These past few days Steve, Zach, and I have been having impromptu head-scratching dialogues on the “Tibet Question.” Historically, this had to do with situation of Tibet as an independent country in opposition to being within Chinese control. Our discussions however seemed to center around the role of non-government organizations in their promotion of the Tibetan cause (mostly economic, cultural, and religious). Steve and I both worked in ETP (English Training Program) in Amdo as teachers funded by various NGO’s.
The question was then put, “What is the difference between these NGO’s and Christian missionaries that come to live in Tibetan areas?” Both promote infrastructure development (water projects, schools, etc.) and both want Tibetan to be “converted” to their way of thinking of the world. While I do think it is true that NGO’s (like Trace Foundation) are more honest in their approach (missionaries for example will never admit what they are trying to do because their presence is illegal in China), is it a difference of kind or of degree? Many western funded NGO’s doing work in Tibet are anti-Chinese, pro-women rights, and pro-humanities studies. How are these implicit views changing the ways Tibetans consider their own society, and how are programs funded with this vision shaping their future? First “anti-Chinese” tendencies of these organizations is some ways are preventing Tibetans from benefiting from integration with the larger Chinese society. In fact many of the students who graduate from said programs (like the one I taught) have barely passable Chinese. This may prevent them from getting government jobs which would help them affect (at least) their local environment. Secondly, while I personally am pro-women’s rights, is this ushering in an unwelcomed change into a society and culture that has been a certain way for a thousand years? When is it ok to change some traditional ways of thinking while preserving others. Certainly these NGOs follow their own agenda when deciding what traditions to preserve. Lastly, the emphasis of primarily humanities education verses science and math for Tibetans severely limits the options and impact they can have on Tibetan communities once they graduate. Many Tibetans graduate from ETP with more or less useless “da zhuan” degrees (like a junior college degree) which companies and governments don’t think very highly of. Furthermore, if Tibetans concentrated on learning science and Chinese, they could more probably attended better Chinese universities and return to their hometowns with enough technical expertise to help build the infrastructure Tibetan areas need so much. The question I pose is whether or not these organizations that aim to protect and honor a culture, in the end (and maybe inevitabely), impose their own agendas on unsuspecting people. Maybe that is the risk you take when you try to help “others” cross-culturally. Missionaries certainly have little respect for a culture and people, their only goal (by any means possible) to convert and thus strengthen their own belief and cultural superiority.
But despite the actions of “outsiders” no matter how well intentioned, it seems clear that it is up to Tibetans figure it all out. Somehow it reminds me of all the talk by the international community in the 1960s when China first occupied Tibet of “Tibetan self-determination.” I wonder what that would really mean these days. But I think that is probably a whole other topic altogether…