Why is "Serfdom in Tibet pre-1950" a controversy?

[Crocoshark]

I was just looking at the wiki page about serfdom in Tibet before the invasion of China after reading the Skeptoid podcast about Tibet (and its comments section). The title of the page is "Serfdom in Tibet controversy" while it basically lists different people and their different claims and I ask, "Why's this a controversy?" I mean, sure it was over 60 years ago but at the same time it was only about 60 years ago. We have Holocaust survivors that tour schools and write books talking about what Germany was like in the 1940s. Why are the reports on wikipedia about the Serfdom issue from Englishman/Chinese/People that weren't even in Tibet at the time? Why haven't I seen any reports listed as from Tibet Natives? It would seem easy for a Tibet elder to clarify the exact level of squalor and slavery they lived in at the time. Is it because all the peasants were illiterate? Is there not a filmed interview somewhere?

I realize it would only be anecdotal but I find its elusiveness conspicuous. And yes, my research didn't go beyond wikipedia.


(The 75 year old Dali Lama is also conspicuously absent from my above post, but hey, he wasn't a Tibet peasant)

 

[Gazpacho]

Why are the reports on wikipedia about the Serfdom issue from Englishman/Chinese/People that weren't even in Tibet at the time? Why haven't I seen any reports listed as from Tibet Natives? It would seem easy for a Tibet elder to clarify the exact level of squalor and slavery they lived in at the time.

I think you might be misunderstanding the question in dispute. It isn't whether Tibet was socially stratified before annexation. It's whether "feudalism" - the exchange of land for duty - is the right thing to call it. The obligations of landholders in feudal Europe were formalized, ritualized, written down. If there is no such evidence for obligations in pre-annexation Tibet, that is a problem for anyone who would call its system "feudalism."

 

[tyr_13]

I think you might be misunderstanding the question in dispute. It isn't whether Tibet was socially stratified before annexation. It's whether "feudalism" - the exchange of land for duty - is the right thing to call it. The obligations of landholders in feudal Europe were formalized, ritualized, written down. If there is no such evidence for obligations in pre-annexation Tibet, that is a problem for anyone who would call its system "feudalism."

So while it pretty obviously was 'de facto' feudalism, it wasn't formal feudalism?

 

[Gazpacho]

So while it pretty obviously was 'de facto' feudalism, it wasn't formal feudalism?

It should be called feudal only if there is evidence of feudal obligations. Feudalism is not the same as manorialism or theocracy or peasant agriculture or any of them combined. The exchange of land for service is essential.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Well, aside from the semantics, I've gotten a lot of hate for being a Chinese propagandist when bringing up the nature of theocratic Tibet. The Chinese try to claim they brought freedom, and even set a holiday to celebrate it. It is part of a larger, heated battle, and thus not appropriate for polite discussion.

 

[Crocoshark]

I think you might be misunderstanding the question in dispute. It isn't whether Tibet was socially stratified before annexation. It's whether "feudalism" - the exchange of land for duty - is the right thing to call it. The obligations of landholders in feudal Europe were formalized, ritualized, written down. If there is no such evidence for obligations in pre-annexation Tibet, that is a problem for anyone who would call its system "feudalism."

Misunderstand I did, thank you for your clarification. But still, wouldn't elder Tibet peasants simply be able to clarify whether land was exchanged for duty?

 

[Gazpacho]

Apparently there just isn't any evidence of that kind of arrangement, which is why there's a controversy. References to feudalism turn out to be talking about serfdom, or theocracy, or general class oppression. But the Chinese government wants to call it feudalism, because that helps them justify their policy from Marxist ideas of historical progress.

 

[Crocoshark]

References to feudalism turn out to be talking about serfdom,.

Isn't Serfdom the status of peasants under feudalism?

 

[Gazpacho]

Actually it looks like I misunderstood the question myself, substituting "feudalism" for "serfdom." So most of what I've said has been off track.

Regardless, the PRC has a vested interest in portraying Tibetan history through the Marxist lens, and there doesn't seem to be any serious doubt that pre-annexation Tibet was a pretty stratified and unequal place.

Why isn't there first-hand Tibetan testimony of the inequality? Well, there is. Anna Louise Strong, an American leftwing journalist, collected some of it:

One 22-year old woman, herself a runaway serf, reports: “Pretty serf girls were usually taken by the owner as house servants and used as he wished”; they “were just slaves without rights.”18 Serfs needed permission to go anywhere. Landowners had legal authority to capture those who tried to flee. One 24-year old runaway welcomed the Chinese intervention as a “liberation.” He testified that under serfdom he was subjected to incessant toil, hunger, and cold. After his third failed escape, he was merciless beaten by the landlord’s men until blood poured from his nose and mouth. They then poured alcohol and caustic soda on his wounds to increase the pain, he claimed.

Yes, there is also testimony of Chinese misbehavior since annexation. But that's now and this was then.

 

[geni]

Why are the reports on wikipedia about the Serfdom issue from Englishman/Chinese/People that weren't even in Tibet at the time?

The Chinese ones because they have a significant interest in promoting their version of Tibetan history. The English ones are because britian invaded Tibet and one point which produces the earlest fairly repliable reports on conditions there.

Why haven't I seen any reports listed as from Tibet Natives?

No such thing. "Tibet" is a western imperialist lie designed to split china. Not true of course but the politics means that certian people have a very strong interesting in making it impossible to get a clear picture. Which is why the old british records are so interesting. They predate the current politics.

It would seem easy for a Tibet elder to clarify the exact level of squalor and slavery they lived in at the time. Is it because all the peasants were illiterate? Is there not a filmed interview somewhere?

Ah but whom could you trust? Any pro independence elder is going to say it was great and any pro china elder will say they were slaves.

 

[McHrozni]

Why exactly does it matter if the native Tibetans suffered under Tibetan regime or not? China has repeatedly and publically condemned interference in other states, claiming states should be allowed to develop indenpendently of outside influences. Under this banner, they consistently opposed the fight against some dictators (like Iraq or Libya) and justified their support for some of the worst regimes on Earth (North Korea, Myanmar, Iran, Zimbabwe, Sudan).

But in the case of Tibet, they say, it was a justified fight against human opression? Please. If everything the Chinese claim is true, Chinese rule over Tibet could still be used as a dictionary example of hypocricy. That's before we include Chinese settlement policy in the conquered territory and it's forced assimilation. If their claims about serfdom are false however, the whole thing is simply worse ... but they never had the justification in the first place.

McHrozni

 

[Crocoshark]

Ah but whom could you trust? Any pro independence elder is going to say it was great and any pro china elder will say they were slaves.

Point taken

Why exactly does it matter if the native Tibetans suffered under Tibetan regime or not?

It doesn't really, not from a political standpoint in the 21st century

 

[Susheel]

This seems to be a problem with many of those vehement "Tibetan" activists I meet. I put "Tibetan" within quotes since these are not Tibetans but more often non Tibetans declaring a solidarity with the Tibetans oppressed by a foreign power. They are however prey to the false notion that Tibet was paradise on Earth before the Chinese invasion and also firmly believe it is their duty to see the Dalai Lama taking over as head of state.

I wonder if there is a truly popular movement independent of the theocratically biased movement figureheaded by the Dalai Lama that would like to see the Chinese repelled and also establish a democracy. In fact what are the Dali Lama's own views on this?

 

[a_unique_person]

Why exactly does it matter if the native Tibetans suffered under Tibetan regime or not?

Why does trying to get history right ever matter? That's just how it was. It doesn't justify China invading them.

 

[McHrozni]

Why does trying to get history right ever matter? That's just how it was. It doesn't justify China invading them.

That's what I said. Getting history right is still a good idea, but a controversy in this particular case is simply unnecessary.

McHrozni

 

[tyr_13]

This seems to be a problem with many of those vehement "Tibetan" activists I meet. I put "Tibetan" within quotes since these are not Tibetans but more often non Tibetans declaring a solidarity with the Tibetans oppressed by a foreign power. They are however prey to the false notion that Tibet was paradise on Earth before the Chinese invasion and also firmly believe it is their duty to see the Dalai Lama taking over as head of state.

I wonder if there is a truly popular movement independent of the theocratically biased movement figureheaded by the Dalai Lama that would like to see the Chinese repelled and also establish a democracy. In fact what are the Dali Lama's own views on this?

The Dali Lama doesn't want full independence for Tibet, he want's it to have the status 'special administrative region'. It would likely mean little other than he gets to go back to his huge palace.

 

[Toke]

The Dali Lama doesn't want full independence for Tibet, he want's it to have the status 'special administrative region'. It would likely mean little other than he gets to go back to his huge palace.

I don't think it would be any advantage to the Tibetans if the current occupation were replaced with a theocracy under a Chinese "Great friend and protector".