Admission of Guilt

I don't understand Tibet. I could talk for weeks about Beijing and different landmarks or "historical sites" that few know, I could talk for days about Chinese soccer and one painful event after another (most recently the 3-3 draw against Thailand, great prep for the Aussies!), I could even sit you down and talk for hours about politics and law, the tough cases and campaigns, the big victories, the bitter losses. I cannot talk to you about Tibet. I love music, I love fashion, but I have very little understanding of them, using Justice Blackmun's famous words "I know it when I see it", I know what I like, but I can't really tell you why. With Tibet, I have no idea where to begin.

There are only so many hours in a day and my brain can only hold so much knowledge, on Tibet, I'm indifferent. China is an interesting, huge country and there is a lot to see, for whatever reason, I've never really had an interest in going to Tibet. It's far, its high, its a pain to get to, its expensive, and as a foodie, its boring, yak this and yak that. If, one day, friends or relatives want to go there, I'd join them, but for me, I'd much rather go to Xinjiang, to Gansu, to other places. If not for Sabriye Tenberken and her work, I'd be even more indifferent to the situation there.

I went to university in a small, midwestern town which was unique in that the school is the US' preeminent university for Tibetan studies, the DL's older brother was a former professor and Eliot Sperling is one of the country's most respected scholars on Tibet. I came in knowing about Princess Wencheng and the Tang, about the Yuan, the connections between Tibet and the Ming, the Qing garrisons, the then DL sending representatives to the Nationalist government. The class was full of "Free Tibet" types who idolized Sperling, I came in looking for a fight, but the result was disappointing. I came out feeling even more confused about Tibet, on one hand, Chinese do have a legitimate claim, at the same time, Tibet also has a legitimate argument. Sperling was an excellent teacher and tried to play things right down the middle, the question really breaks either way, though he obviously leans toward the Tibetan side. It's all about a lack of understanding, if the Communists went into Tibet shortly after taking power in '49 and only set up the military there, or even just pushed their reforms only on citizens, instead of monks, things may have been different (then again, the Cultural Revolution would probably have broken the peace).

Tibet's just not black and white, it wasn't before 1949, it wasn't in 1959, it wasn't in 1989, and after these protests in 2008, it still isn't. I never really thought China had an "original sin", like the US and slavery, and while the effects of slavery are far deeper in the US, is the Tibet issue China's "original sin"? It's certainly a major volcano that is constantly simmering, but rarely explodes. I still don't understand how different Tibet and Hawaii are and I like what Jeremiah said at one point (I believe on Peking Duck), China should just give up the historical claims to Tibet, no matter how strong or weak you think they are, and say, screw it, it's ours, period. If they treated the monks better, if they weren't insistent on such strict control of the religion, most civilians and even some of the monks would accept the situation. It sometimes feels like the government is waiting for the DL to just die, but this situation needs to be taken care of before that, if the government forces a successor, that could be the tectonic shift that causes the volcano to erupt.

I come from a family of cadres and soldiers, of Party members since before the Party took over "New China." Yes, I'm more likely to take the side of the Party, but I won't do it blindly. There is enough historic evidence that claiming Tibet as a part of China is nothing overly radical. At the same time, Tibet as cause is all about Hollywood liberals (I shouldn't be so hard on them, they were often the best contributors to campaigns I worked on), hippies, and new agers who are just looking for a cause celebre, are looking for something "new." They like to think about Tibet in black and white terms, they like to look at the DL and his talks of peace and think about the "suffering of poor Tibetans", ignoring how a previous DL massacred fellow Tibetans so one sect could take over. The DL is a religious leader, but in the West his connection to the religion and what that means is ignored. Instead, hippies (and neo-hippies) and people like Richard Gere have turned him into an innocent, new age self help guru who goes around wearing a gold Rolex, not the leader of a major world religion. I can't understand, I simply cannot understand the "Free Tibet" people. How can it be wrong of me to take the side of the Party, when the flock on the other side blindly believes in something that many Tibetans in Tibet don't fully support.

If there is one thing I learned from Professor Sperling, it's that this issue isn't black and white, the real answer needs to come from China and the DL, Han and Tibetan trying to work things out together, protests will not lead to a solution, but only more misery and embarrassment.

Postscript: Sometimes I don't even know why I keep this blog. I've been thinking about how to write this post since last night, got up extra early, beat the sandstorm that has enveloped Beijing, and started writing. I clicked send and started looking around the web, only then did I find out that China Law Blog basically said what I wanted to say, did so more clearly, and in fewer words.

Christmas and Christians in China

Much talk exists about the size of China's Christian population, predictions even exist that its currently the largest in the world (though Pat Robertson is still hoping for more). The media typically ignores the issue unless some priest has been arrested or a crackdown is on, in which case China is viewed as an evil oppressor of religion and is beat down with Soviet-evil empire era rhetoric among the religious community in the US.

The reality of Christianity in China is far different from the picture you get in US/Western media. That many Chinese Christians choose house churches over official institutions often has little to do with a decision to stick it to the government as it does location. Even in large cities in China, its far from the US Bible Belt, churches are few and far between and so choosing between a long bus ride (or two) and something down the block often chooses itself. House churches, in most cases, are far from the clandestine ideas that people have about them, they are usually very open and often take place in offices or other buildings instead of just a person's home.
With that in mind, I want to share with you some pictures taken at a recent event at Sea World in Shenzhen. Sea World is an extremely popular destination in the city where there are a number of bars and other popular establishments. On Christmas Eve, a friend's church was granted permission by the government and local police to hold a Christmas choir concert at that location, which was very well received and attended, with minimal incident. This is not a church with close ties to the government or anything like that and its members come from a range of different churches, including both house churches and state-endorsed churches. There is nothing special about this church, just that they tried and were granted a permit for this gathering which turned into a great success. God's word is spreading throughout China and it isn't being done by crazy missionaries (though the large number of beautiful girls in the choir helps).

Pictures courtesy of Princess Dudu and are not to be copied, anyone interested in using them should contact me.




PS: Okay, to lighten things up a bit, I just had to share this picture. It shows perfectly a mirror of the battle in the west between secular and religious. In the front, strong Christians who came out to sing songs to and about God/Jesus on Christmas, in the back a huge, jolly Santa with a gigantic beer mug.

Lying for God

I really respect Tim Johnson's writing and enjoyed his book, when I saw this entry on his blog about missionaries in China, I took notice. Despite my own religious leanings, I'm totally against a large portion of the missionary work that goes on in China. Often the work is done under false pretenses or just outright lying and is really disappointing. I've known a few people who've gone over as missionaries, and while some of them are really good, honest people who did positive work while there, the majority of them, quite simply, are none of those things.

As Johnson points out, these groups often target minority and/or Muslim or Buddhist communities. What some of these US Christians are doing, as foreigners in another country, is utterly despicable. Imagine the battles that would erupt if Christians started hanging around synagogues and mosques and, on a daily basis, as people were walking out of worship these Christians would approach them, tell them they are living in sin and try handing them Christian literature. How would people view that? How long until the first riots began? Yet for whatever reason, some Christians believe it is okay to behave like this in other countries, I just don't get it. This is exhibit A in why the world hates Americans.

In his entry, Johnson states, "what’s interesting is that some of these Christians use denial and deception about what they are doing, employing 'tradecraft' more commonly associated with spying."

Is it just me or would it seem denial and deception run counter to Christian "values"? There are ways of spreading God's word that don't include these tactics, unfortunately it seems these groups will continue to get bolder and bolder until the government deports one or two of the most egregious offenders.