Tibet: Talk about Barking up the Wrong Tree

A recent article in the Economist rallied against the West for trying to support Tibet's ideas of freedom, while simultaneously trying to foster positive relationships with China, the villain of democracy. The writer of the Banyan article was not far off the mark, but for markedly different reasons than he supposed.

Nestled in the Himalayas, this autonomous region is the highest habitable plateau in the world. Since the 7th century, power in the country was transferred from kings and fiefs, to local lords, creating a vassal state synonymous with Medieval Europe. Representing much of Buddhist culture, this area was often ignored by the bigger powers and for centuries lived in relative isolation from the outside world. Incidentally, China was not the first country to take interest in the area, but why aren't we more surprised when we hear it was Great Britain? Her Royal Highness Victoria Hanover had her sights set high after conquering India, and the intentions of bordering Afghanistan, China, and the Russian Empire were unclear. She preempted them by sending a military expedition into the region, which resulted in Tibetan deaths and the discovery of a country with few resources of importance to Europe. Displeased with the result, Britain backed out and made a treaty with China, basically allowing China unfettered access to the region without interference from British India.

The rest of Chinese-Tibetan history is well known and bears little in repeating. Between the 1959 Tibetan uprising and the brutal Cultural Revolution imposed on not only Tibet but all of China, the region has suffered greatly, with the Western world being the loudest protesters. We spout rhetoric about intolerance and destroying a sacred culture, but are we missing the larger picture?

The crushing of a culture in the attempts for expansion is not a novel idea in history. If manifest destiny means anything to anyone, the first to raise their hands should be America. The Americans tramped their way across their country, killing Native Americans, taking their land, indoctrinating their children, and essentially extinguishing a culture present for over a millennium. Sounds familiar doesn't it? Yet now days, while monetary compensation has been offered and amends have been made, few are loathe to think that America or the Native Americans would have been better off without the advancements of modern medicine, technology, and education that expansionism brought with it. Similarly, China's enforcement of its political will on Tibet is unfortunate, but with it brought the modern world to Tibet, a place still stuck in the middle ages until the 1900's. Comparatively, China has allowed Tibetans to remain in their native region, keep much of the daily culture, language, and way of life. The Native Americans got small pox blankets and forceful removal from their land. No one agrees that subjugation is right, but in terms of quality of life, the Native Americans got the raw deal.

Furthermore, by focusing on Tibet, the Western world forgets that there are others put through the same repression: the Chinese people. Such a narrow focus on Tibet, on the part of celebrities like Richard Gere and Goldie Hawn, as well as many governments, shapes much of foreign policy and international relations. By using Tibet as an excuse to foster bad relations, nothing changes and China continues to have an iron fist. In reality the real human rights crisis is present in every part of the country, not just Tibet, with freedoms being squelched at every turn. The international community needs to broaden their scope or they will miss the opportunity to improve the Chinese political system and create a Free Tibet.

What has happened to Tibet is now a century old, and sitting in the dredges of the past won't establish a happier future. The sole way for the West to create a fairy tale story for Tibet is to create a democratic China, not an impossibility with the increasing financial freedom seen in the economic sector. Only with a Communist-free China will a Communist-free Tibet exist as well.


"Banyan: Going Gaga over Tibet | The Economist." The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance. 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 12 Sept. 2010. .

Unbalancing Society: Where are all the baby girls?

This past week The Economist ran a story about gendercide and the declining rate of female births worldwide, more specifically in China and India. I found this story intriguing because its ideologies I have seen within my own family.

My maternal grandparents so badly wanted a boy that they were willing to have four children at the expense of their savings account and my grandmother's health to attain that dream. The saddest thing had to be the day that my youngest aunt was born; my mother said that when she came home from school everyone acted like it was a funeral and no one actually celebrated her sister's birth.

Now these ideas may be cast aside as old fashioned, or perhaps even as a different generation, but as the article points out, that is just not the case. Education and increased money have actually perpetuated this gender preference, instead of negating it. What drives that? My theory rests with cultural stereotypes runnign deep, especially in Asian countries (and yes, India does count as Asia.). As much as education and affluence can do pull the people out of penury and despair, it can also give rise to attaining aspirations that were previously unachievable (such as having that male son/heir). Ultrasounds are only $12; abortions happen dime a dozen. One never has to see their daughter if they don't want to.

Cultural ideologies and community relationships are intertwined in these societies, so to combat them you have to attack the main problem, the reasoning behind it. My aunt thinks its because there is an obscure religious text where it says that fathers of male children will attain Nirvana. Others keep a more paternalistic outlook, seeing the male child as the heir and perpetuation of the family name. Male children don't have dowries and can keep property in their name. But why, in this time when females have increased educational and ownership opportunities, would these things matter anymore?

While The Economist did not posit any suggestions for this, I believe that these concerns may fall further along class lines. Two generations back, the majority of Indians (85%) lived in villages, with less education and growth opportunities than their city counterparts. But as India has progressed from colonial times to the modern age, so have its citizens, heading in droves to cities, occupying slums and various other ramshackle apartments. Their pursuits are of little concern, but their numbers are outstanding, with only 70% of Indians choosing to live in villages in 1991. Those numbers are growing, and with increased opportunities, there is a growing middle class as well. This middle class is only one (less for some) generation removed from the village outlook and mentality.

It is truly unfortunate that children are manipulated this way, but studies show that female Indian children are still better off than their Chinese equivalents, who are often unceremoniously killed upon arrival. The one child policy has left China worse off for the future, featuring staggering statistics of 123 males to 100 female births. Social unrest is imminent, with increasing males and less options for creating families (who will be their brides?), dissatisfied males will look to something to keep them occupied. Maybe China knows this and is excellent at keeping down rebellions (read: Tinamen Square) or they have not considered a future with frustrated young males itching to break out. The possibilities are endless, but all eyes are on China in twenty years.

As for India, the next generation may hold the key to gender stability. Yet, as more people move from villages to the city, there may be periodic pendulum swings in gender ratios as well. Sometimes you can take the person out of the village, but you just can't take the village out of the person.


"Gendercide: The Worldwide War on Baby Girls." The Economist 4 Mar. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2010. <http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15636231&source=hptextfeature>