Chanteur

最后提到的中国40年代的第一夫人，指的是宋美龄。宋美龄毕业于美国一所长春藤联盟名校，英文十分流利，她为了抗日和反攻争取美援在美国巡回演讲，成果卓著。但是罗斯福总统夫人的回忆录中说，有一天早上，罗斯福总统夫妇与蒋夫人共进早餐，问到中国的工会分子怎样处理，蒋夫人“用自己的小手指头的指甲轻轻地划过自己的咽喉”。后来罗斯福夫人的回忆录中说，她很难理解一个这样的角色：能够把民主的道理讲得头头是道，却对民主缺乏哪怕最根本的理解。这个事情可能不是很多人知道，特意注明一下。

 原文链接在：

 http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/your-comments-on-my-tibet-column/#comments

第25条。

Everything is about the earthquake now. But here are some thoughts on Tibet issue that I felt compelled to share. As for political correctness, you are saying nothing but the American standards - which I deem inarguably right - such as peaceful demonstration should be permitted, or freedom of expression/speech. But political correctness is just among a thousand factors here, others much uglier. The thing is, the Communist Party (or should I say the commu-capitalistic party) is actually favoring Tibet to other places in China, in terms of freedom of religion, social welfare, or strictness in ruling. A Tibetan can often walk away from a crime without any consequences even if he can be convicted - the government is loosening law enforcement in exchange of the Tibetans’ giving up separatism, as least they hope so. If the Tibetans have a reason to protest about the right of civil disobedience, the rest of China has a million reasons to do so. So why pick out Tibetans? Why your compassion for ordinary Chinese who are conceived to be deprived of their political rights diminished during the years after the 1989 event, while your hearts still beat in the rhythm of that of Dalai Lama? That’s why I’m sensing something odd here. Ah yes, Tibetan people are different. They were invaded and occupied by China (just the same as Japan did to China during WWII). What a brutal and dramatic story it suddenly becomes!

A few facts here. Tibet was a part of China before 1949, just under different regimes. Unlike the European countries, when empire collapsed, Ethnic groups formed their own countries; China’s sense of unification stayed the same when the Qing Dynasty or the Chiang Regime was replaced. That’s why, to most of the Chinese, to reclaim sovereignty of Tibet is as legal an act as China should exist at all. At least it’s more legitimate than the claims for Alaska or Hawaii. So, in a Chinese common sense, the “invasion” never happened, even for the fiercest critics of the Communist Party.

Second fact. Although history is somewhat ambiguous as you said, there are still a few things we can cling to. Chinese Government says, that they have freed Tibet from slavery. But the western people treated them not like Abraham Lincoln, which they think they deserve, but rather, like Hitler. People are saying that, Tibetans never asked you to free them. Maybe they still want to live under the State-Church system that had prevailed Tibet for some 1000 years. Maybe they still want to devote their lives - and properties as well - to the discretion of Dalai Lama, instead of a legal system, even as lousy as a Chinese one. But wait. This is where political correctness is abandoning us, right? It would be a shame to call the exile Tibetan government a democratic one. Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader, still has the right to overturn ANY decision made by the parliament - not always without resentment - as an evil medieval regime will always be like. The Tibetan you interviewed wanted right to worship a living human being. Say it again. To worship a living human being. Just in case that political correctness has abandoned us, I would like to point out that was usually how evil rose in history, e.g., Hitler, Stalin, medieval popes, or the Facist Government of Japan during the WWII.

The Western thinks, as I boldly interpret, that the most important thing is not that Tibet is invaded and occupied. It’s that Tibet is occupied BY CHINA. What a tragic event! To have the most fascinated place on earth – nearest to heaven with purest minds – alongside the legend of Shangri-la, being occupied by some atheistic Chinese, as mundane as human can be. But, as I said somewhere else, “The remoteness of Tibet makes it hard for the outsiders to realize that even for a sacred place such as Tibet, people still need a ruler and a ruling system. The distance undermines the bonds that connect all human beings on all possible fundamental basis.” As Hume indicated in his book The study of Moral Principles, the hallucination of “Golden Ages” will systematically destroy people’s faith in justice. The western thinks Tibet is earthly heaven. So Let them stay in medieval ages to accommodate our fantasies of golden ages. State-Church ? Fine. A spiritual and political leader? Even better. We give him a Nobel Prize. (-But he’s had slaves. -Oh forget it. George Washington had a few. )

Finally, but not conclusively, I have to say that I’m not against any need for democracy. Tibetans need to be freed as much, if not less, as all the Chinese need to. But what makes Tibet more democratic? Letting Dalai Lama rule again? You gotta be kidding me. Dalai may have said a million good things about democracy, but does he really apply the rules to his regime? Is it really politically correct, to restore a state-church system in the name of democracy? In 1940’s, China’s first lady visited the US and won the hearts of the Americans because she was educated in a ivy-league and she can sing high praise for the people who fight for democracy. By the way, it’s worth mentioning that the speeches brought her tons of American aids to fight both the Japanese and the Communist Party. But as Mrs. Roosevelt later discovered, not every one with fluent English and eloquent pro-democracy speeches, is really for democracy.