[07. 1.11 PBS 回應Tony Martin (有關西藏問題) ] 持續更新中...

ltbriar

原文:
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:25 pm    Post subject: In response to Tony Martin (in relation to the Tibet issue)

’m becoming quite adept at turning the other cheek, though whether of the upper or lower anatomy must remain a matter for fascinating conjecture,for as all good readers of Plato will know, all ideal phenomena of the upper kind have their imperfect (indeed, sometimes odiferous) counterparts in the world below.

So now it's time to deal with sundry affairs: Tony Martin, you begin your critique of my position by personally insulting me, before launching into a vitriolic ramble, and one that is based on a misreading of my position. “Your whole theory relating to Tibet is very similar to all of the other respondents supporting the continued illegal Chinese occupation of a sovereign nation,” you say. “Your position appears to be similar to other invaders of land in our history, or to the various slave trading states over the years. Namely,don’t look at how badly off Tibetans are now in comparison to the rest of China and the world, but rather look at how well off they are compared to how they might be if their invading masters weren’t so benevolent and here to help them.”

I have presented no theories whatsoever relating to Tibet, nor haveI ever justified the Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet.
I did, however, point out that life for the majority of Tibetans has been improving under Chinese governance since the 1980s, and I did so because the weight of empirically verifiable evidence shows this to bethe case.

Let us look at the evidence. If Tibetans were so fiercely suppressed,and if Chinese leaders in Beijing were really out to Sinocize Tibet by increasing the ethnic ratio of Han to Tibetan, then why are all Tibetan families permitted to have up to three children, and are only fined small amounts of money if they exceed this number? Tibetan families in Tibet average 3.8 children, larger than Tibetan families in India. In fact, the population of Tibet in 1959 was only about 1.19 million.Today however, the population of Greater Tibet is 7.3 million, of which, according to the 2000 census, 6 million are ethnic Tibetans. If we consider the Tibet  Autonomous Region only, then according to the census conducted in 2000, as referred to in Wikipedia,“there were 2,616,300 people in Tibet, with Tibetans totalling2,411,100 or 92.2% of the current regional population. The census also revealed that the Tibetan's average lifespan has increased to 68 due to the improving standard of living and access to medical services.”  In 1950 the average lifespan was only 35, and “infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 to 0.661% in 2000.”

As Barry Sautman, who is Associate Professor of Social Science at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology points out in his study on Tibet and the (Mis-)Representation of Cultural Genocide,“the state sponsored transfer [of Han Chinese] to Tibet is on a small scale. From 1994 to 2001 the PRC organized only a few thousand people to go to Tibet as cadres. Most serve only 3 years and then return to China. Those who move on their own to the Tibet Autonomous Region usually return to China in a few years. They come for a while, find the cities of Tibet too expensive, and then return to China. Some of the72,000 Chinese who maintain their hukou [household registration] in Tibet don't really live there. Pensions are higher if your household is registered in Tibet.”

These facts are supported by articles in the Columbia Journal of Asian Law and by an Australian Chinese demographer in Asian Ethnicity in 2000,and show that the claims of ethnic swamping in Tibet are misleading."What I think these articles show,” says Barry Sautman, “is that there is no evidence of significant population losses over the whole period from the 1950s to the present. There are some losses during he Great Leap Forward but these were less in Tibetan areas than in other parts of China. Where these were serious were in Sichuan and Qinghai, but even there not as serious in the Han areas of China. There are no bases at all for the figures used regularly by the exile groups. They use the figure of 1.2 million Tibetans dying from the 1950s to the 1970s, but no source for this is given. As a lawyer I give no credence to statistics for which there is no data, no visible basis."

In fact, as Michael Parenti has pointed out in his article on Friendly Feudalism: the Tibet Myth,“both the Dalai Lama and his advisor and youngest brother, Tendzin Choegyal, claimed that ‘more than 1.2 million Tibetans are dead as a result of the Chinese occupation.’ But the official 1953 census - six years before the Chinese crackdown -recorded the entire population residing in Tibet at 1,274,000.33 Other census counts put the ethnic Tibetan population within the country at about two million. If the Chinese killed 1.2 million in the early 1960s then whole cities and huge portions of the countryside, indeed almost all of Tibet, would have been depopulated, transformed into a killing field dotted with death camps and mass graves - of which we have not seen evidence. The thinly distributed Chinese military force in Tibet was not big enough to round up, hunt down, and exterminate that many people even if it had spent all its time doing nothing else.”

Tibetans in exile and their supporters seem to pull such figuresout of a hat in the same way that the Chinese exile Harry Wu does inrelation to the number of mainland prisoners (see my piece On the Nature of Chinese Governance and Society for details).

Barry Sautman also convincingly challenges claims that the Tibetan language is being devalued and replaced by Chinese. "92-94% of ethnic Tibetans speak Tibetan,” he notes. “Instruction in primary school is pretty universally in Tibetan. Chinese is bilingual from secondary school onward. All middle schools in the TAR also teach Tibetan. In Lhasa there are about equal time given to Chinese, Tibetan, and English.”

There is also an upsurge of the performing arts, poetry and painting by Tibetans, which many visitors to Tibet today cannot fail to notice, all of which are encouraged and funded by Beijing, though of course the growing tourist market also plays an important role in encouraging Tibetans to continue practicing their traditional arts and crafts, albeit, in a commodified form.

Importantly, Sautman, like me, has observed surprisingly “fewaspects of Chinese culture in Tibet, but there are many aspects ofWestern culture, such as jeans, disco music, etc.”

Barry Sautman’s views are by no means marginalised within Western academia either Tony. Colin Mackerras, Professor Emeritus of International Business and Asian Studies at Griffith University, Australia, for example, remarked that Suatman’s book “is a courageous and long overdue study of a highly emotional and extremely important topic’ in that it meticulously details and documents “the processes of cultural change in religion, the arts, language, migration and various other aspects” which are rightly attributed “mainly to Westernised modernity.”

Another interesting and insightful study is the one carried out by Melvyn C. Goldstein, who is Professor and Chairman, Department of Anthropology, and Director of the Center for Research on Tibet at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, and Cynthia M. Beall, who is Professor of Anthropology at Case Western Reserve University. Their study, titled The Impact of China’s Reform Policy on the Nomads of Western Tibet,was carried out over a 16 month period in the Tibet Autonomous Region,and was supported by grants from the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China, the Committee on Research and Exploration of the National Geographic Society, and the National Science Foundation.

It’s worth quoting at length from their conclusion:
“The new Chinese economic and cultural policies implemented in Tibet following Hu Yaobang's investigation tour in May of 1980 have produced a major transformation in Phala. Following decollectivisation, the nomads' economy immediately reverted to the traditional household system of production and management, which, enhanced by the concession on taxes, has led to an overall improvement in the standard of livingeven though local-level officials have not completely implemented anopen (or negotiated) market system. The new policies have also led to increasing involvement in the market economy and dramatic social andeconomic differentiation. Equally important, the post-1980 policieshave fostered a cultural and social revitalization that has allowed the nomads to resurrect basic components of their traditional culture….lifein Phala today is closer to that of the traditional era than at anytime since China assumed direct administrative control over Tibet in1959. The post-1980 reforms created conditions whereby the nomadic pastoralists of Phala were able to regain control of their lives and recreate a matrix of values, norms, and beliefs that is psychologically and culturally meaningful. The new polices have, in essence, vindicated the nomads'  belief in the worth of their nomadic way of life and their Tibetan ethnicity.”

Tyler Denison reached similar conclusions in his study, titled Reaffirmation of ‘Ritual Cosmos’: Tibetan Perceptions of Landscape and Socio-Economic Development in Southwest China, published quite recently in the Spring 2006 edition of the University of New Hampshire Undergraduate Research Journal.

“Rather than finding Tibetan tradition being destroyed by Chinese rule and the influx of people, goods and ideas from the modern world,” concludes Denison, “I witnessed first hand the importance of Kawa Karpo and the ritual cosmos in the lives of the Tibetans of Deqin county: it has not been diminished. Tibetans’ enduring perception of the landscape as a ritual cosmos cannot be termed a static reality of tradition, butmore a dynamic cultural process, as they are continually renegotiating and redefining their beliefs in light of new social and economic realities.”

So much then Tony, for your claims of cultural genocide. And by the way, most Tibetans, if you ever get a chance to visit Tibet and to converse with the Tibetan locals, will tell you that they are not “forced”  to learn Chinese, but rather, do so keenly, and on the expectation that being fluent in both Chinese and English will help to empower themselves by broadening their future employment opportunities.

Tony, I hereby charge you with having a patronising attitude towards the Tibetan people – they are not passive victims, and you really shouldn’t deny them of any agency. In fact, as Tsering Shakya has pointed out in a paper he wrote for the New Left Reviewback in 2002, "Tibetans are indeed well represented on bodies like the National People’s Congress and the People’s Consultative Conference. In fact I would go further and say that they are over-represented, given the size of the Tibetan population." And don't forget the role that many Tibetans themselves played in the destruction of monastries and the various perscutions that took place in Tibet during the Cultural Revolution. Let's not deny the people of Tibet of any agency.

Your assertion that Western journalists make their observations of Tibet in the presence of “Chinese Communist Party lackeys” also demonstrates your ignorance. Journalist and tourists alike are quite free to wander about most parts of Tibet (provided they have PSB permits) without the accompaniment of officials.

You asked me to provide you with evidence of journalists having met Tibetans in Tibet who have expressed the view that the positives of Chinese rule outweigh the negatives.

Let us take attitudes towards the Beijing to Lhasa railway forstarters. In the lead-up to the opening of that railway, the Dalai Lama expressed fears that the railway was going to aid in the Sinocisation of Tibet, and this was quickly seized on by Tibetans in exile support groups throughout the Western world as a development that would aid in Beijing’s alleged policy of genocide. Such claims of course, excited the imaginations of many ordinary Tibetans, many of who not surprisingly then expressed suspicions about what the new train line would bring them. But as many tourists and journalists to Tibet soon discovered, many urban ethnic Tibetans felt as though the positives would outweigh the negatives, and this is because an increasing number of Tibetans now have a very real material stake in the new economy.Their living standards are improving, and although Han retailers and small businesses stand to benefit more from increases in tourism and trade, the fact is that this will likely change as more and more Tibetans accumulate sufficient enough capital to start up enterprises of their own. And many Tibetans know this. Jonathon Watts, of The Guardian newspaper, reported that  “Among the four or five unscheduled meetings Ihad with Tibetans, most were looking forward to the economic benefits the line is expected to bring: 2.5m tonnes of cargo and 1m tourists and business people.”

Indeed, Tibetans are divided on the issue of whether or not the benefits of being a part of China outweigh the negatives. “Tibetans are divided,” noted Jonathon Watts. There are those “independence activists” who expressed disapproval of the railway because they are against being a part of China, and who therefore regard the new line as evidence that Beijing is out to further entrench their rule, while others acknowledged the good that the trains might bring. “I was surprised to find a living Buddha make one of the strongest arguments in favour of the railway,” wrote Watts. "’We've been too backward, too isolated for too long,’ said the lama, who asked that his name not be used. ‘The rest of the world is in the 21st century. We are still in the middle ages.’ A more predictable advocate was the governor of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, Jampa Pahtsok. "It is unimaginable to have a high growth rate without a railroad.’” (see The Guardian, Sep.20, 2005)

And life is improving for many Tibetan farmers also, as Goldstein and Beall’s research (mentioned earlier) shows. When Dexter Roberts came across villagers in Northern Tibet’s Nagqu Prefecture, he discovered that most of the villagers (barley farmers and herdsmen) were quite content. “Life isn’t bad at all”, he quoted one villager as saying. (see "Tibet: Caught in China’s Two Hands", Business Week Online, Sep.19, 2003).

Tony, I have never argued that most Tibetans don’t want some form of self-government. I simply said that I think it is presumptuous to say that the majority of Tibetans want independence. I stand by that. Maybethey do? But to assert with confidence that most want independence without supporting such a claim with any empirically verifiable evidence of a quantitative nature is questionable, especially when there is a growing amount of qualitative evidence to show that Tibetansare divided on such issues. Even the Dalai Lama himself says that he no longer wants total independence from China, but instead, some form of self-government.

Take a closer, more objective look at Tibet today. The mass protests have stopped. As Robert Barnett, author of Lhasa: Streets with Memories (published by Columbia University Press) stated in an interview back in April 2006, “Tibet has become a dispute in which the main weapons are forms of economic change that have benefits and drawbacks: the market, the leisure industry, mass tourism, population shift, uneven wealth, and consumerism.”

It won’t be all that much longer Tony, before Lhasa’s main thoroughfares find themselves hosting McDonald’s, KFC, and Pizza Hut fast food outlets, along with Starbuck’s and other such global enterprises. And don’t be too surprised if some of the license holdersturn out to be ethnic Tibetans.

Tony, you argue that “Tibet and Tibetans might [have] been very different had China not invaded, but for sure they would be sovereign masters of their own destiny.”

Bollocks! How many ordinary Tibetans were ever the “masters of their own destinies”? I’m not justifying China’s invasion and occupation of Tibet, which was carried out for geopolitical reasons, and largely in response to continual incursions by Britain and Russia, and which therefore needs to be viewed in the context of the Cold War. The Kuomintang of course consistently made it clear that they intended on invading and occupying Tibet, and had they defeated the PLA, they probably would have gone on to do just that. Had that been the case, I bet the the U.S. State Department wouldn't have objected.

But let us not romanticise the life of Tibetans prior to the invasion either. As Michael Parenti (and many others like Leigh Feigon, in hisbook Demystifying Tibet) has documented, Tibet “was a retrograde theocracy of serfdom and poverty, where a favoured few lived high and mighty off the blood, sweat, and tears of the many. It was a long way from Shangri-La.”

And “whatever wrongs and new oppressions introduced by the Chinese in Tibet, after 1959 they did abolish slavery and the serfdom system of unpaid labour, and put an end to floggings, mutilations, and amputations as a form of criminal punishment. They eliminated the many crushing taxes, started work projects, and greatly reduced unemployment and beggary. They established secular education, thereby breaking the educational monopoly of the monasteries. And they constructed running water and electrical systems in Lhasa.”

[ 本帖最后由 ltbriar 于 2008-7-28 06:02 编辑 ]

ltbriar

Finally, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the Tibetans in exileand their supporters have consistently exaggerated the human rightsabuses that have taken place in Tibet, as Barry Sautman and others haveconvincingly demonstrated. Such exaggerations from the Tibetancommunity in exile come as no surprise though. As Michael Parenti says:

“For the rich lamas and lords, the Communist intervention was acalamity. Most of them fled abroad, as did the Dalai Lama himself, whowas assisted in his flight by the CIA… throughout the 1960s, theTibetan exile community was secretly pocketing $1.7 million a year fromthe CIA, according to documents released by the State Department in1998. Once this fact was publicised, the Dalai Lama's organisationitself issued a statement admitting that it had received millions ofdollars from the CIA during the 1960s to send armed squads of exilesinto Tibet to undermine the Maoist revolution. The Dalai Lama's annualpayment from the CIA was $186,000. Indian intelligence also financedboth him and other Tibetan exiles. He has refused to say whether he orhis brothers worked for the CIA. The agency has also declined tocomment….Today, mostly through the National Endowment for Democracy andother conduits that are more respectable-sounding than the CIA, the USCongress continues to allocate an annual $2 million to Tibetans inIndia, with additional millions for ‘democracy activities’ within theTibetan exile community.”

The Tibetan issue is by no means clear-cut. It is complex, and inconstant states of flux. Even Tibetan specialists find it difficult tofit together images and realities, and so one might imagine how muchmore difficult it is for the great majority who make no pretence toknowledge about Tibet and who, if interested, seek guidance in theformulation of their own images. Those who seek such guidance from theplethora of publications produced by the numerous existing Tibetansupport groups should therefore read them with some considerablecaution, given their obvious bias.

I am not a Tibetan specialist, by any means, but I have more confidencein the findings of independent academic researchers (who present moreobjective, more soberly balanced views that are based on empiricallyverifiable research data of both a quantitative and qualitative nature)than I do in both the claims of official Chinese sources and of thevarious Tibetans in exile support groups.

Oh, and by the way Tony, your puerile attempt to discredit me bydismissing me as an employee of the Chinese government really ispathetic, and only serves to further demonstrate the height of yourignorance. I have been in China now for five years, not four, and I amnot, and never have been, employed by the Chinese government. I teach auniversity preparation program at a Chinese private university inHangzhou for a Sydney-based college, and I am paid an Australiansalary, in Australian dollars, by my employer of over 15 years, theN.S.W. Department of Education and Training. There is absolutely nopressure on me to “two the Partly line” – in fact, nobody here has everinterfered with my teaching.

I suggest, Tony Martin, that you take a sedative and calm down. A few laxatives will no doubt help!

M.A.Jones
Hangzhou

原文連結:  
http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496347#496347

ltbriar

翻譯:



我逐渐颇精于平和地面对挑衅, 虽然高低剖析仍是匪夷所思的, 一如所有善读柏拉图者皆知, 上层世界一切完美现象都有在下层跟它们相对的不完美(的确, 有时不堪予闻的)对立面。

故现该算点杂帐的时候了: Tony Martin, 你在评论我的立场里始先作人身攻击,继转为尖刻闲话, 都是源于错读了我立场。你说:“你整个对西藏的理论是跟所有其他支持中国继续非法占领一个主权国家的回应者很相似的。”“你的立场似乎跟我们历史上的其他侵略者,或跟历来各个买卖奴隶的国家很相似。即是, 甭看西藏现在比中国及世界其他地方有多差,而是跟要是入侵他们的主子不是那么仁慈和援助他们的情况相比较, 他们如今是多好。”

我从来没提出什么有关西藏的理论, 也绝未认可中国入侵及占据西藏。
可是, 我曾指出在中国管治下自1980年代以来,  大多数藏人生活获得改善,而我这样做是因为事不离实有可确认的证据显示情况就是那样。


让我们看看证据。如果藏人确是被无情压迫, 而如北京的中国领袖真要以提高汉藏族裔比率来汉化藏人的话,那么为什么藏人家庭可以最多生三个小孩, 而且如果他们超生的话只用交很少的罚款?西藏家庭平均有3.8个小孩, 比在印度的西藏家庭还要多。 事实上, 1959年西藏人口只有119万人。可是, 今天大西藏的人口是730万,根据2000年普查, 其中600万是藏族。如果我们只考虑西藏自治区, 那么根据2000年普查, 一如Wikipedia所引,“西藏人口为2,616,300, 其中西藏人共2,411,100或 占现时地区人口的92.2% 。 该普查同时透露西藏人平均寿命因生活水平改善及有医疗服务而延长至68岁。”1950 年的平均寿命只有35岁, 而“幼儿死亡率从 1950年的43%in 1950下降至2000年的0.661%。”

正如香港科技大学社会科学副教授沙伯力(Barry Sautman)在他研究西藏及文化灭族的(失)实陈述 Tibetand the (Mis-)Representation of Cultural Genocide中指出“政府支助[汉人]入藏是小规模。从1994至2001年, 中国只安排了数千人到西藏任干部。多数人只逗留三年然后就回中国(内陆)。那些自己迁移到西藏自治区的通常几年后就回中国(内陆)。他们来一会, 发觉西藏城市都很贵,然后就回中国(内陆)。72,000名中国人当中有些仍然保存他们在西藏的户口却不真正在那里居住的。户口登记在西藏, 退休金会高一些。”


哥伦比亚亚洲法律期刊及澳洲一位华裔人口统计学家2000年于亚洲种族渊源所发表的论文也都支持这一事实,证明种族淹没的指控是误导的。沙伯力说“我想这些论文显示的是缺乏证据证明从1950年代迄今整段期间有重大人口消失。在大跃进时有过一些减少, 但是西藏的减少比中国其他地区为少。严重人口降减是在四川与青海,即便如此也不够中国汉人地区的严重。流亡组织人士经常使用的数字是完全没有根据的。他们指自1950至1970年代有120万藏人死亡,却没有提供消息来源。身为一个法律人, 我对没有数据, 没有参考来源的统计是不予采信的。

事实上, 迈克尔·帕伦蒂(Michael Parenti)在他的友善的封建:西藏神话一文内就指出, “dl喇嘛, 他的顾问也是弟弟丹增曲杰都声称‘超过120万藏人因中国占领而死亡。可是1953年 – 中国镇压六年之前 - 官方普查记录居住在西藏的全部人口为1,274,000人。其他普查数字计算境内藏族人口约为两百万左右。如果中国人在1960年代初杀了120万人, 那么所有城市以至大部份农村, 的确差不多整个西藏,都应已十室九空, 遍布死亡集中营和无数墓冢的杀戮屠场 – 但我们看不到这样的证据。薄弱的中国驻藏军队就算耗上全部时间精力也不足以围剿, 缉捕和消灭那么多人。

西藏流亡份子及其支持者似乎从帽子随手捞出这些数未, 跟中国流亡人士吴弘达对大陆监狱囚犯人数的做法如出一辙(详细请参阅我的中国统治性质与社会一文)。

沙伯力也很具说服力的挑战了藏文被贬抑而由中文取代之说。他提到“92-94%藏人说藏语, 小学教育差不多全用藏语教授。中学开始加入中文作双语。西藏自治区内所有中学都有教授藏语。在拉萨, 教中文, 藏文与英文的时间是大约相等的。”

ltbriar

翻譯 (續上: 二)


愈来愈多藏人从事演艺, 诗歌及绘画工作, 是众多西藏游客不可能无睹的, 这全都是由北京拨款鼓励的。当然, 旅游市场发展也大力鼓励藏人继续承传弘扬他们传统艺术, 手工艺, 虽然, 是以商品形式出现。

更重要是, 沙巴利跟我一样讶异地发现“西藏的中国文化痕迹不太多,却有很多西方文化风尚, 如牛仔裤, 廸士高等。”

Tony, 沙巴利的观点在西方学院界绝非寥寥可数。举例来说, 澳洲格里菲斯大学国际商学及亚洲研究中心名誉教授马克拉斯(ColinMackerras)就说沙伯利的著作“是对一个高度敏感兼极为重要的议题期待已久极具胆识的研究。”因为它精细详尽记载了“在宗教,艺术, 语言, 迁移及其他不同方面的过程”,而这一切都正是“大部份由于西式现代化所造成的。”

另一有趣而精辟的研究是由俄亥俄州, 克里夫兰, 华盛顿天主教大学(Case Western Reserve University)人类学系教授也是西藏研究中心主任梅尔文·戈尔斯坦(MelvynC. Goldstein), 与也是该大学人类学教授辛西娅·比尔(CynthiaM. Beal)做, 名为中国改革政策对西藏西部牧民的影响 。在西藏自治区研究超过16个月, 获国家科学院与中国学术交流委员会, 美国国家地理协会研究与探险委员会, 和美国国家科学基金支助支持。

他们的结论值得费些篇幅引述：

“胡耀邦于1980年5月巡视后在西藏落实的新中国经济及文化政策让帕拉(Phala)发生重大变化。随着农业集体化解体,尽管当地官员还没完成建设开放(或差强人意)的市场系统, 牧民经济立即回复传统家庭制的生产和管理, 再加上税务优惠使生活水平整体获得改善。新政策也导致人民参与市场经济, 及社会经济发生变异。同样重要的是80后政策孕育了文化与社会的回春, 进而让牧民恢复他们传统文化中一些基本元素…今天帕拉的生活比1959年中国直接管治西藏以来的任何一个时期都更接近传统时代。80后的改革营造新条件让帕拉牧民重新掌控自己生活和建造在心理上, 文化上都有意义的一套价值,标准和信念。新政策主要来说是维护了牧民对他们游牧生活方式及藏族身份的信念。”

泰莱·丹尼森(Tyler Denison)在他最近在新罕布什尔大学本科研究学报2006春季版发表的研究:重申“仪式秩序”：中国西南部山水和社会经济发展的西藏感觉, 也得到同样的结论。


丹尼森总结:“与其发现西藏传统被中国统治和大量现代社会的人, 货及思想涌入而被破坏,我第一手见证了雪山神女峰与仪式秩序对德钦县的藏人生活的重要性 : 它从来没有被削弱。藏人长久以来视山水为仪式秩序的感觉不能以静态传统概念名之,而是一动态的文化过程, 因为他们是不断按新社会和经济现实来调整与重新定义他们的信念的。

Tony, 你所称的文化灭族就不外如是。还有, 如你真有机会去西藏和跟当地藏人谈谈, 多数藏人会告诉你没人“逼”他们学中文,相反, 他们起劲学, 希望中英文流利的话会让他们开拓自己未来就业前途。

Tony, 我说你对西藏人摆出高倨优越姿态 – 他们不是被动的受害者,而你也真的不该拒绝他们参与任何机构。事实上, 一如次仁夏加(Tsering Shakya 注:西藏历史学者)在2002年新左评论一篇文章指出,“西藏人在一些如全国人大和全国政协等机构有充分代表性。事实上, 以西藏人口比例,我甚至该进一步说, 他们是过度被代表的。”还有别忘许多藏人自己在文革时参与毁灭破坏西藏寺院及其他迫害事件中扮演的角色。我们不应拒阻西藏人民参与任何组织。

你那西方记者是在“中共人员”在场情况去作观察的坚称也显示你的无知。记者跟游客一样能在西藏大部份地区没有官员陪同, 自由来往(只要他们持有公安局PSB许可证)。



[ 本帖最后由 ltbriar 于 2008-7-25 13:31 编辑 ]

ltbriar

翻译 (续上: 三)

你跟我要证据证明记者在西藏真遇上表现中国统治好处比坏的多的藏人。

咱们先由北京拉萨铁路民调说起。直至那铁路通车前, dl喇嘛担心铁路将加强西藏华化,这马上被西藏流亡份子的西方支持组织抓去变成是帮助所谓北京灭种政策的发展项目。这些指称当然激起许多普通藏人的胡思乱想,毫无疑问他们当中于是对新铁路的功用表示怀疑。可是随着许多到西藏的游客及记者很快发现, 许多郊区藏人感到正面影响将远远抵消负面影响, 而这是因为愈来愈多藏人如今在新经济里占有很重大的实际利息。他们生活水平在改善,同时虽然汉族商人和小企业肯定从旅游及商业发展中获利更多, 事实这情况在更多藏人累积足够资本创业时就极可能改变过来。许多藏人都清楚这点。卫报的乔纳森·瓦特报导说“在跟四到五个未有预约的西藏人谈话后, 他们大多对铁路带来的经济利益有所期待:2.5公吨的货运和上百万名的游客及商旅。”

诚然, 西藏人对作为中国一部份是否利大于弊有意见分歧。乔纳森·瓦特注意到“西藏人意见不一。”有“藏独活跃份子”因反对属于中国一部份而不赞成铁路, 认为新铁路是北京巩固管治的证明。但也有其他人肯定铁路可能带来的好处。“我很讶异找到一位活佛对铁路作出最强力的支持论点”,瓦特写着。那要求不要发表名字的喇嘛说“我们太落后, 孤立太久。世界其他地方已是21世纪, 我们仍留在中世纪里。”一个比较能预估的支持者是 西藏自治区人民政府主席向巴平措(JampaPahtsok)“要有高发展率而没有铁路是不可想像的。””(见卫报2005.9.20)

正如戈尔斯坦及比尔的(前述)研究显示,许多西藏农民的生活也在改善中。当罗谷（Dexter Roberts）遇到北西藏那曲地区的村民时,他发现大多数村民(大麦农民和牧民)都很知足。“生活真的不坏。”他引述一个村民的话。(见“西藏：被抓在中国两手之中”商业周刊2003.9.19)

Tony, 我从来没有争辩多数西藏人不希望某形式的自治政府。我只是说我认为声称大多数西藏人要求独立是很冒失的。我坚持这看法。也许他们想?但缺乏可验证的量化经验证据支持下而武断称大多数藏人要求独立是经不起推敲的, 特别是有陆续多的质量证明显示西藏人在此问题上分化的。连dl喇嘛自己也说他不再要求完全从中国独立,而是某形式的自治政府。

更仔细, 更客观地看看今天的西藏。大规模抗争已停止。正如拉萨：带着怀念的街道一书(哥伦比亚大学出版社出版)的作者巴耐特（Robert Barnett）在2006年4月一次访问中表示, “西藏变成一个争议, 它主要武器是以经济改变有利也有弊的形式：市场, 消闲工业, 广泛旅游业, 人口迁移, 财富不平均,与消费主义。”

Tony, 不用太久,拉萨主要大道就会满是麦当奴, 家乡鸡, 披萨屋等快餐店, 还有星巴克与其他类似的国际企业。而且别太讶异那些持牌人居然是藏族。

Tony,  你反驳说“要是中国没入侵, 西藏跟西藏人可能[已]很不同,无论如何他们都当家作主决定自己命运。”

荒谬! 有多少西藏人从前曾有成为“自己命运的主人”?我不是说中国入主占据西藏有理, 那是出自地缘政治考量, 也很大程度上是对英俄持续入侵的反弹, 故而必须从冷战背景来分析。国民党当然一直明确他们准备攻占西藏,要是他们打赢了人民解放军, 他们多半那么做。如果是那样的话, 我敢打赌美国国务院准不会反对。

但我们也不必把被据前的西藏生活来粉饰美化。一如帕伦蒂(还有许多人如利·费贡在他解密西藏一书)记录, 西藏“从前是一个倒退的农奴及贫困的神权政体, 少数特权生活优渥在吸取多数人的血汗泪水。它离香格里拉遥不可及。”

同时“纵然中国在西藏千差万错以至新压制, 1959年后他们取消了免费劳力的奴隶制度与农奴制度,终止了鞭笞, 残害身体, 截肢等酷刑惩罚。他们取消了许多苛捐严役,创建工作工程, 大量减少失业与乞讨人口。他们成立现代教育, 破除寺院垄断教育专利。同时他们在拉萨建设供水与电力系统。”

最后, 一如沙巴利及其他人有力证明, 我们不应忽略西藏流亡份子和他们的支持者一直在夸大在西藏的人权侵犯情况。这些西藏流亡族群如此夸大其实不足为怪, 正如帕伦蒂说：

“对有钱的喇嘛和地主富豪, 共产党当年的干预是场灾难。他们大多远走他乡, 就像dl他本人一样在中央情报局(CIA)协助下逃亡。根据1998年(美国)国务院发布的文件显示,整个1960年代, 西藏流亡组织每年都暗里获中央情报局$170万元的支助。当此事曝光后, dl喇嘛的组织自己立即发出一份声明承认它在1960年代收取中央情报局数以百万元, 用以遣派流亡人民组成的武装部队到西藏去颠覆毛泽东的革命运动。dl喇嘛每年从中央情报局获支付$186,000。印度情报组织也对他及其他西藏流亡者金钱资助。他拒绝透露他或他的兄弟们是否为中央情报局工作。情报局也拒绝评论…今天, 美国继续每年拨款$200万给在印度的西藏人士,另外还对西藏流亡组织提供上百万计资助用于“民主活动”, 大部份是以国家民主基金和其他比中央情报局听来较体面的管道输送的。

西藏问题一点都不明朗简单。它是复杂而且一直在变化的。就是西藏专家学者也觉得难以把印象与现实连到一起, 可想而知对那些不假装自己懂西藏及那些有兴趣却凭空想像自以为是的人而言,了解西藏有多困难。故此, 那些依赖无数支持西藏团体泡制血花四溅的刊物来判断的人就应相当慎重地看这些资料,因为它们是明显地偏颇的。

不管怎看, 我不是西藏专家, 但我较相信独立学者研究者的观察结果(他们较客观, 理性平衡的意是建立在可验证的量化和质化的经验调查数据之上的), 而非中国官方来源与不同支持西藏流亡份子的组织的说法。

噢,还有Tony, 你把我看成中国官员来损毁我诚信的稚气作法是可悲的,那只再次展示你是何等无知。我在中国五年了, 并非四年, 而我不是, 也从未为中国政府雇用。我在杭州一所中国人的私立大学里替一家在雪梨的学院任教一个大学先修课程,我是领澳洲薪酬的, 老板是15年来聘用我的新南威尔斯教育培训部。我绝对没有什么“2. 党的路线”的压力– 事实上, 这里从来没有谁曾干预过我教学情况。

我建议,Tony Martin, 你吃一片镇定剂来冷静下来。要不, 试试几片泻药,肯定有帮助!

M.A.Jones 杭州

seanhu

WillJ Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:40 pm    Post subject: Re: In response to Tony Martin (in relation to the Tibet iss
【回复原文】
Simply stated, WOW. You actually put together a coherent arguement backed with cited evidence. This has got to be the first time I've ever seen such a display of effort on the internet. I applaud you professor Jones for actually putting time and effort into trying to sway the viewpoints of a person who totally does not deserve your time.

I have read the posts in the other topic in which you've contributed. Because I am not quite familiar with the China - Tibet subject, I do not really have an opinion on this controversial subject. I guess the only way for me to really know what's going on in Tibet and China is to trust the only source that I can trust, myself. I hope that in the future I can visit both places and see for myself just what is going on.

That being said, what I do intend on commenting on is your show of respect of other people's opinions, and Tony's lack thereof. I am surprised you even took the effort to reply to such immature people who post nothing other than insults and stereotypical accusations, in order to get their points accross. Egotistic people like that pollute the internet and feel the need to vent their anger at anyone who opposes them. If a person really has confidence in his or her opinions and knows there are facts that support it, they would not need to deride others in addition to their argument.

My advice to you is, ignore such people like I always do. Do not ever insult them back as it will only feed the troll. You cannot change a person's opinions if even they don't understand the subject matter from which the opinion is formed upon.

Jones, the internet needs more people like you.
【回复链接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496398#496398
【中文翻译】
真是让人惊奇。你论证通畅证据有力。这是我第一次在网上见到这样的一幕。我真的很赞赏你-琼斯(Jones)教授-能花时间和精力批驳一个完全不值得你花时间的人的观点。

我读了你在其他话题中的发言。我不是中国-西藏问题专家，在这个争议性的话题上还没有独到见解。我想能让我了解西藏和中国到底正在发生什么的唯一方式就是只相信自己。我希望未来能够亲自去两地看看到底正在发生什么。

既然说了，我真正想评论的是你尊重别人观点的态度，而托尼(Tony)正好缺少这点。我很惊讶你甚至花力气回复那些仅会借用辱骂和陈词滥调的控诉来表达自己观点的幼稚的人。那些夜郎自大的人污浊了互联网并且向任何反对他们的人宣泄愤怒。如果一个人真的对自己的观点自信，并知道有事实支持，他不用在争辩之外附带嘲讽他人。

我对你的建议是，像我一样忽视这样的家伙。用不着攻击他们引火上身。你无法改变一个并不了解事情本身的人的观点。

琼斯(Jones)，网络需要想你这样的人。

seanhu

M.A.Jones Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:56 pm    Post subject: Re: In response to Tony Martin (in relation to the Tibet iss
【回复原文】
Dear WillJ - thank you most sincerely for your kind words of encouragement. I should tell you though, that I am not a professor. I am actually a high school teacher of English literature, film studies and history, though I now teach for N.S.W. TAFE colleges, which are tertiary institutions, funded by the N.S.W. State Government. They run various programs in universities throughout China, and I am very fortunate to be able to live and work here on the mainland, especially given that I am on an Australian teacher's salary.

I have posted two other pieces on this forum which you might also be interested in reading. I do not claim any of my assessments as "truth" and since I am not a China expert, I rely on a combination of my own observations and experiences, together with the sober and balanced research of others, in order to formulate my own set of opinions and analyses.

I am therefore more than happy to have my positions challenged, to have the strength of my arguments tested, but to be challanged convincingly, alternative viewpoints need to be backed by empirically verifiable evidence.

All the best WillJ, and thanks again for your feedback.

M.A.Jones
Hangzhou
【回复链接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496412#496412

【中文翻译】
WillJ – 诚挚感谢你的鼓励之辞。我需要告诉你我不是一个教授。我为新南威尔士州政府资助的技术与继续教育学院工作，是教授英语文学影视赏析和历史的中学教师。他们(新南威尔士技术与继续教育学院)在全中国有许多项目，我很幸运能够在中国大陆生活和工作，特别是我还领着澳大利亚教师的薪水。

我在这里论坛上还发了另外两个帖子，你可能你有兴趣一读。因为我不是中国问题专家，我没有声称我的任何评论就是“事实”，我复合自己的观察和经历以及别人冷静和客观的研究成果来阐明我的观点和分析。

我因此更乐意接受对我观点的挑战，以检验我的论点的力度，但是需要的是让人心悦诚服的挑战，不同的观点需要可以复验的证据的支持。

WillJ祝你万事顺利，并再次感谢你的反馈。

M.A.琼斯(Jones)
写于杭州

seanhu

Tibetan Photo Project Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:55 am    Post subject: Re: In response to Tony Martin (in relation to the Tibet iss

【回复原文】
Mr. Jones,

I am going to take you up on your desire to be challenged in that your research is incomplete.

I would only suggest that you consider adding contact with the Tibetan communities in exile to your research.

Since you argue the number of Tibetans, then their numbers in exile become more significant when measured against your total population numbers.

Between 1000 and 3000 Tibetans attempt to go into exile each year. Given that you refute the larger number of Tibetans killed or that they even existed, then again, this becomes a more significant number against your smaller assessment. The number of Tibetans who go into exile are counted through refugee processing proceedures in both India and Nepal.

I have conducted personal interviews with several Tibetans who are free to speak in exile and they offer little praise for the Chinese and the overall treatment of Tibetans or any serious level of respect for their language or culture. The Tibetans I have talked to usually speak 3 or 4 languages and are or have attended college even though they recieved little or no education from the Chinese.

As you must be aware, a Tibetan nun was shot by Chinese forces and the official report was that the troops were being attacked until a video emerged from a climbing expedition.
http://www.savetibet.org/news/newsitem.php?id=1036
Video at
http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?news=15183

On the 1.2 million killed, agreed that the number could be considered in dispute but only because the population itself was not accurately counted but by all estimates, the Chinese wiped out 1/6 of the population. In 1989, the Dalai Lama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize "on behalf of the 1.2 million Tibetans" who were killed by the Chinese forces and policies. The respected body of the Nobel committee has never found reason to refute his number.

The Tibetan government in exile and Tibetans in exile are the first to recognize that much of the concept of Tibet has been romanticized by the West and that in going into exile they walked out of an ancient time and stepped into the modern world.
See our interview with the Director of Information for the Tibetan Government in Exile
http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1703909&ml=fu%3d1623166%26fx%3d&

or another voice from a Tibetan documentary filmmaker might also present you with a Tibetan view of China from a Tibetan perspective that seems to be absent from your research credits
http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1531496&ml=fu%3d1623166%26fx%3d&

As an refugee population in India, and by indian standards the Tibetans have risen from what was basically living in boxes when they came out of india beginning in 1959 to a series of strong communities within india.

As refugees, they are reaching their achievements, (most) without of the benefits of citizenship.
http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1507135&ml=fu%3d1623166%26fx%3d&

I think that while you present a researched position, the research is incomplete without adding a respectable amount of time with the Tibetan community in exile.

Visually and Respectfully Yours, The Tibetan Photo Project

【原文链接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496502#496502

【中文翻译】
琼斯(Jones)先生

我将如你所愿挑战你的观点，我认为你的研究不完整。

我仅想提醒你考虑将流亡藏人社团加入你的研究。

既然你论述了藏人的数目，那么将流亡藏人的数据计入你提到的人口总数之中显得尤为重要。

每年有有1000至3000藏人试图流亡。虽然你驳斥了大量藏人被杀的事实，然而这部分(流亡藏人)相比你较小的估计是不容忽视的数目。流亡藏人的数目在印度和尼泊尔被当作难民程序统计的。

我对好些藏人进行了个人采访，他们流亡在外能够自由表达，他们对中国人对待藏人以及他们的语言和文化么可没什么好话。我交谈的藏人通常能讲3到4种语，即便没有接受中国人的教育也正在或已经接受了高等教育。

你应该知道一个藏族尼姑被中国军队射杀，官方的说法是部队收到了攻击，直到一部出自登山探险队的视频浮出水面(才揭示了真相)。
http://www.savetibet.org/news/newsitem.php?id=1036
视频在：
http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?news=15183

对120万人被杀，我承认数字存在争议但仅仅因为人口总数本身没有被精确统计，但是中国人(确实)产灭1/6的人口。DL喇嘛在1989年“代表被中国军队和警察杀害的120万藏人”接受了诺贝尔奖。受人尊敬的诺贝尔委员会并没有找到任何理由否认他的数据。

西藏流亡政府和流亡藏人是第一波意识到西藏已经被西方浪漫化了，他们通过流亡从一个旧时代走入了现代世界。

请看我们对西藏流亡政府信息部主任的采访
http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1703909&ml=fu%3d1623166%26fx%3d&

另一个来自藏族纪录片制作者的声音能从一个藏人的观点给你展示藏人对中国的看法，这是你的研究论据中缺失的
http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1531496&ml=fu%3d1623166%26fx%3d&

作为在印度的难民(印度的标准)，藏人已经从1959年伊始封闭的生活圈子成长为印度一些列强大的社团。

作为难民，他们取得了他们的成就，虽然(大多数)没有公民的权益。
http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1507135&ml=fu%3d1623166%26fx%3d&

我想当你表达基于研究的观点时，没有充分加入流亡藏人社团观点的研究是不完整的。

尊敬您的，藏人影像志项目

seanhu

M.A.Jones Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:12 am  Post subject: Re: In response to Tony Martin (in relation to the Tibet iss

【回复原文】
Tibetan Photo Project - thank you for your thoughtful response to my arguments above. Your point that my research is incomplete without taking into account more the claims of the Tibetans in exile and their numbers, is a valid one, and so I shall address this a little later in the day, when I have a little more time on my hands.

As far as the figure of 1.2 million killed goes, I am more convinced by those who dismiss this figure as implausible and as greatly exaggerated, and for all the very reasons that Michael Parenti does, as already outlined in my piece above.

Warren W. Smith, in his book Tibetan Nation: A History of Tibetan Nationalism and Sino-Tibetan Relations, also dismisses the 1.2 million killed figure. Smith is clearly sympathetic to the Tibetan cause, yet he dismisses this figure as a gross exaggeration after carefully analyising the dubious and very often-repeated figure of 1.2 million lost due to Chinese mis-rule. He also dismisses the Tibetans in exile claim that Chinese documents acknowledge 87,000 deaths during the 1959-62 rebellion.

The recent shooting of the nun is of course horrifying and inexcusable, and a clear sign that serious human rights abuses continue to occur in Tibet. My position, however, is one that is based on the bigger picture, and when we examine the existing available empirically verifiable evidence, it is clear that Chinese rule has also brought about many overall improvements to the lives of the ethnic Tibetan population - at least on a macro-economic level, and I think it is reasonable to expect that such improvements will continue to develop with the march of time.

You say that "between 1000 and 3000 Tibetans attempt to go into exile each year" and that given that I refute the larger number of Tibetans killed or that they even existed, that this then "becomes a more significant number against [my] smaller assessment." I'm sorry, but I don't really understand your point here, given that significant numbers of Tibetan "refugees" actually return to Tibet each year - which, incidentally, has been the case for decades.
Warmest regards,

M.A.Jones
Hangzhou

【原文链接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496511#496511

【中文翻译】
Tibetan Photo Project- 感谢你对我上面论点的关切回应。你的观点认为我的研究中没有进一步采用流亡藏人的主张以及计算他们的数量而显得不完整，这是对的。我会在晚些当我手头更空些的时候谈谈这点。

对于120万人被杀的数字，鉴于我已经在前面提到的麦克•派伦帝(Michael Parenti-译者注：美国著名政治学家)给出的那些理由，我更信服于那些认为这一数字是被夸大和不可信的人，

瓦伦•W•史密斯(Warren W. Smith)在他“西藏民族：西藏民族主义和汉藏关系历史”一书中也否定了120万被杀的数字。史密斯明显是同情藏人的事业的，同样对这一不断被重复的120万人在中国错误管制下丧生的可疑数字给予了否认，并在精确分析后认为总数是被夸大的。他同时否认了流亡藏人声称的中方文件承认1959-1962年叛乱期间87000人死亡的数字。

近期射杀尼姑的事情当然是惊人和不可宽恕的，这是西藏人权侵害继续在发生的明显证据。然而，当我们检视业已存在的可验证的证据后，我的观点基于更大的视角，就是显然中国的统治给藏民生活带来了许多全面性的提升- 至少在宏观经济角度，并且我认为有理由相信这样的进步将随着时间继续推进。

你说“每年有1000到3000藏人试图流亡”，并说我驳斥了大量藏人被杀的事实，然后说这“相较我过小的评估更大的一个数目。”很抱歉，我未能理解你这里索要表达的观点，因为每年有大量的藏族“难民”返回西藏- 这十几年的情况就是如此。

最热诚的敬意

M.A.琼斯(Jones)
写于杭州

seanhu

这个discussion thread不错，呼吁翻译组的同伴一起分工翻译:-)

值此召唤下，此楼待稍后请管理员删除吧！

ltbriar

首先, 謝謝seanhu一起翻譯

PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) 公視是為355非商業電視台提出優質紀錄片及戲劇節目的機構。
每年通過公開籌款來募集營運。 所以公視能較獨立及能有許多非主流異見聲音。
這一論壇已關閉作為歷史檔案而已, 它是跟公視的 China from the Inside紀錄片同時產生的,
有關China from the Inside 紀錄片, 大家可連結http://www.pbs.org/kqed/chinainside/
紀錄片內容分四個部份： 權力與人民, 婦女情況, 自然轉變, 自由公義, 裡面有許多是對中國情況的批評批判。
seanhu翻譯其中那名為 Tibet Photo Project 的, 是來宣傳藏獨, 替自己網頁打廣告和鬧事的
被許多人投訴, 讓論壇主持不得已開欄徵詢意見, 是否要封他的帳號。
由此, 我們可看到:
1. 藏獨的無賴, 不擇手段, 我們不能像他們一樣無恥。
2. 老外管理論壇顯示的民主作風。
3. 西方人士也是能辨別是非, 對這些無賴行徑(如此人利用簽名來宣傳打廣告) 也是看得一清二楚的。