I seldom recommend TV to anyone. But I caught this last night – or it caught me – and I think many readers, able through the wonders of the internet to see the whole thing lawfully, will be interested to do so.
It is the sort of serious programming that the BBC used to be famous for: a depiction and explanation using clips of films and still photographs taken by diplomats and other visitors, of the strange anachronistic religious-feudal state that existed in Tibet in the late 30s and the 40s, and how it came to be annexed by the People’s Republic of China.
No-one seeing this will find it easy to make sense of the Chinese official claim that Tibet has ‘been part of China for 800 years’. Welsh readers will note that Wales has been administratively part of England for 800 years, in a much clearer sense, but that does not mean they have to like it or feel English. Bordelais readers (who are old enough) will recall that they certainly were under the English crown 800 years ago, but that does not mean they still are. History is not monotonic. And neither Aberystwyth nor Aquitaine, language apart, has for centuries had institutions wholly alien to an Englishman; whereas Tibet was clearly fascinatingly weird to everyone else only 60 years ago.
“The Lost World of Tibet” is only available from the beeb in the UK.
Here are some extracts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WihR_g96F0E
I cannot find a reliable non transparent U.K. based proxy server, if anyone knows of one please post it up. I’d like to see this documentary.
Quite so Guy.
And a reminder that the B.B.C. did produce good works.
Too often people (such as ME) only remember the terrible things – such as the James Cameron propaganda programme denying (during the horror of the rule of Mao – when things were vastly worse than they are now) that there was any persecution in Tibet.
I still maintain that most B.B.C. people today are on the left – but they (at least the journalists – the “entertainers” are different) are not so bad as such “great broadcasters” as James Cameron.
The type of journalists (American as well as British) who knew perfectly well about the murder of tens of millions of people by such monsters as Stalin and Mao and just lied and lied and lied about it (in both broadcasting and print journalism) seems to have gone into decline.
Perhaps because we live in a less innocent age – these days just putting on a serious sounding voice and dressing well does not convince most people you are telling the truth.
And (thankfully) putting on a phony working class accent and dressing badly does not convince most people you are telling the truth either.
There are terrible lying journalists about (most of the worst ones seem to work for the “Independent” newspaper – there is even a member of the disgusting C. family there), but their words are no longer treated as gospel.
Being cynical is often attacked (and sometimes rightly so) – but it has its good side, and not just in journalism.
For example, I doubt such “scientific” lies as the “Kinsey Report” (with its made up stats and so on – designed to “prove” that most American men acted in the same way that the author of the report did) would be automatically believed today.
Extraordinary footage from the 40s and 50s!
It nails the Chinese lie that Tibet was ever “theirs”
Two systems so dissimilar in 1950, would be hard to come by!
Cruickshank usually puts my teeth on edge, but this time he played it straight down the middle, as Bing used to sing.
It is a pain that out of UK internet users are excluded from access to this facility, as I will be when abroad.
I have, however, fired an email off to the BBC, in my very best Michael Caine typing voice…
Oi BBC!
I pay my bleedin licence fee
and if I want to see
A programme of my choice
while doing a little job in Italy
next June
I should buggering well be able to, right!
So get it bleedin sorted!
Your a big Organisation
But you’re out of shape,
Behave yourself
Or I’ll come round there
and blow more than the bloody doors off!
Funnily enough, I have yet to receive a reply.
Very little attention is being given to the “evolution” of the modern (since 700 CE) incursions into Tibet.
Even the British did so (as late as 6 or 7 years before WW I) to stymie the Russian interests which were sensed as a shadow on India the “core” of the “EMPIRE.” Nothing comparable to the present situation, of course (though Britain obtained “Reparations” from an impoverished people).
We are now looking at the second major attempt by Han people to colonize the entire plateau, which will dilute the indigenous. This differs in its present objectives which have developed since the opportunistic strike by Mao 50 years ago to push back the western borders, weaken the differentiations from the eastern (Han), limit the possibilities of reviving historic cooperation with the non-chinese Ughyrs to the north, and lay the groundwork for what has now begun.
The attacks on the Han colonists by the indigenous will delay increasing colonization by which the present ruling coalition seems bent on exploiting resources for use in the east, and possibly gaining access to those of Nepal (also in foment).
I’m in the UK and it tells me “sorry….etc”. Why is that?
Communism, the only system of government that is able to make a feudal theocracy look warm and fluffy in comparison.
Seeing the references to “communism;” does anyone see that format as the economic, poltical, or social basis of the organization of present day society (human interactions) in China?
I wonder if it was the term “credit bubble prosperity” that angered the bot – these followers of Lord Keynes get everywhere.
Still, as for the Han Chinese in Tibet.
They may already be a majority.
Historically there are two forms of Chinese nationalism (although it is possible for people to mix them)
Chinese CULTURE, and Chinese RACE.
Chinese culture has absorbed many different cultures over the centuries – and whilst it has destroyed many aspects of these cultures, other aspects have survived in the various regions of what we now call “China”.
However, if RACE is the form of nationalism that holds the flux of power – then nothing of Tibet will remain in the future.
Tibet may or may not have been part of China for over 800 years (though seems to me that it has)
But it definitely has been part of china since 2001 when the IOC awarded them the games.. why is this all being brought up now, and not then? at least I guess this means once the Olympics is over we can go back to forgetting all about this silly tibet business again.
What’s silly about it? Oppressive rule imposed by force appears to me to be one of the least silly subjects on earth.
The reason there’s a fuss about it now is because the silly Olympics business is used by host states to advertise how wonderful they are.
China is a particularly nasty piece of work, so there will be a lot of people, me included, who will want to contradict its claims to greatness when they are made. Those who have a special interest, such as the Tibetans, will naturally use an occasion when world attention is focused on China to publicise their cause.
That you intend to “go back to forgetting” shows they are wise to do that. They might as well take the publicity opportunity because not everyone will forget.
You might be a little optimistic (in your own terms). As China thrusts itself forward more and more, flexing its new muscles, and promoting its national greatness, there may be a good deal more opportunities and stimuli for people to say how nasty its regime is.
China is Tibet and Tibet is China.
Go look at a map – The area ‘claimed’ by the dalai lama is actualy close to over 50% of what we call present day China.
And other Autonomous regions another Third.
People who say “free Tibet!” are actualy saying “Destroy China!”
Well which map are you looking at Liminal?
According to a Roman one, Britain is part of the Roman Empire.
According to a 14th Century one, the left half of France is British.
According to a 1900 one
A quarter of the world is British.
What the fuck do maps have to do with it???
You may have noticed that we dont own a quarter of the planet now, nor do most of us wish to.
The Chinese invaded in 1950 with 40,000 troops.
Hardly a fraternal visit or a mad package tour gone wrong now was it?
You have obviously not seen the film.
Shot in the 40s and early 50s, it is unlike any place on earth at the time.
It truely is the 16th century in colour film.
Now I dont say I would have liked to have lived as they lived back then.
It was an authoritarian feudal theocracy after all.
But that was their choice and traditions, and it is for the Tibetans to overthrow or revise their lives, not for the Chinese to march in and put a gun to their heads and force change in the direction China wanted.
Tibetans and Han Chinese hate each other, they always have.
What will the Map of 3008 look like I wonder?
It’s a brilliant program, beautiful, and well presented – that’ for sure. Unfortunately it’s TV, not history. TV and movies are there for entertaining, not teaching, and you cant learn history through entertainment, wether it’s Dan Cruickshank, Brad Pitt, or Richard Gere. To impress the audience in 60 or 100min, they have to make ideas simple, plots sexy, and scenes pretty. Mel Gibson’s Brave Heart is a good example. Many people, including myself, like it, but we know it doesn’t reflect the true history.
Communists are bad guys, doesn’t necessarily mean you can dump all the shit on them. Buddhists are nice people, doesn’t mean they behaved better before the communists came. There are plenty of record showing that Tibet wasn’t Shangri-La as described by the film, instead it was a feudal theocracy like medieval Europe. 70% of the population are serfs bound to the land owned by their masters that are either high class aristocrats, such as the woman in the film who married Dalai Lama’s brother, or senior monks, including Dalai Lama himself. The serfs are gruesomely treated by their masters through torturing and mutilation. Even Dalai Lama himself confessed in 1994 that the treatment to the serfs was “extremely bad”.
When this documentary was made, the producers must have seen such materials. But for unsay reasons, they decided to ignore them, and only present the audience with the scenes supporting the main theme: tibet was a perfect world hidden deep in Himalaya, which was spoilt all by a bunch of thugs who march into it with heavy guns and redbooks.
You can appreciate the arts of the program, but shouldn’t get moved by the ideas, it may well away from the truth. To make your own judgement, you need to read, a lot more than 60min.
For those who are interested, here are some further readings:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
http://members.tripod.com/journeyeast/tibetans_are_not_victims.html
Merlvyn Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon.
It is a beautiful documentary. But it’s quite subjective. We can only hear the voice of Dalai Lama, his relatives and friends. But, how about the people there? After all Tibet belongs to the Tibetan people, so is this a film about Dalai Lama or Tibet? “The lost world of Dalai lama” is more appropriate for me.
An interesting scene in the film is that the monks were eating. So, here is the question. Where was the food coming from? Any farmers there? Let them talk. The only people I saw except the monks were the relatives of Dalai Lama showing their clothes and some people begging. It seems to me that “the lost world of Tibet” was a world of monks. But this is obviously not true. Because if we ask where did the monks come from? Then we realize that Buddha monks don’t marry.
And the question goes on and on. I am confused. I think documentaries are just as artistic as films. It is looking for resonance deep in our hart. In order to do that it needs a perspective. It shows there has been something beautiful in Tibet from a certain angle of the camera. For the truth, we have to find it by ourselves. But still I love the documentaries of the BBC. It acts like a good counterpart to the more critical “news”. If good news is no news, it is certainly good news that documentaries are beautiful and not critical.
Just like Dalai Lama said in the end, we are hoping for the best.
Well which map are you looking at Liminal?
Well obviously one that depicts the present day situation would be best.
But as tibet has been apart of China since before most maps were even produced.. sure go ahead use just about any map you want.. it helps illustrate my point eitherway.
The Chinese invaded in 1950 with 40,000 troops.
Hardly a fraternal visit or a mad package tour gone wrong now was it?
If your argument against china is its use of solders to unify its people.. seems to me you must have a problem with very nation on the planet, thats alot of banners to paint.
Tibetans and Han Chinese hate each other, they always have.
Probably less so than say the English and the Welsh
Well Liminal I have been writing rather a lot today in various places and am a bit tired.
So I do not need any more of your rejoining bullshit.
But…
If you think that 40,000 troops pouring over your border and laying siege to Llasa, blowing the temples to bits killing thousands of Tibetans and forcing the Dalai Lama to flee to India along with 80,000 Tibetans, somehow instilled a warm and cuddly “We’s all Chinese Now!” feeling in the Tibetans, then you are out of your sweet and sour mind!
Probably less so than say the English and the Welsh
Oh really?
I was in Machynlleth last week.
The ancient capital of Wales (well 1404)
It is a one horse town deep in the mountains miles from anywhere.
Resentment against the English, indeed any foreigners is tangible still.Tangible in a joshing sort of way.We have all fought a couple of world wars together since then. When was the last time China and Tibet fought anyone together? Or suffer attack by an outside force?
Why do you think this might be?
Well I think that 40,000 troops blowing up your people and property in the name of freedom and fraternity might have something to do with it, dont you?
I think a deliberate policy of immigration that treats the host nationals as second class citizens and dumb hicks may have been a factor too.
The Tibetans are not Chinese, anymore than the Welsh are English.
If you cant see why the Tibetans want to be their own masters and make whatever rules they wish for themselves, just like the Irish did with the Republic, the Indians did, the Nigerians and Australians, Canadians and S Africans did, well I cant help you…
Oh and that Grand Ol’ Satan
The USA too!
If English people want mountains, lakes and forests perhaps we should retire in the lake district. Well those few who can afford houses in towns like Coniston.
Well true there are actually no mountains – but the high hills are good enough. And there are even forests if one takes the trouble to look for them.
The Welsh (or the north and central Welsh) do not love us – and there is no reason why they should be made to love us.
People who know me can guess what is comming next……
John Stuart Mill was wrong – if people want to “parade their displeasure” by being unfriendly (not speaking to us or speaking to us in cold tone of voice….) that is up to them.
If one does not like living in an area where most people are unfriendly – one should not live there.
I’m not sure what rejoining bullshit means.. i think it means you don’t like discussion with those of a different view point.
fair enough then – each to their own – it seems to work well enough for china afterall.
I apologise for any perceived rudeness Liminal,
but I have “discussed” the point twice with you on this thread already.
You believe that Tibet is part of China, and presumably can do with it as it (the Chinese State) wishes.
Every Tibetan I have ever met does not.
I cannot see a convergeing of our points of view is likely to happen in the near future.
Can you?
Time for some history:
In 1895, Dr. A. L. Waddell (british explorer), wrote that Tibet’s population was under the “intolerable tyranny of monks and the devil superstitions [the llamas] had fashioned to terrorize the people.” In 1904, the british explorer Perceval Landon described the Dalai Lama’s rule as “an engine of oppression.” Strange that the BBC now recalls it as some sort of perfect place where everybody was happy.
The reality could not be further from the truth: in the ’40s Lhasa had, among other things: no electricity, no running water, taxes on absolutely everything (planting a tree, having a child, traveling anywhere, etc), rampant slavery administered by the llamas and maintained via 40+% interest loans (that poor people got to pay taxes), they had no education system (outside of becoming a monk), no hospitals, and numerous other social problems.
This documentary is completely one-sided, of course the once richest man in Tibet (the Dalai Llama) sees things one way, but how did normal Tibetans feel then? Does the BBC think that they enjoyed being slaves??
PRC = “totally evil” is an easy sell, the truth (evil+good) is much harder to swallow. Abolishing slavery ain’t so bad.
No sale Jon. The PRC is indeed evil and implying otherwise is like saying the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was just peachy because the Nazis that the Soviets defeated were wicked. Yes the Nazis were wicked but that in no way mitigates the wickedness of the subsequent Soviet Empire… the same is true of Tibet, now occupied by the Han Empire.