The 'Free Tibet' movement's use of racial stereotypes against the Chinese people

[Vanguard1917]

Article documenting the Western 'Free Tibet' movement's use of old racist stereotypes of Chinese people (as slitty-eyed and buck-toothed evil pollutants from the East) in their propaganda.


-----------------------------

Monday 14 April 2008
Slitty eyes and buck teeth? It must be China
In its rush to denounce Chinese militarism and pollution, is the British Free Tibet Campaign disseminating dubious stereotypes of Chinese people?
Brendan O’Neill


The Free Tibet movement has rarely been out of the news over the past month. In London, Paris and San Francisco, Free Tibet activists have used the opportunity of the forthcoming Beijing Olympics to raise awareness about Tibetan people’s plight. Yet in their rush to denounce Chinese militarism and pollution in Tibet – and in their tendency to transform a complex political situation into a simple morality tale peopled by wicked Chinese and wide-eyed Tibetans – have Free Tibet activists propagated dubious stereotypes of Chinese people?

In his book Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West, academic Donald S Lopez Jnr argued that many ‘Tibetophiles’ in the West tend to present the problems in Tibet in super-simplistic terms, where ‘an undifferentiated mass of godless Communists [are] overrunning a peaceful land devoted only to ethereal pursuits’. Consequently, Tibetans come to be seen as ‘superhuman’ and the Chinese as ‘subhuman’ (1). This risk of depicting the Chinese as ‘subhuman’, as a slitty-eyed, expressionless horde, can be glimpsed in some of the campaigning materials of the British-based Free Tibet Campaign.

The Free Tibet Campaign was founded in 1987. It campaigns for an end to the Chinese occupation of Tibet and for Tibetans’ human rights to be respected. It also takes a very simplistic, moralised, one might even say dumbed-down, view of the problems in China and Tibet. This is captured in the Free Tibet postcard shown below. The postcard was produced in 2006 to protest against the development of the Gormo-Lhasa railway line, which connects China to the heart of Tibet, and which, according to the Free Tibet Campaign, helps to strengthen China’s ‘military and political grip over the region’. Activists were encouraged to send the postcard to UK holiday tour companies that were promoting the railway. The postcard is still available to download on Free Tibet’s website (2).

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/freetibet/posterfull.gif

The first notable thing is the postcard’s simplification of the crisis between Tibet and China. On one side it shows serene-looking, traditionally-dressed Tibetans on a seemingly peaceful hillside – on the other it shows militaristic Chinese riding in a train that is emitting thick grey smog into the air. The postcard asks ‘Whose side are you on?’, meaning: are you with the nice, naive Tibetans or with the marauding Chinese outsiders? Yet look a little closer, and the underlying message of this piece of campaigning material is ominous: it seems to depict the Chinese as slitty-eyed, alien outsiders. Note the striking contrast between the depiction of the Tibetans and the depiction of the Chinese.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/freetibet/tibetans.gif http://www.spiked-online.com/images/freetibet/rearsoldiersdetail.gif

The Tibetans have calm and peaceful faces. They have properly open eyes and warm smiles. Their skin tone is either brown or a pale white colour. The Chinese, by contrast, have almost featureless faces. Their eyes are extremely slitty; indeed, where the Tibetan characters have eyebrows and opened-up, expressive eyes, the two Chinese soldiers have severe diagonal slits where their eyes ought to be. And in contrast to the soft skin tones of the Tibetans, the Chinese soldiers have a sickly yellow pallor.

One of the most long-standing prejudices in Western depictions of the Chinese is that they have slitty eyes and buck teeth. As one academic study has shown, from the Western hysteria about a ‘Yellow Peril’ invasion of Chinese immigrants in the early 1900s to the dehumanising depictions of the Japanese during the Second World War, Far Easterners have long been shown with ‘exaggerated physical features’ such as ‘buck teeth, slit eyes and yellow-tinted skin’ (3). These exaggerated features are reproduced in the Free Tibet campaigning postcard, as can be seen on the right-hand side below.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/freetibet/1907.gif http://www.spiked-online.com/images/freetibet/soldierdetail.gif

On the right side of this picture, we can see a close-up of one of the Chinese soldiers in the Free Tibet Campaign’s postcard. He has very yellow skin, slit eyes and ugly protruding teeth. This sits well with the cartoon from the early 1900s, shown on the left-hand side above. This cartoon was published in the Australian magazine The Bulletin in July 1907 and was intended to show the threat of a ‘Chinese invasion’ into Australia. Note that this cartoon also shows the Chinese with slitty eyes and two prominent front teeth.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/freetibet/chinateeth.gif

Over the past hundred years, ‘Yellow Peril’ depictions of both the Chinese and the Japanese have shown them with disgusting exaggerated teeth and also with glasses, to indicate that they have poor eyesight (as a result of their slitty eyes, presumably) and a general lack of intelligence. The picture on the right is an Australian depiction of a Chinese immigrant, first published in 1886: the Chinese is shown with thick glasses, a weak chin, and with what looks like one protruding tooth at the front of his mouth.

In his essay ‘Racial Politics in an Era of Transnational Citizenship’, Michael Chang wrote about the tendency in America for depicting the Chinese and the Japanese, at different points in history, with ‘thick glasses, buck teeth and heavy Asian accents’ (4). These stereotypes are repeated in the Free Tibet Campaign’s postcard. On the right-hand side below, there is a close-up of what looks like a Chinese Communist official riding in the train in Free Tibet’s cartoon; on the left-hand side is an anti-Japanese poster produced in America during the Second World War.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/freetibet/drseuss.gif http://www.spiked-online.com/images/freetibet/politiciandetail.gif

These images are strikingly similar. In both, the ‘evil’ Easterner has slit eyes, arched eyebrows, thick glasses, and large ugly teeth; note, also, how deeply yellow is the skin of the Chinese official in the Free Tibet image. Indeed, the slogan on the anti-Japanese poster from the Second World War – ‘Wipe that sneer off his face!’ – captures the essence of much of the current China-bashing in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics. Many have discussed the Olympics as an opportunity to ‘humiliate China’ and have welcomed the fact that, with the debacle that was the Olympic torch relay, China’s ‘mask has slipped’ (5). In other words? We are successfully wiping the grin off the Chinese face.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/mongolianoctopus.gif

Leaving aside the disturbing physical features of the Chinese in the Free Tibet Campaign’s postcard, it is also striking that the image depicts the Chinese as pollutants. It shows expressionless, militarised Chinese riding a train into Tibet and pumping thick smog into the environment. Again, the Chinese have for a long time been shown as a singularly destructive force, indeed as a ‘pollutant’ that threatens the moral integrity and ecological purity of the countries they ‘invade’. For example, the Australian cartoon directly above, first published in The Bulletin in 1886, shows ‘the Mongolian Octopus’ strangling moral goodness in Australia by introducing such terrible things as ‘cheap labour’, ‘immorality’ and ‘opium’.

As Mike Conroy showed in his essay ‘Yellow Peril Incarnate’ – published in the book 500 Comicbook Villains in 2004 – in late nineteenth-century America, the Chinese were depicted as ‘physical, racial and social pollutants’ (6). At the same time in Australia, the Chinese were seen as ‘a kind of pollution’, argued Desmond Manderson in the book Migrants, Minorities and Health (7). Below, on the left-hand side, is an anti-Chinese cartoon that was published in America in 1899, at the height of American fears about an ‘invasion’ of Chinese immigrants (the US Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882 and renewed in 1902). It was captioned ‘The Yellow Terror in all his glory’, and shows a Chinese man with a gun and a knife leaving behind himself a trail of grey smoke as he tramples decency – as represented by a white woman – underfoot. On the right-hand side there is a close-up of the Free Tibet Campaign’s postcard.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/freetibet/yellowterror.gif http://www.spiked-online.com/images/freetibet/smokefromtrain.gif

The message of both seems quite similar: the Chinese pollute. The American anti-Chinese cartoon captures the old idea of the Chinese as a moral pollutant. The Free Tibet image captures a very modern concern about China: that it is poisoning the environment with dirt and dust. Where the Chinese were once seen, in Desmond Manderson’s words, as ‘cultural pollution’, today they are seen as literal pollution, as the harbingers of little more than smog and disease.

Of course, the motives of the Free Tibet lobby are entirely different from the motives of old Western imperialists: Free Tibet activists demand freedom for Tibetans rather than defending the Empire. Yet the message about Johnny Chinese seems to have remained strikingly similar over the decades. Too often today, the discussion of Tibet is over-simplified and perniciously moralistic, and this seems to have given rise to some dubious images and ideas about the Chinese. Indeed, one might argue that for some Western observers, Tibet today plays the role that the beleaguered ‘white woman’ once played in crude depictions of the Chinese in the past: as the naive, innocent, prostrated victim of the buck-toothed, slitty-eyed outsider.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked. Visit his website here (http://www.brendanoneill.net/).
http://www.spiked-online.com/images/campaigns/Masthead_China.gif (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/issues/C136)
(1) Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/13494.ctl), Donald S Lopez Jnr, University of Chicago Press, 1998
(2) See China tightens grip with Tibet railway (http://www.freetibet.org/campaigns/railway/), Free Tibet Campaign, 2006
(3) Multicultural Review, GP Publiations, Tampa, Florida, 1992
(4) Racial Politics in an Era of Transnational Citizenship, Michael Chang, Blackwell Publishing, 2007
(5) See Using Tibet to settle scores with China (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4880/), by Brendan O’Neill
(6) 500 Comic Book Villains (http://www.amazon.com/Comic-Book-Villains-Mike-Conroy/dp/0764129082), Mike Conroy, Baron’s Educational Series, 2004
(7) Migrants, Minorities and Health: Historical and Contemporary Studies (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=53077), edited by Lara Marks and Michael Worboys, Routledge, 1997

reprinted from: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4975/ (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4975/)

[RedStarOverChina]

Yeah, I love the way they use skin color to "illustrate a point".

It's not just the Tibetans though...Racism against Chinese really seems to be getting to a boiling point.

[Ultra-Violence]

This is new becuase?
The whole free tibet thing is 50/50 because fuck china and fuck theocracy!

and no rasim against the chinses isnt that big in america you forget that were currently in the middle east thier the "evil ones" right now all of this is just as a percusor so when the empire has to get down with china the people will already not see them as people but "evil ones" later

[Bastable]

every night on the news in Australia there seems to be some new ant-china sentiment, relating to the Olympic games. Of course Australia has always been predominantly racist.

[RHIZOMES]

every night on the news in Australia there seems to be some new ant-china sentiment, relating to the Olympic games. Of course Australia has always been predominantly racist.

I remember a story my brown-skinned friend had of when he went to Australia - he wasn't allowed in a resturant because he looked "Abo".

Note: He wasn't "Abo".

[RedStarOverChina]

This is new becuase?
The whole free tibet thing is 50/50 because fuck china and fuck theocracy!

and no rasim against the chinses isnt that big in america you forget that were currently in the middle east thier the "evil ones" right now all of this is just as a percusor so when the empire has to get down with china the people will already not see them as people but "evil ones" later
A few years ago I didn't noticed much racism.

But now it's just too fucking ridiculous.

Jack Cafferty a few days ago called "the Chinese" "goons and thugs".


And the vicious reporting is just too much! I don't think there were this much racism when 911 happened. And back then, people knew racism was wrong. Now they just don't seem to care.

[Wanted Man]

Some interesting quotes from sinologist Stefan Landsberger from this article (http://www.depers.nl/buitenland/190340/Laat-het-idee-varen-dat-Tibet-een-soort-Shangri-La-is.html) in De Pers:


Landsberger would know what to do if he was China: between now and August, when the games begin, release some political prisoners and turn them over to the US. 'Preferably a few that are known from the Amnesty letter-writing evenings. We pretend to be worried about those dissidents, but we really have no idea. All Chinese people are called Ping Pong as far as we are concerned.'


Landsberger: 'We should pay some more attention to China. Then we would also let go of the idea that Tibet is a sort of Shangri-La, as the Dalai Lama wants us to believe.


To get back to the beginning: why would China alone have to do something? Both camps are being very irreconcilable now. 'It would really help if the West would make a serious efforts to keep those demonstrators away from the olympic flame', says Landsberger. 'The hatred against China that you see with some people is terrifying.'

[jake williams]

Racism against Chinese really seems to be getting to a boiling point.
It really is, and I'm starting to think we should be looking at something a little more broad-based to deal with it.

We could start a club!

[BOZG]

I emailed them about this. I'll let you know what their response is, if there is one.

[Bluetongue]

Uh, FYI, it's just as racist to portray the Tibetans as enlightened innocents. And, in case you haven't noticed, the PRC is releasing lunatic statements about the situation daily. One one side, the call for peace and harmony, on the other, something resembling a screeching madman. Why doesn't the PRC know that the propaganda they feed their own people won't fly in the world at large? *Even if it were true*, saying that the Dalai Lama is a mad dog terrorist isn't really going to help your case.

[Wanted Man]

I'm not sure if all Tibetans were "enlightened innocents", but nobody should be forced to toil under feudalism, whether they are "innocent" or not. Whether there was "enlightenment" or not is irrelevant; I have more respect for the drafted monks who choose to break with their religion, than those who were flown over the Himalaya courtesy of the CIA to lead their movement.

This argument doesn't change two important aspects of the anti-China backlash: the pure hatred against technological "intrusions" and the semi-racist horror at "foreigners diluting our blood, changing our culture and taking our jobs".

The racist postcard is part of the campaign against a new train to Lhasa, and that campaign is a perfect example of these attitudes.

[Bluetongue]

You missed the point - the portrayal of the Tibetans in the postcard is equally racist. They are *people*, not enlightened innocents.

Hmmm, I wonder if the Queen of England is plotting to restore feudalism once mighty America liberates England from the EU?

Viewing the Tibetan lamas as unreformed feudal lords is also prejudice, one that has no basis in fact whatsoever. Tibetans want a free democratic society where they can practice their religion and culture as they choose, and the PRC isn't about to let them have it. If they negotiated with the DL, they'd have to offer the same freedoms to their own people, and they won't.

There's no reason to have sympathy for the PRC at all. They aren't socialist, they are authoritarian. The fact that anti-chinese racism exists is irrelevant. Please don't tell me that Han Chinese are model enlightened multiculturalists - this is all about Chinese Nationalism, and nationalism is a DISEASE. Tibet Nationalism is no better, but the Tibetans want democracy, not an empire.

[Ultra-Violence]

A few years ago I didn't noticed much racism.

But now it's just too fucking ridiculous.

Jack Cafferty a few days ago called "the Chinese" "goons and thugs".


And the vicious reporting is just too much! I don't think there were this much racism when 911 happened. And back then, people knew racism was wrong. Now they just don't seem to care.


i havent heard what jack whatever said i dont even know who he is but i watch the big four stations FOX,CNN,MSNBC and yes their anti china very aware and IT DOES have racist elements but NO were NEAR! the amount of racims towards arabs it just ridicoulus u have to remember the footage of the people yelling shit at the guy with the Turban and all the anti arab shit the military uses "Sand N***ers" its just overwhelming after 911. This is just a warm up its gaona get Really bad when WW3 rolls around i wouldnt be surprised if we had intement camps here again

[Vanguard1917]

You missed the point - the portrayal of the Tibetans in the postcard is equally racist. They are *people*, not enlightened innocents.

Tibetans are frequently portrayed as simple, humble and modest rural buddhist folk who just want to follow their age-old traditions and live in harmony with nature. This is contrasted to the evil Chinese, who are 'arrogant' (with their massive train lines and dam-building projects, and overall economic ambitions) and causing 'environmental catastrophe' with their population growth and industrial development.

So, yes, patronising stereotyping of the Tibetans is the reverse side of the same Western coin.

The main thing that we learn from all this is that Westerners seem much more comfortable with their '3rd worlders' as 'humble' and 'modest', than as ambitious and growing.

[Zurdito]

This was a reasonably interesting study of "discourse" and yes, western racism exists towards all non-whites, and must be fought intransigently. Such racism will of course often be dragged out whenever there is talk of a dictatorial regime in the "third world", you can see it in relation to all geopolitics in fact.

Unfortunately though the article didn't really tell us much about the objective reality in Tibet or China. what would have been more interesting would be a general article about racism in the west (which certainly goes beyond the limits expressed here) which didn't simultaneously try to link opposing a bourgeois dictatorship - whose main victims are Chinese, not Tibetan - to racism. What next - the implicit anti-hispanic sentiments inherent in western criticism of Pinochet? I bet I could find liberals who did invoke such prejudices too. However, the article wouldn't be much use if it failed to raise tis own criticism of the dictatorship at any point.

So really the only reason I can think of for the slipperiness and ambiguity of much of the "left" on this issue comes down to the stupid notion that the Chinese government is somehow anti-imperialist.

So yes I thought it was a sly and postmodernist-y article that refused to take a clear stance on objective reality and instead went down that old route of the scoundrel, "yes, but you could say..."

[Vanguard1917]

I think that the aim of the article is to document the anti-Chinese prejudices underlying the propaganda of the British 'Free Tibet' campaign. The author expresses his opposition to the regime in China very clearly in articles elsewhere (see here: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/issues/C136/).

[RedHal]

Uh, FYI, it's just as racist to portray the Tibetans as enlightened innocents. And, in case you haven't noticed, the PRC is releasing lunatic statements about the situation daily. One one side, the call for peace and harmony, on the other, something resembling a screeching madman. Why doesn't the PRC know that the propaganda they feed their own people won't fly in the world at large? *Even if it were true*, saying that the Dalai Lama is a mad dog terrorist isn't really going to help your case.

Stereotyping a group of people as innocent enlightened individuals invokes sympathy. Racist caricatures of a group of people invokes hatred, huge difference. The word "racism" needs to be taken in a political context.


Why doesn't the PRC know that the propaganda they feed their own people won't fly in the world at largeAnd the "world at large" just buys into the propaganda of the world's "free press". As John Pilger put it

"During the Cold War, a group of Russian journalists toured the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by their hosts for their impressions. 'I have to tell you,' said their spokesman, 'that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV, that all the opinions on all the vital issues were by and large, the same. To get that result in our country, we imprison people, we tear out their fingernails. Here, you don’t have that. What’s the secret? How do you do it?'"

The PRC is issuing thier propaganda against the Dalai Lama and his imperialist backers, against the Western "Free press" and their anti China propaganda campaign.

[Bluetongue]

"During the Cold War, a group of Russian journalists toured the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by their hosts for their impressions. 'I have to tell you,' said their spokesman, 'that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV, that all the opinions on all the vital issues were by and large, the same. To get that result in our country, we imprison people, we tear out their fingernails. Here, you don’t have that. What’s the secret? How do you do it?'"

There is in fact a difference between having thousands of news sources in such abundance that anyone can find one telling him what he wants to hear, versus one news source telling everyone what to think.


The PRC is issuing thier propaganda against the Dalai Lama and his imperialist backers, against the Western "Free press" and their anti China propaganda campaign.

Whereas just telling the truth about what goes on in the PRC and Tibet makes them look like murderers and dictators.

The weirdest thing about this debate is the assumption that the US and friends support the DL. In fact, the PRC has most favored nation status with the US. Western capitalism SUPPORTS the PRC, and nothing is going to change for Tibet so long as their are $$ to be made. Trade sanctions against the PRC are never going to happen, because our capitalist imperialist western states LOVE the freakin' PRC. And y'all fools run around yelling about how the PRC fights against imperialism - my ass it does. All they want is their slice of the pie. Thinking that the PRC is somehow altruistic is utterly nuts.

[Zurdito]

I think that the aim of the article is to document the anti-Chinese prejudices underlying the propaganda of the British 'Free Tibet' campaign. The author expresses his opposition to the regime in China very clearly in articles elsewhere (see here: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/issues/C136/).

He does?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but here is a copy and paste of the link you posted:

Monday 14 April 2008Brendan O’Neill
Slitty eyes and buck teeth? It must be China (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4975/)
In its rush to denounce Chinese militarism and pollution, is the British Free Tibet Campaign disseminating dubious stereotypes of Chinese people?

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/DotsMid.gifWednesday 9 April 2008Brendan O’Neill
The invasion of the robotic thugs (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4963/)
The attacks on the ‘horrible, ominous, retarded’ Chinese men guarding the Olympic flame are historical prejudice repeated as farce.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/DotsMid.gifMonday 7 April 2008Black and O’Neill
Grown-up politics goes up in flames (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4956/)
Yesterday’s public grappling with the Olympic torch shone a light on the self-satisfied, cartoonish nature of contemporary China-bashing.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/DotsMid.gifWednesday 19 March 2008Tim Black
Beijing 2008: choking on China-bashing (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4892/)
Claims that the great Beijing smog will possibly kill Western athletes are based more on hot air than hard facts.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/DotsMid.gifMonday 17 March 2008Brendan O’Neill
Using Tibet to settle scores with China (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4880/)
Tibetans want to be free. But they’ve been given a green light to riot by Western elements driven more by spite and envy than a love for liberty.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/DotsMid.gifMonday 10 March 2008Daniel Ben-Ami
The Chinese: from Yellow Peril to Green Peril? (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4837/)
The slandering of China as a sooty, smoggy ‘destroyer of the planet’ overlooks the sweeping historic benefits of Chinese growth.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/DotsMid.gifMonday 10 March 2008Brendan O’Neill
Why Tibetophilia won’t set Tibet free (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4852/)
Western pro-Tibet campaigning is driven less by a passion for freedom, than by disgust with modernity - and a view of the Chinese as ‘subhuman’.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/DotsMid.gifMonday 10 March 2008Angus Kennedy
Chinese workers? Let them pick up litter (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4853/)
The hysterical campaign against plastic bags in the West is causing massive job losses in the East, and leaving people on the scrap heap.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/DotsMid.gifThursday 14 February 2008Brendan O’Neill
And the gold medal for China-bashing goes to… (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4506/)
The Beijing Olympics have been turned into an all-purpose platform for panicmongering about the Yellow Peril. We name the culprits.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/DotsMid.gifTuesday 9 October 2007Nathalie Rothschild
China doesn't need the West in loco parentis (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3946/)
The C4 documentary, China's Stolen Children, showed that there's a patronising streak in some of today's handwringing concern for Chinese kids.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/DotsMid.gifThursday 30 August 2007Brendan O’Neill
Toxic toys: is China poisoning YOUR child? (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3772/)
The overblown scare about China’s lead-painted Big Birds and vinyl bibs has become a metaphor for Western fears about the ‘yellow peril’.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/DotsMid.gifMonday 20 August 2007Nathalie Rothschild
Hypocrisy of Olympian proportions (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3739/)
For years Western observers slammed China's 'red authoritarianism'. Yet today they positively cheer on its eco-authoritarianism.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/DotsMid.gifTuesday 24 July 2007James Woudhuysen
Three cheers for China’s ‘economic miracle’ (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3660/)
Ignore the Yellow Peril view of Chinese economic growth as dirty and dangerous. There are good reasons to welcome China’s leaps forward.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/DotsMid.gifWednesday 11 April 2007Bill Durodié
A cultural revolution at Tate Liverpool (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3078/)
Free of Western pessimism, the young Chinese artists on exhibition in Britain are witty and experimental.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/DotsMid.gifThursday 1 February 2007Daniel Ben-Ami
Davos 2007: ‘Waging’ war on China (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2800/)
Behind their feigned concern for falling Western wages, the elites at the World Economic Forum are really worried about the rise of Asian economies.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/DotsMid.gifTuesday 7 March 2006Kirk Leech
Toxic China? (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/233/)
Western critics cite China's environmental record as an excuse for attacking economic growth.

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/DotsMid.gifThursday 13 October 2005Sheila Lewis
China: threat or opportunity? (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/598/)
The rise of China could be good for the West, if only it would rise to the challenge.

[Bluetongue]

So, given that the Western media of the moment is using racist stereotypes to demonize the PRC, it follows that we, who oppose all things capitalistic and imperialistic, must support the PRC.

BS. A pox on both their houses.

[BobKKKindle$]

So, given that the Western media of the moment is using racist stereotypes to demonize the PRC, it follows that we, who oppose all things capitalistic and imperialistic, must support the PRCWhere in the article or the site does it suggest that this is an acceptable position? Another article makes it clear that opposing the Tibetan movement does not mean giving support to China, or denying Tibetans the right to an independent state:

"The people of Tibet, like the people of China itself, should be free to determine their own destinies and affairs. They need democracy and full and unfettered freedom of speech, rather than to be controlled and ‘looked after’ by China’s authoritarian Stalinist regime"

OP: Thank you for drawing out attention to this article, I found it very interesting. Although it does not provide much insight into what Tibet is actually like and how the region has changed under Chinese rule, it does give us an idea of the underlying motives of some of the western participants in the Tibetan movement.

This article covers one dimension of anti-chinese racism. Let us not forget that recent events have also given rise to a far more brutal kind - the pogroms carried out by gangs of Tibetan youths, armed with clubs and sharp objects, roaming the streets of Lhasa in search of shops belonging to Han immigrants, beating the Hui (a group of muslims living in China) and the Han with their weapons.


Trade sanctions against the PRC are never going to happen, because our capitalist imperialist western states LOVE the freakin' PRC.The US government has actually protested at the PRC's selling of certain goods (for example, textiles) below the cost of production or at the break even price, to drive out domestic producers and expand overseas market share. This is known as dumping, and is arguably in violation of the WTO trade standards. Campaigns against the alleged "danger" of Chinese products have also been initiated to encourage US consumers to buy products manufactured by domestic firms. This shows the emergence of inter-imperialist rivalry between the US and the PRC - in accordance with Lenin's predictions. The relationship between the US ruling class and the PRC is not as simple as you suggest, it is far more complex.


The fact that anti-chinese racism exists is irrelevant.Socialists oppose all forms of racism, and anti-Chinese racism within the context of the Tibetan issue is important, because it suggests that the supporters of the movement may partly base their support on a fear or distrust of the Han Chinese, perhaps because of China's growing political power.

[Zurdito]

So, given that the Western media of the moment is using racist stereotypes to demonize the PRC, it follows that we, who oppose all things capitalistic and imperialistic, must support the PRC.

BS. A pox on both their houses.

Yes, there is something very cynical about this publications line on China. It's like all those liberals who say "of course we oppose Israeli aggression against Palestinians, but what about left anti-semitism?" and then spend their entire lives "exposing" pro-Palestinian groups, with only ever the vaguest condemnation of Israel through gritted teeth just to cover themselves.

The theme of spikedOnline seems to be to create a natural association between anyone mentioning Tibet, and anti-Chinese racism, and to try to make the Tibet issue a tabboo. Of course they'd never explicitly say it, just like all those opponents of "left-anti-semitism" never explicitly say that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, there is something very cynical about this publications line on China. It's like all those liberals who say "of course we oppose Israeli aggression against Palestinians, but what about left anti-semitism?" and then spend their entire lives "exposing" pro-Palestinian groups, with only ever the vaguest condemnation of Israel through gritted teeth just to cover themselves.

The theme of spikedOnline seems to be to create a natural association between anyone mentioning Tibet, and anti-Chinese racism, and to try to make the Tibet issue a tabboo. Of course they'd never explicitly say it, just like all those opponents of "left-anti-semitism" never explicitly say that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic.

What are you talking about Zurdito? Do you enjoy making baseless assertions and speculations?

bobkindles:


Although it does not provide much insight into what Tibet is actually like and how the region has changed under Chinese rule, it does give us an idea of the underlying motives of some of the western participants in the Tibetan movement.


Yeah, this is about the Western (specifically, British) 'Free Tibet' movement and its attitudes. We have to ask ourselves why the 'Free Tibet' cause has attracted so much support and sympathy in the West - from Western politicians and media outlets, to members of the British aristocracy (e.g. Prince Charles) and the super-rich, to various middle class campaigners.

As the spiked articles linked by Zurdito point out, it has less to do with solidarity with the Tibetan people and more to do with Western anti-China prejudices.

[Zurdito]

Where in the article or the site does it suggest that this is an acceptable position? Another article makes it clear that opposing the Tibetan movement does not mean giving support to China, or denying Tibetans the right to an independent state:

"The people of Tibet, like the people of China itself, should be free to determine their own destinies and affairs. They need democracy and full and unfettered freedom of speech, rather than to be controlled and ‘looked after’ by China’s authoritarian Stalinist regime"

Sorry Bob, but that's the absolute minimum anyone claiming to be on the left should say. The fact that there are many who won't even state the above just shows the extent of the degeneration which exists among "our" ranks, it doesn't make the spikedOnline lot ok. Don't let yourself be taken in by their token "condemnation":

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4852/



‘Tibet, Tibet!’ With those two words (well, one word repeated), Bjork caused a storm of controversy at her concert in Shanghai last week. The Icelandic warbler has joined a long list of celebrities, commentators and sportsmen who plan to use the platform provided by the Beijing Olympics to protest against China’s occupation of Tibet.
If Bjork’s squealing of the T-word is anything to go by, these protests will confirm what lies behind the adoption of the Tibetan cause by many in the West today: not a passion for freedom, but a distaste for modernity. Tibetophilia is driven less by solidarity with Tibetans than by disdain for the old ‘yellow peril’ - the Chinese - who are seen as too modern, too calculating and too materialistic.


What a pile of bullshit. How does the author know what Bjork's motivations were? Clearly the idea here is to dicredit anyone who mentions Tibet by association, to attempt to make the very mention of "the T word" discredit the speaker. Yet, is there nay evidence here of Bjork's motivations? If she shouted "Free Palestine" would O'Neill assume she was a Nazi?

From the same article:



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


Yep, here we find it, and we didn't have to look very far, first article I read and already the apoligism has begun, and the facade of "condemnation" of China slips.

O'Neill thinks that Tibet is being "modernised" by China. For all his token claims about how "of course Tibetans need democracy", when it comes down to it, this is his line. Tibetans are empty vassals to be filled with the gift of bureaucratically planned capitalism. There's apparently no sense here that Tibet could in fact reach modernity without Chinese occupation, or that oppressed nations within bourgeois states which are structurally subordinated withint he maisntream economy may actually have no cause at all to feel grateful for recieving some of the scraps of the super-profits of a bourgeoisie which uses them as an eternally dependant dumping ground for capital and cheap source of resources, land and labour. No. China is modernising Tibet. Long-term progress is possible under capitalism even during the imperialist epoch, and therefore, critical support for all national liberation movements against bourgeois states is unneccessarry, because there is somethign to go backwards from, there is actually a genuine threat of reversion to feudalism out there, there is still a reactionary anti-capitalism against which we must side accept aspects of bourgeois rule so as to keep modernising. That's what O'Neill and the rest of the hacks at this website think.

Granting self-determination to Tibet or anywhere else on earth will not lead them to falling under some feudalsitic eco-hippy Buddhist dictatorship. It won't happen, ok. Either international capital will continue to penetrate Tibet - under primarily Chinese or Western dominance, it hardly matters - and keep Tibetans structurally underdeveloped and dependent, or we side with those Tibetans objectively resisting this process - whatever level their subjective consciousness may be at right now, in order to deny international capital the right to pass its costs onto yet another semi-colony, and to aid our struggle to strangle it into submission, and in order that the Tibetan working class and peasantry itself may be able to take advantage of the tools offered to it by modenrity in order to develop their economy for the gain of the people who live there.

And yes, as an immediate demand, we shoudl demand self-determination, with no vacilaltions, no ifs and buts. And if the Dalai Lama and the west try to turn Tibet into a protectorate, then we support the Tibetans in resisting them too. What we do not ever fall into, as reovlutionaries, is this fantasy that the spikedOnline lot have succumbed too, that it's ok to ignore the democratic demands of the day, because in the long run some enlightened bureaucratic capitalist state is dragging Tibet into mdoernity despite its own protestations. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the epoch of capitlaism which we're in.

[Vanguard1917]

No, the author of the article makes his reasons for his opposition to the Western Free Tibet campaign very clear. I think he is spot on (see my previous post):

'The people of Tibet, like the people of China itself, should be free to determine their own destinies and affairs. They need democracy and full 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 China should steer clear of the celebrity-fronted, Prince Charles-endorsed pro-Tibet lobby - for, ironically, this campaign is underpinned by its own deeply patronising, borderline colonialist view of Tibetans as innocent, child-like creatures, and by a desire to preserve Tibet as a pure, green, mystical land for the benefit of wealthy Westerners disillusioned by Western modernity.'
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4852/

[Zurdito]

'The people of Tibet, like the people of China itself, should be free to determine their own destinies and affairs. They need democracy and full 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 China should steer clear of the celebrity-fronted, Prince Charles-endorsed pro-Tibet lobby - for, ironically, this campaign is underpinned by its own deeply patronising, borderline colonialist view of Tibetans as innocent, child-like creatures, and by a desire to preserve Tibet as a pure, green, mystical land for the benefit of wealthy Westerners disillusioned by Western modernity.'

This is devoid of any substance. As you are so concerned at taking everyone at face value - Brendan O'Neil claims to oppose Chinese occupation of Tibet, but then makes apologies for it in his articles and nearly all the column inchen in his paper devoted to Tibet attack the "Tibet lobby" rather than even mentioning the Chinese occupation, but yet because he never explicitly claims to support it, he's off the hook in your opinion - then why not show me examples of where this "pro-Tibet lobby" explicitly expresses the beliefs O'Neill accuses them of?

And if they do, then the conclusion is that revolutionaries must not invite reactinaries like Prince Charles into any united front work against the Chinese government's occupation of Tibet. This is hardly earth-shattering, why not just quote Trotsky's work on popular frontism: you only make united fronts with progressive groups, and clearly western imperialism is not progressive. That's that. Who here is advocating entering into coallitions with Prince Charles et al?

However if you are trying to make some deeper point about a deep-rooted reactionary nature of most people who mention Tibet, then well, I don't see the point being made. You can enter united fronts on a principled basis - self-determination for Tibet, no to any hypocritical imperialist intervention of any kind - with any human rights organisations who agree to uphold those basic principles. What their "real motivations" are is best left to west-obsessed psycho-babblers at spikedOnline. But I don't see any such constructive arguments from O'Neill or his ilk. No, we just get unsubstantiated ranting about the "anti-modernity" of some who criticise China. Yet it's the height of irony isn't it - the hallmark of postmodernism is fixation on "discourse" rather than on any objective reality on the ground - and this is exactly what characterises all the spikedOnline articles on Tibet. Never have I seen a concrete suggestion emerge from their slippery articles.

[Vanguard1917]

This is devoid of any substance.


Why? It's highlighting that those who promote the Free Tibet cause in the West are motivated more by anti-Chinese prejudices than real solidarity with the Tibetan people.


And if they do, then the conclusion is that revolutionaries must not invite reactinaries like Prince Charles into any united front work against the Chinese government's occupation of Tibet. This is hardly earth-shattering, why not just quote Trotsky's work on popular frontism: you only make united fronts with progressive groups, and clearly western imperialism is not progressive. That's that. Who here is advocating entering into coallitions with Prince Charles et al?

It's not just Prince Charles. It's an alliance of several reactionary fronts, from various Western politicians and media commentators, to middle class supporters of Western interventionism and neo-Malthusian environmentalist opponents of economic progress.

The truth is that the Free Tibet campaign has nothing in common with traditional anti-imperialist movements.

Whereas anti-imperialism calls for self-determination, Free Tibet campaigners call for Western intervention. Anti-imperialists call for the freedom of all peoples to progress and develop; Free Tibet campaigners are more likely to attack industrial development. Anti-imperialists attack imperialism for hindering modernity in the non-Western world; Free Tibet campaigners celebrate backwardness in Tibet.

Unlike previous movements of solidarity, the Free Tibet lobby is not motivated by real feelings of solidarity with the oppressed. It's motivated by reactionary Western ideas of how life in the non-Western world should be.

Like i pointed out in earlier in this thread, 'Westerners seem much more comfortable with their '3rd worlders' as "humble" and "modest", than as ambitious and growing':



Tibetans are frequently portrayed as simple, humble and modest rural buddhist folk who just want to follow their age-old traditions and live in harmony with nature. This is contrasted to the evil Chinese, who are 'arrogant' (with their massive train lines and dam-building projects, and overall economic ambitions) and causing 'environmental catastrophe' with their population growth and industrial development.

[Zurdito]

Yes but let me clarify, I do not think "Free Tibet" is anti-imperialist issue, it isn't. It is an issue of national self-determination. A precedent is Kosovo. The imeprialists were supporting the KLA, and Serbia's occupation of Kosovo was not Leninist imeprialism, it was national oppression. However if we follow in the Bolshevik tradition, we don't sacrifice national self-determination on the altar of the higher cause of fighting imperialism.

So let me make myself more clear: western imperialists will make use of the Tibet issue. By the nature of this issue, all sorts of rightwing groups will opportunistically suddenly find themselves in "solidarity" with Tibet, like they suddenly cared about the Kurds briefly in 2003.

However, Brendan O'Neill completely muddles this issue. Gone is any seriosu attempt to analuyse geo-poltiical self-interest. Rather the problem here is apparently patronising liberal discourse, and all the rest of it. Well, no, he's wrong: liberalism in Britain or the USA will always offer "left" cover for British and US imperialism. We must oppose that. But it's root is the material interests of the imperialists, not anti-capitalist eco-hippy nostalgia.

However O'Neill seems to be much more comfortable with analyses of "discourse", like a good little postmodernist. The trouble here of course is that we stop analysing what interests different movements really represent. Now let's imagine that a principled movement for Tibetan self-determination were to be built, rejecting western imperialism, but showing clear solidarity with the Tibetan struggle, and demanding global working class solidarity on the issue. It's a long way off, but if we want an itnernational movement - whcih as a Trotskyist I assume you do - then we need to have a position of solidarity on all these issues. Now let's say that some people who support our campaign do hold some subjective backwards feelings about Tibet vs China. Would this be of primary improtance? I say it wouldn't.

This isn't an issue of discourse, it's a war of interests, and revolutionaries must find a proletarian, anti-imperialist, and pro-self-determiantion position if we are to build a true international movement. Do the spikedOnline lot work towards this in your opinion? You can find the odd quote where they cover themselves with criticism of China, but like I said, the balance of their articles is pretty odd, and there are quoted - like the "modernity" one I found - which really give them away as apolgoists for the regime. And no, apologist does not mean supporter, it means someone who shields the regime fromthe full brunt of criticism it deserves from the international working class.

[Vanguard1917]

Now let's imagine that a principled movement for Tibetan self-determination were to be built, rejecting western imperialism, but showing clear solidarity with the Tibetan struggle, and demanding global working class solidarity on the issue.


Such a movement would be a million miles away from the reactionary paternalistic, pro-intervention, anti-progress Free Tibet campaign which exists right now.

You're talking about a hypothetical situation which does not exist, and you're making futile attempts to apply past categories and terms to explain novel developments. I think that it's important to understand the dynamics governing the situation as it exists.


Now let's say that some people who support our campaign do hold some subjective backwards feelings about Tibet vs China. Would this be of primary improtance? I say it wouldn't.

Depends on what you mean by 'some'. The important thing is what motivations guide the campaigns. The Free Tibet movement is guided by reactionary motivations.


This isn't an issue of discourse, it's a war of interests, and revolutionaries must find a proletarian, anti-imperialist, and pro-self-determiantion position if we are to build a true international movement. Do the spikedOnline lot work towards this in your opinion? You can find the odd quote where they cover themselves with criticism of China, but like I said, the balance of their articles is pretty odd, and there are quoted - like the "modernity" one I found - which really give them away as apolgoists for the regime. And no, apologist does not mean supporter, it means someone who shields the regime fromthe full brunt of criticism it deserves from the international working class.

As leftists and progressives in the West, our primary responsibility in respect to the non-Western world should be to oppose our government's attempts to interfere into the affairs of non-Western states. This was once a basic anti-imperialist stance; today, very few take it seriously, and they call for greater Western intervention to 'solve' the world's problems (whether in Darfur, the Balkans, or Tibet).

I refuse to join the West's demonisation of China. While i of course recognise that the Chinese regime is a repressive one, i am not at all interested in providing greater impetus to Western China-bashing. Reactionary Western attacks on China need to be countered - not supported.



And no, apologist does not mean supporter, it means someone who shields the regime fromthe full brunt of criticism it deserves from the international working class.


The 'international working class' is not the one promoting reactionary opposition to China. In reality, it's Western politicians, media forces, aristocrats, interventionists, and middle class neo-Malthusians.

I would gladly 'shield', i.e. defend, China - and any other developing country - from such criticisms.

[Zurdito]

Such a movement would be a million miles away from the reactionary paternalistic, pro-intervention, anti-progress Free Tibet campaign which exists right now.

You're talking about a hypothetical situation which does not exist, and you're making futile attempts to apply past categories and terms to explain novel developments. I think that it's important to understand the dynamics governing the situation as it exists.

The dynamic is that yu have a resistance movement mainly made up of Tibetans, supported by an array fo forces int he west ranging fromr ight-wingers, to liberals, to revolutioanry marxists and working class trade union organisations. Therefore I think it's the spikedOnline lot who are dealing with a fantasy, and not me.




As leftists and progressives in the West, our primary responsibility in respect to the non-Western world should be to oppose our government's attempts to interfere into the affairs of non-Western states.


This isn't an internationalist position. All revolutionaries role,w estern or semicolonial, is to stand side by side with any workers or peasants against bourgeois repression, to back self-determination for all nations, and to critically support anti-imperialist movements. There is no need to take a dumbed down line that the struggles of semicolonial workers are not primarily the business of workers in the west or that they should stay out of such things. Western revolutionaries have not jsut a right but a duty to hold a position of solidarity in such cases, it's not optional line which can be ditched when they might run the danger of "reinforcing western prejudice". This is the route to Stalinism, reformism or populsim. If you think liek that, why not "stay out" of Iranian labour disputes, or of chavez's attacks on venezuelanw orkers?

The truth is concrete, we state it, we don't just put a tick where our enemies put a cross.

[Vanguard1917]

The dynamic is that yu have a resistance movement mainly made up of Tibetans, supported by an array fo forces int he west ranging fromr ight-wingers, to liberals, to revolutioanry marxists and working class trade union organisations. Therefore I think it's the spikedOnline lot who are dealing with a fantasy, and not me.


So the Free Tibet campaign is motivated, partly at least, by 'revolutionary Marxism' and 'working class organisations'? This is exactly what i mean by trying to represent reality according to what you want it to be, rather than what it really is.



This isn't an internationalist position.


It's an anti-imperialist position. It's not about 'staying out' of the dispute. It's about refusing to provide our Western states with greater stimulus to interfere into the affairs of non-Western states.

[Red Equation]

I just love how other countries aren't willing to even consider ceding their territory to the rightful inhabitants, and also that despite the fact that Tibetans burned down houses and attacked the Chinese, they're still considered "peaceful"