏描述成“香格里拉”后，西藏就一直被西方的贵族和风雅之士利用、滥用并演变成一个美好而洁净的理想之地。这些人厌恶西藏变化的步伐，并钟情于“域外”那片完全自然、古老、而又远离政治的土地。Philip Rawson 在1991年的《神圣的西藏》一书中写道：“西藏文化为西方自我本位的生活方式、我们短暂的注意力跨度以及我们日益增加的对物质满足无意义的追求提供了一个有力、无暇、而又连贯的选择。。。”换言之，当今西藏热衷者背后的驱动力不是对于西藏人的声援，而且当然也不是为西藏人争取完全自由平等的辩词，而是一种对西方生活方式的厌恶之情。从根本上说，这是一个非常孤芳自赏的工程，西方人看到自身的某种缺陷” 所以就从这永远保存完好的“洁净的东方” 来寻求满足。


这也是为什么支持西藏的运动很容易就变成丑恶的中国污蔑运动。在围绕着西藏而构造的道德神话里，中国是现代化的邪恶代表，一个正在摧毁西方活跃人士的西藏后院的无名的烟尘制造者。正如Donald S LopezJnr在他那本有趣的《香格里拉的囚徒：藏传佛教和西方》一书中所写：“[中国]对于西藏的侵略过去被，而且现在也一直被描写成一群分不清面孔的、不信神的共产主义者践踏一个完全献身于超然追求的和平之地。。。西藏是神圣和古老的象征，而中国则是物质和现代的象征。西藏人是超人，而中国人是次人类。”

太多当今支持西藏运动都有两种东西所支撑着：对我们自己的、很明显的过于现代的社会的自惭形秽，和把西藏人看成是神圣的孩童、把中国看成是邪恶的机器人的半殖民主义者的观点。难怪它能得到查尔斯王子这种落伍的、狭隘的人物的支持。西藏热衷者在增加西藏人民，乃至中国人民的自由程度上将是毫无建树的。

[ 本帖最后由 dakelv 于 2008-9-4 09:31 编辑 ]