Let me give you a brief clip from the February 1999 issue of the Atlantic Monthly magazine. This comes from an article called "Tibet Through Chinese Eyes". In it, an American teacher is presenting a question to his Chinese students in an effort to demonstrate how cultural imperialism like that of the Chinese against the Tibetans, can be destructive in the same way that we as Americans, destroyed Native Indian culture.
He asked them what they would have done if they had been us. Most students responded like this, "The world is changing and developing. We should make the Indians suit our modern life. The Indians are used to living all over the plains and moving frequently, without a fixed home, but it is very impractical in our modern life.... We need our country to be a powerful country; we must make the Indians adapt to our modern life and keep pace with the society. Only in this way can we strengthen the country."
This child collectively used "we" and "our" no less than eight times in that brief statement. What about what "they" want? And as if that wasn't bad enough, when asked what were China's obligations to Tibet, one student responded, "First, I will use my friendship to help the Tibetans. But if they refuse my friendship, I will use war to develop them, like the Americans did with the Indians." Machiavelli in training. Truly sad.
The Chinese Government is so concerned about keeping up with the Jones' (ie. the United States / the West) that they are destroying the honor and self-respect of their own country in the process. Now they've succeeded in passing this inferiority complex on to their children. Congratulations.
You'd think the Chinese Government, in their
anti-western haze, would try to avoid emulating our mistakes. If we as Americans had made
the same statement, "First I will use my friendship to develop the Chinese. If they
refuse my friendship, I will use war to develop them," the Chinese would be screaming
bloody murder about "Western Imperialism!"
"History doesn't repeat itself. Arrogant men, ignorant of its lessons, repeat
history."
This
is an excerpt from a statement made by his Holiness the Dalai Lama, "I would like to
explain the meaning of compassion, which is often misunderstood. Genuine compassion is
based not on our own projections and expectations, but rather on the rights of the other:
irrespective of whether another person is a close friend or an enemy, as long as that
person wishes for peace and happiness and wishes to overcome suffering, then on that basis
we develop genuine concern for his or her problem. This is genuine compassion. Usually
when we are concerned about a close friend, we call this compassion. This is not
compassion; it is attachment. It is possible to have compassion without attachment - and
similarly, to have anger without hatred. Therefore we need to clarify the distinctions
between compassion and attachment, and between anger and hatred. Such clarity is useful in
our daily life and in our efforts toward world peace. I consider these to be basic
spiritual values for the happiness of all human beings, regardless of whether one is a
believer or a nonbeliever."
And this from his Holiness' acceptance speech after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, "No matter what part of the world we come from, we are all basically the same human beings. We all seek happiness and try to avoid suffering. We have basically the same human needs and concerns. All human beings want freedom and the right to determine our own destiny as individuals and as peoples."
Frankly, I think these statements could do more to "advance" the Chinese Government and its people, than a thousand years of forced "progress" or "modernization" of Tibet by the Chinese.
I encourage you to read the full text of the article at the Atlantic Monthly's website, purchase a back issue of the magazine, or check it out at your local library.
Please visit the web site of the Tibetan
Government in exile. Just click on the flag.
