« Sundried Tomatoes on the Silk Road | HOME PAGE | "Peace Mission 2007" Caption Contest »
August 16, 2007
Silent Protest

There's an amusing article in today's New York Times about the battle over fur in Tibet. In short, the Dalai Lama' suggestion two years ago that wearing fur is inconsistent with Buddhism has shaped a new battle. On one side, the Chinese authorities are urging people to continue wearing furs as tradition dictates. On the other side, however, most Tibetans are heeding their exiled leader's advice and shunning the traditional festival costume, evening burning their prized furs en masse in some cases.
This perceived act of obedience to a man whom the Chinese government has long vilified as a “splittist,” meaning secessionist, appears to have angered the authorities.
Zhou Hongyuan, deputy governor of Yushu Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, denied that participants had been ordered to wear animal skins and furs, but he supported the practice. “We are an ethnic region, and we want to create a festive atmosphere and promote our uniqueness,” he said. “It has been our tradition for thousands of years to wear fur.”
Members of Tibetan performance troupes who came here from towns in Qinghai said local officials had urged them to continue wearing their traditional outfits. Judging from the appearance of one group after another, however, the call went almost completely unheeded. During several days of festivities, a visitor was hard pressed to find any conspicuous displays of fur.
I have just one issue with the article to nitpick. Towards the beginning, Howard French describes the audience's cold reaction to the Chinese-speaking M.C.'s:
“Let’s hear a round of applause for your very own Khampa Festival,” shouted the male announcer, drawing little more than murmurs from the audience in this city in western China, just north of the Tibetan border. “One more time, this is your own real and genuine festival,” the man continued gamely, only to be greeted once again by near silence.
He wonders if the audience's response is based on their incomprehension of Mandarin or perhaps their discomfort at the nearby phalanx of security forces. I think neither explanation is probable, because I've seen the same thing happen over and over again at countless public performances around China. A troupe of performers finishes dancing or singing and is met with a wall of silence. A few scattered claps might be heard, but the general response to any performance is indifference. Even at those cheesy acrobatics shows in Beijing, the foreign visitors are almost always the ones pushing the crowd to even minimally react after 88 six year-old girls balance themselves in an inverted pyramid on top of a flaming tricycle.
What's the deal with Chinese crowd reactions, or lack thereof? Give me an "S". Give me a "P". Give me an "I". Give me an "R"... eh, fuck it.
August 16, 2007
Gyegu Journal
Tibetans Turn Festival Into Mute Protest Against China
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
GYEGU, China — With the polish of veteran television M.C.’s, the slick, Chinese-speaking announcers used every trick in the book to try to get a largely Tibetan crowd of a few hundred people involved in the singing and dancing on stage.
“Let’s hear a round of applause for your very own Khampa Festival,” shouted the male announcer, drawing little more than murmurs from the audience in this city in western China, just north of the Tibetan border. “One more time, this is your own real and genuine festival,” the man continued gamely, only to be greeted once again by near silence.
It is possible that in this region of China, where Tibetans cling to their own language, the announcer’s shtick failed for reasons of sheer incomprehension. It could not have helped, though, that the crowd had been corralled by a large deployment of police officers and soldiers who stood by, as if on guard against serious trouble, throughout the morning’s performances.
Then, after a moment of uneasy quiet, the female M.C. offered her own interpretation, heard over a live microphone. “They’re ignoring us,” she said.
This is the season of Tibetan festivals, where people throughout this region gather to celebrate old traditions during the long, hot days of summer, before the early onset of autumn and a harsh, prolonged winter.
The Khampa Festival in Qinghai Province is one of the largest on the calendar and traditionally draws Tibetans from all over western China. This year, for the first time, local officials tried to use the event to promote tourism and development in one of the poorest areas of China. As the muted response to the announcers suggested, however, the event had also acquired a political subtext: the continuing struggle between China and its Tibetan minority over cultural identity and religious freedom.
In recent weeks, China has announced new regulations governing the reincarnation of Tibetan clergy and has acted swiftly against Tibetans at other summer festivals who have hoisted banners with the likeness of their exiled spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, and in one case, urged people to shout if they wanted the Dalai Lama to be allowed to return from exile.
Most of this province, and parts of several others, including Sichuan and Yunnan, were long part of Tibet itself before China’s People’s Liberation Army marched into the area in 1950 to enforce Beijing’s claim.
With so many security forces on hand in this modest town of about 40,000, nestled in a valley surrounded by high mountains, there was little chance of an outright demonstration in favor of the Dalai Lama. The test of wills played itself out instead around a theme unlikely to have been noticed by many of the tourists from China’s Han majority: whether or not to wear animal fur.
The ceremonial wearing of animal fur has been raised to the status of a political issue in western China, since the Dalai Lama released a statement two years ago urging Tibetans to reject the longtime practice as inconsistent with Buddhism. Reportedly, the Dalai Lama was responding to complaints from Indian conservationists that Tibetans’ fondness for skins from tigers and other endangered species was hastening their disappearance.
As word of the Dalai Lama’s suggestion spread across western China, some Tibetan communities responded by publicly burning their furs, while others simply stopped using furs in ceremonies. This perceived act of obedience to a man whom the Chinese government has long vilified as a “splittist,” meaning secessionist, appears to have angered the authorities.
Zhou Hongyuan, deputy governor of Yushu Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, denied that participants had been ordered to wear animal skins and furs, but he supported the practice. “We are an ethnic region, and we want to create a festive atmosphere and promote our uniqueness,” he said. “It has been our tradition for thousands of years to wear fur.”
Members of Tibetan performance troupes who came here from towns in Qinghai said local officials had urged them to continue wearing their traditional outfits. Judging from the appearance of one group after another, however, the call went almost completely unheeded. During several days of festivities, a visitor was hard pressed to find any conspicuous displays of fur.
On the eve of their troupe’s performance, a couple of Tibetan dancers from Nangqian County, in Qinghai, practiced twirling moves in their full regalia, including long strands of blue and orange beads that shone in the afternoon sun as they spun.
Asked if he was wearing any animal fur, the man exclaimed, “Absolutely not!” What ensued was a very careful conversation in which the man insisted that wearing fur was against his religion, and then acknowledged receiving “teaching” on the practice two years ago.
Where had the teaching come from? “That’s not convenient to say,” the man’s wife and fellow dancer put in. Asked if their instruction had come from the Dalai Lama, the couple’s faces lit up, and the man reached out to eagerly shake hands. “The government told us we have to wear fur, but we’re not going to do it,” he said. “There are 32 people in our troupe. We’ve agreed that just one of us will wear a small piece.”
The dancers were not alone in their circumspection. With Beijing constantly on guard for anything that smacks of separatism, people here seem to measure their words carefully.
At a monastery perched on a hill high above this town where he receives visitors, Yushu’s holiest Tibetan Buddhist monk, Aenpo Kyabgon, gingerly parried questions about the fur controversy, saying he had avoided the festival altogether.
The monk, who grew up in India and now lives in Australia, was allowed to enter the country recently with a warning against engaging in politics.
“I don’t believe in saying you must or mustn’t do something,” he said elliptically. “These things depend upon the individual. But from the Buddhist spiritual point of view, we definitely have to refrain from certain things, such as violence in killing animals.”
posted August 16, 2007 at 01:33 PM unofficial Xinjiang time | HaoHao This!
Comments
This is a very nice post, and I want to see how others react to this
Posted by: sue at August 16, 2007 06:16 PM
Interesting this guy, like many reporters, who knows little about the history, but keeps telling mass on the matters.
"Most of this province, and parts of several others, including Sichuan and Yunnan, were long part of Tibet itself before China’s People’s Liberation Army marched into the area in 1950 to enforce Beijing’s claim."
This is from the lie that there was a great unified Tibet country that was disintegrated into TAR and other parts of provinces by PLA at 1950.
Tibet Empire was ended back at 9th AD when lamas assinated the last Tibetan King. At 1950, it was same as more than 1,000 years before that, current region of TAR was controlled most of times by a government in Lhasa which saw some nasty fightings between different cults of Tibetan lamas. The current yellow-hat sect was only able to hold after twice of intervention by Zhunger Mongols.
Only at Kanxi period, the Emperor tried to let Lhasa to manage part of Zhongdian in Yunnan, the experiment failed. So the management went back to Kunming.
Whoever implied that Tibetan living in Qinghai is under repression of Han, is talking out of his or her shithole. Qinghai, Tibetan name of Amdo, was part of ancient state of Tuyuhun that was being conquared by Tibet Empire way back. In recent history before 1949, the area was dominated by Hui Muslim and the relationship between Tibetan and Hui were not too good. Normally, Tibetans would look on their cuison Hans to fight against Hui. So when communist forces came to the area to expel Hui warlords, Tibetans were more than happy to join the fight. And as matter of fact, many of them worked for communists as either supporting forces or negotiation represents when Beijing tried to regain control over today's Tibet.
Posted by: Sha at August 17, 2007 09:05 AM
Seems that your blog is getting some classy traffic nowadays
Posted by: FOARP at August 17, 2007 11:00 AM
There was a bit of a debate on the Daily Telegraph's (a British newspaper) public blog MyT recently regarding Tibet leading one blogger to write the following post
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/elle/august_2007/myths_about_tibet_.htm
Would be interesting to see what the views of you and your readers might be regarding the post and it's comments.
Posted by: chinaqanda at August 17, 2007 02:29 PM
YouTube : Search Results for "fur + china"
http://uk.youtube.com/results?search_query=fur+china
Posted by: li-si at August 17, 2007 08:17 PM
"This is from the lie that there was a great unified Tibet country that was disintegrated into TAR and other parts of provinces by PLA at 1950."
This is no less than the lie of unified China.
Posted by: maxxx at August 18, 2007 01:15 PM
"This is no less than the lie of unified China."
China was unified before 1910 and after 1949. What is your point?
Posted by: Sha at August 19, 2007 01:38 AM
China has never been unified in spirit, always by force.
Posted by: nanheyangrouchuan at August 19, 2007 08:31 AM
That leads us to an intellectual discussion about what UNIFICATION of a nation means.
Posted by: Absurdfool at August 19, 2007 01:27 PM
Please, let's keep the intelligence of these posts to a bare minimum.
Posted by: michael at August 19, 2007 01:44 PM
(unintelligible grunt)
Posted by: maxxx at August 19, 2007 08:33 PM
I hadn't heard anything about the fur in Tibet. Guess I'm out of the loop. Any idea what they'll wear to keep warm though? I'm all for not wearing fur, but I think if I lived in Tibet I'd need it.
Posted by: Matt at August 21, 2007 06:14 PM
A nomad that doesnt wear fur sounds wierd to me.
Maybe Dalai Lama should tell Tibetan nomads not to eat yak meat too?
Get real folks.
Check out the following website Www.gesanghua.org
Gesanghua is a non-government charity orgnization that is dedicated to the education of tibetan children. It has only 2 years history and now sponsors over 4000 tibetan children that are from tibetan families of extreme poverty.
There are some onsite survey reports about Qinghai,Sichuan,TAR.
http://bbs.gesanghua.org/dispbbs.asp?boardID=40&ID=13081&page=2
http://bbs.gesanghua.org/dispbbs.asp?boardID=40&ID=30443&page=1
Shangri-La, isnt?
Posted by: wk at August 22, 2007 12:40 AM
They'll wear what everyone else wears... winter coats made of or filled with synthetic fibers. Are animal skins still in? Because if so, that leaves leather and lambskin. Wool is no problem, either.
Posted by: michael at August 22, 2007 04:28 PM
Does that mean that I will be able to afford my dog skin cloak this winter after all??
Posted by: veebs at August 27, 2007 06:11 PM
I remember years ago reading about rock bands that went to China to perform and after each performance were greeted with silence. Some kind of cultural revolution thingthat forbade them from applauding or something.
Posted by: Aozora at August 28, 2007 08:25 PM
So why is there so much fuss over fur. Okay they had the fur before Dali Lama made his statement and if they kept it well taken care of. they wouldnt need to go out and kill more animals. I dont think that it is just them hunting the animals. The world around might be the biggest culprit selling the skins to other countries who probably doesnt have the same care for its worth.
Posted by: Josie at October 8, 2007 09:57 PM
Why is wearing fir all the sudden after almost 3000 years not consistent with Budist belief?
Sounds like he is playing to the crowds to me.
In the mean time he is going to have them all suited up in hand me down neon ski jackets,... great...
Of course that is not the only option. If they are determined not to wear fur, they should continue to stay natural, but isn't it an unnessesary hardship? Ghandi did something dis-similar, he ditched what would be like the chinese factory made clothing to begin wearing homespun wool and fir.
I am disapointed to hear of this dictate.
Posted by: ber at December 30, 2007 03:15 PM
