The struggle for the history of Tibet — (English)
This short article is about the “propaganda war” that has been waged over the history of Tibet — between the communist government of China on one hand, and Tibetans and their supporters on the other — ever since China annexed Tibet in 1950. The debate is still ongoing.
For the historian or anyone simply interested in the history of Tibet, they are presented with two diametrically opposite points of view — which are the result of this great polarization of the propaganda war between Tibet and China. On one hand, Tibet is described as a peaceful “Shangri-La,” a fascinating and mysterious paradise high up in the Himalayan mountains on the top of the world, where the monks of the Tibetan school of Buddhism — considered the most advanced branch of this religion and philosophy — have perfected the art of compassion, empathy and a peaceful lifestyle (pacifism), which is so characteristic of Buddhism. This is the portrayal of Tibet that is typically presented in Hollywood films, such as Seven Years in Tibet from 1997 — based on the book by Heinrich Harrer (see Harrer, 1952 and the New York Times article by Martin, 2006). On the other hand, Tibet (before 1950) is described as a backward and oppressive theocracy, where feudalism, serfdom and slavery were still being practiced. I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle in-between these two polar opposites…
Since the beginning of the 20th century, Tibet has fascinated Westerners — especially those interested in Buddhism — and ever since the annexation of the country by China in 1950, Tibet has received a lot of sympathy and support from the West. That is why there are so many Western scholars, academics, mountain climbers, Buddhist enthusiasts and others, who have written and published many books and articles supporting Tibet, where the history of the country is presented in a positive light. On the other hand, the Chinese government has published a vast array of publications from their own publishers — all kinds of books, pamphlets, policy documents, white papers etc. that present the history of Tibet in a very negative light. This historiography of Tibet also has its supporters in the West, especially communist and Marxist academics, such as Michael Parenti (Yale PhD) (see Parenti, 2008).
But to comprehend this historical understanding of Tibet by the Chinese authorities and their supporters, it is necessary to understand the Marxist approach to history. According to Marxist historical and dialectical materialism, human society is considered to advance through certain historical stages — beginning with the primitive communism of hunter-gatherer societies, and advancing through slave economies, feudalism, capitalism, and eventually leading to socialism and communism. The Chinese authorities and their Western Marxist supporters (such as Parenti and others), claim that — all the way up to the year 1950 (when the country was annexed by China) — Tibet was still a feudal society and was still practicing slavery (they even accuse the spiritual leaders themselves — the Dalai Lamas — of having owned slaves). The independent state of Tibet was so ancient and backward, they say, that China “liberated” the country by incorporating it into the People’s Republic of China, and by modernizing it and bringing it into the modern age. They view religion as nothing but the “opium of the people,” as Marx himself put it, a tool of the oppressive ruling class to control the masses and keep them idle and subservient. This religiosity in Tibet, characterized by the monastic monks of the Tibetan school of Buddhism and led by their spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, is only proof that Tibet was in fact a theocracy, and as such constituted the epitome of superstition and the rule of an oppressive priestly class over the mass of the people.
The Chinese authorities themselves put it like this:
„The feudal serfdom under theocracy, which had lasted for several hundred years in Tibet…
…The society of old Tibet under feudal serfdom was even more dark and backward than in Europe in the Middle Ages.“ (People’s Republic of China, 2001).
One prominent Western scholar and expert on Tibet, Melvyn Goldstein (2011), has also supported the view that serfdom was still prevalent in Tibet up until 1950. But he does not go so far as to use the terms “feudalism” and “theocracy” to describe it. As a matter of fact, some scholars do make a distinction between feudalism and serfdom, pointing out that even though peasants are being bound to the land, this fact alone is not necessarily enough to qualify the society in question as a feudal system. Serfdom and feudalism are two different concepts — feudalism only existed historically in Europe in the Middle Ages.
The Tibetan exiles, their supporters and the critics of this Marxist approach of the Chinese authorities, do point out, that the system that was prevalent in Tibet was not comparable to these Western societies from the Middle Ages, where the concepts of “feudalism” and “serfdom” do apply. This is just a very Eurocentric and Western approach by the Chinese and their supporters, to apply some foreign concepts to Tibet that are not necessarily comparable or compatible. Tibet was a very different society, with a very different culture and way of life, than the European societies of the Middle Ages (it was, for example, to a significant extent characterized by pastoral nomadism). Therefore it is not correct to translate the Tibetan term for peasant — mi ser — as serf, because this was a completely different system from that of serfdom. The Tibetan peasants were relatively freer and not as strictly bound to the land as their European counterparts (the serfs) under feudalism.
I think this is a very interesting debate about the history of Tibet, and I could probably write a much longer essay about this topic, than this short summary presented here. But here in this article, I have presented a short summary of the two different and opposite historiographical approaches to Tibetan history, which are the result of the greatly polarized propaganda war between China and Tibet. I mostly based this summary on the book History as Propaganda: Tibetan Exiles versus the People’s Republic of China by John Powers (2004), which covers these topics very well and in more depth. It is a subject worthy of more research.
I would also like to point out that there is a pretty good Wikipedia article about exactly this historical debate over serfdom in Tibet. It is a good starting point for anyone interested in this topic:
Sources and citations
Goldstein, Melvyn C. (2011). „Serfdom and Mobility: An Examination of the Institution of ‘Human Lease’ in Traditional Tibetan Society.“ The Journal of Asian Studies, 30(3): 521–534. doi:10.2307/2052458
Harrer, Heinrich. (1952). Seven Years in Tibet.
Martin, Douglas. (2006, January 10th). „Heinrich Harrer, 93, Explorer of Tibet, Dies.“ New York Times. Retrieved March 20th 2021 from: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/obituaries/heinrich-harrer-93-explorer-of-tibet-dies.html
Parenti, Michael. (2008). „Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth.“ Michael Parenti Political Archive. Retrieved March 20th 2021 from: http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
People’s Republic of China. (2001, November). „Tibet’s March Toward Modernization.“ Chinese Government’s Official Web Portal. Retrieved March 20th 2021 from: https://web.archive.org/web/20080515222305/http://english.gov.cn/official/2005-07/27/content_17564.htm
Powers, John. (2004). History as Propaganda: Tibetan Exiles versus the People’s Republic of China. Oxford University Press.