The dreaded Olympic Torch passed through South Korea yesterday. Considering the number of Chinese and Tibetans living in Korea, some kind of an eventful occurrence was to be expected. Both parties were granted permission from the authority to peacefully congregate.
In Korea, being the democratic and open society it has become in the last twenty years or so, there was no rationale for stopping the ethnic Chinese and Chinese students from celebrating the Torch’s passage and expressing the Chinese national pride; similarly, there was no rationale for stopping the few Tibetans from peacefully protesting against what they perceive to be an oppressive rule that is taking place in their homeland. Things deplorably spiraled out of control. The massive Chinese congregation threw monkey-wrenches at the Tibetan congregation, surrounded a 1-man picketer (the placard read: “Improve Human Rights”) and threatened him.
Let us step aside from the politics, for the issue here is not the politics itself. Rather, it is the appalling reality that violence has been exerted by the masses on the minority in what was meant to be two peaceful congregations in a country that respects the right of congregation and freedom of expression.
The Chinese congregation chanted “Pride of China” that “China is powerful” and that “China is great.” Yet, is it the case that this “greatness” and “power” of China come from the nobleness and rational intellect of its constituent people, or simply from the sheer size of its constitution? From what I have seen, the primary source of China’s greatness and power is its massive size, unfortunately so. If this wrench-throwing violence is what the Tibetans are subjected to by the Chinese outside China, then I can only imagine how they might be treated within China.
Let me move on to the question of Tibet, which has sparked these protests in the first place. My first rational response to the question of Tibet’s independence was that it is a clash between the two political concepts that have come to the fore since the early 20th century: national sovereignty and self-determination. The issue of Tibet is a domestic issue that the PRC government has control over, just as the issue of Chechnya is a domestic issue for Russia. Yet, it is also clear that the people of Tibet have the right to self-determination. And if seeking independence from China is their self-determined end, then they have every right to pursue this end. I cannot decide, at this point, which end should trump.
After hearing of the rather violent reaction of the Chinese and the PRC government against pro-Tibet movements, I was struck by another question. Why would China, a country that has protested for the last hundred years against Western imperialism, impose itself as an imperialist power on Tibet? Does the impeccable motto “for the good of the nation” blind the people of China to the very fact that they are themselves turning into imperialists, the same kind of beings that oppressed, tortured, and destroyed their forefathers?
This worry grew deeper when I saw a YouTube video that tried to justify China’s rule over Tibet. The arguments presented in the video deviated little from the arguments provided by the Western imperialist powers in the 18th century attempting to rationalize imperialism and colonialism. Realizing that the PRC’s policy on Tibet is reminiscent of the imperialist policies that the Chinese openly abhor, I have come to the conclusion that the Chinese attitude on the question of Tibet is a kind of self-contradiction, an inconsistency in thought and action, an unjust partiality-regardless of the politics that is involved, these are first and foremost moral culpabilities.
It is a moral imperative that the voices of the minority are kept alive. When it comes to China, I find it hard to say that the ethnic minorities of China are really a part of what is referred by the term “Chinese.” For I find that the “Pride of China” lives only in the hearts of a particular portion-albeit a very large portion-of the people is officially designated as “Chinese”. The concept of Chinese patriotism, Sinocentrism, and ethnocentrism that binds China and Chinese together excludes these minority groups.
No, the minorities are included in these concepts, but only as the foundation upon which the greatness of the “real” Chinese is founded. This vertical conception of China’s ethnic hierarchy that permeates the Chinese self-conception presumes subjugation of certain groups of people. This is oppression. It is the most vicious of all oppressions. It is oppression where the oppressor is oblivious of its being the oppressor.
In conclusion, I would like to say one thing, to anyone who sees oneself as a part of China. I sincerely hope that China’s “greatness” be manifested not only in dazzling numbers and material grandeur of its beautifully built edifices, but in intellect, nobility, rationality and constructive self-criticism. China has been, in the ancient times, a center of intellectual and political advancement. Why not exemplify its greatness once again in an exceptional and noble way, by voluntarily subjecting itself to a collective self-reassessment and promising to move toward a constructive and peaceful future? This would be a better route to greatness than distorted patriotism and heightened nationalism that are founded on a conception of Chineseness that is outdated and dangerous.
Clearly, true patriotism is not a blind love toward one’s nation. Integral to a person’s patriotism is the courage to be the whistle-blower, to criticize the state’s faults and to redress its mistakes and put a check on the madness stirred by inauthentic patriotism, nationalism, and ethnocentrism-and when these are done with love and respect for one’s nation, it is only then he deserves to be called a “patriot” in its truest and sincerest sense.
Min is a junior in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].
Doovy Han
Scott Bressler
Scott Bressler
Doovy Han