There are many just causes of freedom to support, actions demanding solidarity with those who face oppression and human rights violations. Each and all require opposition and exposure we respect Anonymous for being engaged in such activism.
Sure we’re biased, yet it’s fair to emphasize an important consideration that should be of considerable importance to all those who value a peaceful and non-violent response to injustice, oppression and abuse.
Of all the world’s conflicts and struggles for freedom there’s only one, which at its very core holds firm to the principles of non-violence. That is waged by the Tibetan people under the brutal tyranny of the Chinese regime. Despite the terrorism forced upon them by the illegal Chinese occupation of their country Tibetans in their hearts hold fast to the values of their Buddhist and native culture.
People who suffer under the violent suppression of a government or foreign occupier have the right to determine the nature and course of their resistance. Many understandably support such causes, indeed there seems to exist a strange calculus operating in which the bloodier the opposition, the greater level of global concern. What solidarity though for the courageous Tibetans who face the occupying Chinese regime with a non-violent response?
To fellow activists within and beyond Anonymous who express a personal commitment to the principles of peace and non-violence we invite you to show an equal degree of active solidarity to Tibet as offered to equally just causes such as Palestine.
Throughout the years of our activism and research on Tibet and its cause we’ve seen an increasing willingness from international academics to collaborate with China’s regime. Although aware of the censorship, human rights abuses and violent oppression of against not only Chinese citizens, but the occupied lands of Tibet, East Turkistan, Southern Mongolia and Manchuria, career and bank-balance considerations have taken precedence.
Thankfully there are those, when viewing China’s tyranny and toxic international leverage, choose not the path of self-serving silence but act with integrity and courage. One such individual is Prof. Anne-Marie Brady of the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, who has exposed and reported upon the growing influence of China’s communist party within countries around the world.
Following yesterday’s news of a fire at Lhasa’s Jokhang temple, questions are turning to the cause. Of course it wont be long now before a servile and uncritical mainstream media dutifully report the official version from China’s regime. This will claim that faulty wiring or insufficient attention to safety measures caused the blaze, alternatively Tibetans may be blamed for their traditional practice of lighting butter lamps as offerings. Anything is possible with a regime that is dependent upon deception and propaganda!
Across our digital planet however people rightly look to other reasons for the fire and wonder, given the violent and oppressive nature of China’s occupation of Tibet, if responsibility rests with the Chinese regime. There are grounds for such speculation, not least that China views Tibetan Buddhism as representing Tibetan cultural and national identity. As such it is targeted with a number of highly repressive controls, with monasteries now run by approved members of the local Chinese communist party, totalitarianism has placed a suffocating stranglehold over Tibet’s Buddhist culture. Military check-points, barbed wire and machine guns are a common site at monasteries. Given this reality, you won’t be surprised to know that there will be no tears shed by China’s government at the sight of the Jokhang consumed by fire.
There have been other Buddhist sites burned down across Tibet, which were attributed to ageing Tibetan architecture, electrical faults or unguarded fires in kitchens. Such claims. coming from the mouth of a regime which is actively repressing the practice Buddhism in Tibet are problematic and remain unable to convince. Which explains why in the wake of yesterday’s inferno social media was buzzing with images and questions on the Jokhang fire. Meanwhile today Anonymous activists have been posting across Twitter of their intent to target Chinese government websites, an action which they presumably is justified, not only on the possibility that China’s regime may have been responsible for the blaze, but also as a response to the ongoing tyranny against Tibetans and their culture.
Sincere thanks to @tibettuth and @TibetAnonymous for the headsup on this action and @anonriddler for allowing use of the image above.
Organizers of the CONIFA World Cup 2018 have announced details of first round matches to be played by the Tibetan national soccer team. The first match will be against Abkhazia at 12.00 PM May 31st, the game will be played at the home of English side, Enfield Town FC.
The same venue hosts their next match as Tibet play Northern Cyprus, this takes place at 5 PM June 2.
Occasionally the past has to revisited, especially if events are being re-written and used to deceive and mislead. After all a key objective of this portal on Tibet is to ensure just and challenging reportage. With that in mind we were prompted to draft this expose after receiving a heads-up from our Twitter team @tibettruth. They monitor Tibet related timelines and discovered an account (see image below) which is pushing a major falsehood regarding the political aspirations of Tibetans in occupied Tibet.
This assertion is a gross distortion and designed to mislead those across social media who have little knowledge of the Tibetan issue. You may be wondering why someone would choose to misrepresent this subject? Clearly there’s an agenda at play, one that has a worrying similarity with the propaganda of China’s regime, pushing the falsehood that Tibetans are content under Chinese rule. Of course to make a lie more palatable a suggestion of credibility helps, and whoever is behind the account has been careful to reference the exiled Tibetan authority. However, that’s another deception, so let’s break this all down and drag the deception into the light.
In 2008 the first Special General Meeting of Tibetans was held in Dharamsala, India from November 17 to 22. During that event Mr Karma Chophel, then Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament in Exile announced the results of a covert ‘survey’ taken inside Tibet. In which he claimed 17, 000 Tibetans had been asked for their opinions on what solution they favored on Tibet’s status. It was not made clear how this clandestine questionnaire had been made possible, nor its methodology or indeed the form and nature of questions supposedly presented. The ‘results’ claimed that over 8000 Tibetans stated they’d follow the policy of the Dalai Lama (no surprise there then) while 2000 expressed support for the Middle Way policy. Significantly 5000 Tibetans were said to have demanded an end to the Middle Way in favor of a policy for Tibet’s independence. ( Source: Tibet’s Last Stand, Warren J Smith, 2010).
It is this claim made by the late Mr Karma Chophel which appears to be the source of the fabricated assertions being promoted by the Twitter account shown above, distorted selectively and re-worded to emphasize a core deception. The term ‘poll’ has clear meaning and interpretation to any reader within the relatively free societies of liberal democracies, it also implies a certain authority. But the process of determining public opinion on political issues as hot as Tibet is not tolerated by China’s tyrannical regime. Anyone conducting such a survey, those taking part and their families would face torture, jail, forced labor or execution. The notion therefore that Tibetans took part in a poll to express their view on Tibet’s future status is a nonsense! Furthermore with several million Tibetans not participating in this ‘survey’ the assertion that 71% of Tibet’s population wish to stay within China is a blatant lie and completely inaccurate.
There has never been any political surveys or polls conducted in occupied Tibet, while the exiled Tibetan Administration offers little detail on the subject.
Hardly the democratic will of the Tibetan people, nor an actual referendum, but informal opinions and proposals, selecting to overlook that on the specific subject of support for the Middle Way those claimed to have declared their views expressed more support for Tibetan independence. Meanwhile, without any evidence of the methodology employed, nor structure and content of the questions, such declarations are claims only. Contrast these with the wealth of reports, eyewitness testimony and media accounts that document Tibetans protesting year-after-year for their national freedom.
This is something of an update to a previous post we wrote on the subject. Prompted by the fact we just received a report from Science Daily on the subject of genetic traits that enabled Tibetans to adapt and thrive in the extreme conditions that apply in Tibet. On the face of it another scientific paper saturated with jargon that offers a balanced and impartial analysis. But as subscribers to this Blog will be aware whenever the Chinese regime’s involved a particularly careful scrutiny needs to be applied. especially on matters relating to Tibet. So with that in mind take a look at the following:
“Further analysis showed that Han Chinese and Tibetan subpopulations split as early as 44 to 58 thousand years ago, but that gene flow between the groups continued until approximately 9 thousand years ago.“ (Emphasis added) Source: Hu H, Petousi N, Glusman G, Yu Y, Bohlender R, Tashi T, et al. Evolutionary history of Tibetans inferred from whole-genome sequencing. PLOS Genetics, April 2017
Now away from the rarefied exactitude of genetic science, what is being implied by the comments above regarding the Tibetan population? Maybe you see it differently but we’re reading that Tibetan DNA has been associated with the Han Chinese population since very ancient times indeed. A curious assertion, and a touch misleading, after all there was not existing at that time period a ‘Han’ society, nor such an entity as ‘China’. These are political and cultural terms, which we should remind ourselves are actively promoted, exploited and enforced by no less than the propaganda ministry of China’s regime. Indeed the idea that Tibet has been ‘part of China since ancient times’ is a recurring and bogus claim made by the Chinese authorities to attempt to legitimize and justify its rule over Tibetans.
Any supplementary material which could bolster such fact-free assertions would be of service to China’s government, especially if it had the seeming authority of an independent and objective study! Does this perhaps explain the puzzling presence, in an otherwise dry research on genetic adaptations, of comments that carry more resemblance to political disinformation than empirical neutrality? Are academics being manipulated? Or is it a willing complicity from researchers who have compromised in order to service and progress their academic status and opportunities of working within China and occupied territories such as Tibet?
We’ve raised such questions before and there’s a history of scientific papers on Tibet that slyly promote the official dogma of China’s regime on the matter of Tibet. A 2014 Chinese academic study concluded ancient migrations into Tibet came from an area known as the Loess Plateau, which just happens to be within contemporary Chinese provinces!
“This study reconstructs the history of human migration to the Tibetan Plateau (sic) and discusses the possible mechanisms involved. We propose that humans first arrived in the relatively low elevation Northeastern Tibetan Plateau (sic) from the adjacent Western Loess Plateau via the He-Huang Valley, and then moved further south to the central plateau.”
Source: D. Zhang, G. Dong, H. Wang, X. Ren, P. Ha, M. Qiang, F. Chen, History and possible mechanisms of prehistoric human migration to the Tibetan Plateau, Chin. Sci. Bull. (2016)
No surprise that this paper seeks to legitimize, through dubious claims and flawed science, that Tibetans are derived from Chinese territory, politics and the demands of China’s propaganda saturate any academic activity regarding Tibet. Of course the distant time of such migrations was, if it occurred, long before Han Chinese culture, or the territorial entity of China existed. Such facts though are not allowed to obstruct the covert objectives of this study. To promote the falsehood that Tibetans, their culture, history and lands are derived from and part of China.
Genetic anthropology is the new kid on the breaking-science block, a mixture of hard laboratory research, spiced with statistical extrapolation and sometimes reaching conclusions that are supported more by affirmation than objective and empirically verifiable evidence. It’s smoke and mirrors, given a sexy make-over by the gleam of 21st Century genetic pioneering. However unlike its older scientific brothers and sisters its findings, particularly relating to ancient genetic histories are open to question and cannot be as easily or conclusively proved through regular scientific process.
This enables considerable space for speculation and assertions, that while attracting media attention, in themselves should be treated with caution, especially when such studies seek to ascribe a particular ethnological origin to a present day people. Our genetic heritage on a personal and collective level derives from a vastly rich and diverse source, through countless generations we have received numerous ethnological inputs, while ancient migrations traversed the continents carrying an admixture of Haplogroups, Successive contacts between differing groups and later cultures combined to ensure that we are more ‘children of the universe’ than belonging to one particular ethnic culture. Long live that variety!
Researchers in the field however seem to take a different view and invest considerable time and effort in claiming that the genetic origins of a present day population group can be determined, innocent enough you may think. What though if such claims could serve a political agenda, or perhaps an even darker motive?
Ms Anna Di Rienzo, a Professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago has just released the findings of a study in which she claims: “Modern Tibetans appear to descend from populations related to modern Sherpa and Han Chinese. Tibetans carry a roughly even mixture of two ancestral genomes” (Editorial Note: Why she implies Sherpas are a distinct people from Tibetans is curious as it is considered that they are originally a group from Tibet who about 500 years ago migrated to the area now claimed by Nepal)
No doubt such a claim will delight the propaganda ministry of China’s regime which is un-sleeping in its efforts to convince the world that Tibetans are Chinese and Tibet historically a part of China. The assertions made by Ms Di Renzio refers to ‘two ancestral gene pools – one belonging to a group that migrated 30,000 years ago and adapted to high altitudes’. Now while China’s antiquity is given special emphasis
“Chinese civilization originated in various regional centers along both the Yellow River and the Yangtze River valleys in the Neolithic era, but the Yellow River is said to be the cradle of Chinese civilization. With thousands of years of continuous history, China is one of the world’s oldest civilizations. The written history of China can be found as early as the Shang Dynasty (c. 1700–1046 BC),” (Source;Wiki)
It’s cultural identity and territorial existence most certainly did not exist in the time frame of the supposed migration referred to by the study, indeed it appears that evidence of any remotely ‘Chinese’ culture made its first appearance during the Neolithic, which began around 10,200 BC, nearly 20, 000 years AFTER the claimed migration of the claimed ancestral gene-pool migration that Ms Di Rienzo suggests party formed the present Tibetan population!
It would be like an Archeologist describing the recently discovered 900,000 year-old foot prints in England as being made by a group from France!
Equally it’s a touch misleading to describe a mysterious and unverifiable population group that seemingly existed, some 20, 000 years (prior to even the emergence of the Neolithic) as ‘Han-Chinese’! That being so just why has this respected and experienced academic’s findings been phrased in such a way as to suggest that Tibetans are genetically part Han-Chinese? At this point the question is which party would most benefit from claiming that Tibetans partly are genetically derived from the Han-Chinese?
The answer is of course China’s Regime. Now nobody is saying that Ms Di Rienzo is part of an orchestration designed to promote the propaganda claims of the Chinese authorities. Yet the presentational wording of her study could be very easily seen in that light. Such an interpretation is given additional credibility by those troubled to see the involvement of Case Western Reserve University, whose anthropology department has a long association with China, lead by Melvyn Goldstein a figure who divides opinion within the Tibetan movement and has been criticized as an ‘anthro-apologist’ for China’s rule in Tibet. His writings on Tibet have attracted serious concern, notably from Tibetan author Jamyang Norbu
“Beijing appears to regard Goldstein as the premier Tibet scholar on its side. If one goes into the Chinese government white papers on Tibet and checks out The Historical Inevitability of Tibet’s Modernization, The first and key reference cited is Goldstein’s History of Modern Tibet: the Demise of the Lamaist State. This book is extremely important to China’s propagandists, because it is the only extensive account of pre-invasion Tibet and its government that is not only harshly condemnatory of Tibetans, but presents a very convincing appearance of meticulous research and authentic scholarship” (Source: http://www.jamyangnorbu.com/blog/2008/07/13/running-dog-propagandists/ )
Whatever the facts the manner in which these researches have been presented has the appearance of a political gloss, yet they are factually misleading and lack any verifiable empirical testing to conclusively prove the claims made. Would it not have been possible for Ms Di Rienzo and her academic partners to have outlined the results in the following, more neutral fashion?
‘The data our research has produced suggests that Tibetans are genetically linked to a possible migration that could have occurred some 30, 000 years ago, the precise location of a source point is unknown’
We leave it to our subscribers and visitors here to judge if this study constitutes independent science or propaganda disguised as bona-fide research?