Angry Tibetan Girl

From the wikipedia page on the Tibetan uprisings of 1959

It seems there aren’t enough Tibetan women writers or poets for Tibet related platforms to promote. Or at least that’s what they seem to promote.

It’s always the same 5 women in exile that gets promoted as ‘the face’ of it all. And out of the 5, 4 of them are the usual suspects who have consistently promoted and publicized themselves as such ‘figures’ without actually having produced anything of substance worthy of attention.

Gender issues have become a platform for careerist self-promotion.

Well according to Tibetan organizers it seems to be so.

They invite her to come perform in their fundraiser activities to dance and basically be THE transgender Tibetan on-stage. It all feels a bit gimmicky, and dare I say, tokenizing.

Symbolic representation is important, I won’t deny that. But it also isn’t all that simple. I fail to see why she is called upon Tibetan stages over and over again other than to perform her sexuality as Transgender (in the Hijra style) and to assuage our (or organizational?) representation of ourselves as accepting and liberal, enough to monetize off her tokenization.

It all feels a bit strange and circus-y, but the organizers know that the audience will pay for a show as long as the organizers are bringing show-runners running on talent or, in Mariko’s case, her gender and sexual identity.

Trump may be the worst thing to happen to the USA in recent times, but damn is his trade war with China working in our favor. China is actually feeling the hurt economically, with their market slowing down, thankfully from this trade war. 

NOWs the time to hit China while they’re hurting Tibetans and Tibet NGOs. Why does it feel as though the Tibetan political movement has been slow to pick this up while the tide is swinging in our direction hard.

The US’s stance against China in terms of trade and diplomacy seems to have been the trigger for Canada and Europe to follow. With Canada’s decision to hold Chinese telecommunications CEOs accountable for surveilling illegally in Canada, not to mention how they’re using Chinese international students to carry out their own political agendas.

I’m glad Canadian-Tibetan MP Bhutila has been able to maximize on this moment to safeguard Canadian citizen’s rights. I hope she pushes to investigate weird Chinese embassy espionage activities on Canadian soil.

Also the US’s reciprocal visa act for China has been picked up by European politicians too.

So it seems the West has decided to finally grow a spine and play China at their own games.

But where the fuck are the Tibetan NGOs? Right now is the moment to hit them hard with political campaigns while the wind is blowing in our favor strategically (anytime the wind blows against China, it’s OUR TIME).

For all the white people who have had the fortune of working for the Tibetan cause or issue and being supported financially and professionally to progress their livelihoods to support themselves and begin families, I take this moment to say, you welcome! Your paychecks would not have been made possible without us. I say white because most of the ones doing this are white.

Being in solidarity is usually understood in terms of ‘giving,’ but such a self-centered way of conceiving solidarity leaves out all the one sided benefits of such a solidarity. I’d say it’s quite the opposite when you have watched some enjoy the benefits of such a solidarity (through solidarity related jobs and income) transform into personal careers that have allowed them to maintain or start new families. Not only does such notions of solidarity impose a hierarchy of status to such individuals, with the ally ‘giving’ and the recipient ‘receiving,’ it also ignores the many benefits such positioning allows for the ally. Privilege is automatically accorded (and expected) in such scenarios to the ally rather than interrogated and negotiated.

According to Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche:

“Much is made of the so-called Chinese communist destruction of Buddhism. Yet today, China still has more than half the world’s population of Buddhists, and some of the largest thriving Mahayana and Tibetan monasteries as well as learning and meditation centres are flourishing there.  

World War II and the consequent penetration of western values may have contributed to the decline and dire state of Buddhism in Eastern countries. The once-great 57-acre Daitoko-ji monastic complex in Kyoto, Japan, founded in the 14th century, today has fewer than a hundred monks remaining. And many will be shocked to hear that, seen from a different angle than that commonly presented, Americans may today be damaging the dharma more seriously than the Chinese did during the entire Cultural Revolution.” 

And this response from a Malcom Smith (on the same post): 

"Much is made of the so-called Chinese communist destruction of Buddhism. Yet today, China still has more than half the world’s population of Buddhists, and some of the largest thriving Mahayana and Tibetan monasteries as well as learning and meditation centres are flourishing there." I guess you feel that the kind of political education the Chinese govt. is force feeding monks in monasteries in Tibet constitutes "flourishing." You don't see a problem with forcing monks to prostrate to photos of Mao and President Xi? I think your admiration of the "flourishing" of Buddhism under Chinese rule is very strange. "World War II and the consequent penetration of western values may have contributed to the decline and dire state of Buddhism in Eastern countries. The once-great 57-acre Daitoko-ji monastic complex in Kyoto, Japan, founded in the 14th century, today has fewer than a hundred monks remaining. “ Buddhism in Japan began its gradual decline under the Tokugawa Shogunate in 1600. The building of new temples was forbidden, and the state favored Shinto and Neo-Confucianism, and brought Buddhism under very strict control. There was a hidden benefit to Buddhism, however. All families in Japan were required by law to affiliate with a state controlled Buddhist temple under the danka system. This was done in order to prevent the spread of Christianity, where families had to receive a certificate to prove they were not Christians. As one can imagine, this opened up a huge new avenue of blackmail and corruption by temple authorities, and in turn this led to popular discomfit with Buddhism and brought support for its suppression in the Meiji restoration. By the beginning of the Meiji period (1865), Buddhism was basically moribund in Japan. Under the Meiji restoration, suppression of Buddhism began again with renewed vigor under the Haibutsu kishaku ("abolish Buddhism and destroy Shākyamuni) movement. Between 1868 and 1872, more than 18,000 temples were literally torn down. All totaled, 40,000 Buddhist temples were destroyed during the Meiji period (1868-1912), about 80%. Your speculation above, therefore, is entirely baseless. "And many will be shocked to hear that, seen from a different angle than that commonly presented, Americans may today be damaging the dharma more seriously than the Chinese did during the entire Cultural Revolution." Thus is pure cultural chauvinism on your part. You have no evidence that this is so. At least Sakya Pandita, when he described the kinds of aberrations in which Tibetans of his day were indulging, described in detail the kinds of harm he observed. "It may not be “popular” to talk of such western threats to the dharma..." Thus far, you have failed to identify any uniquely Western threats to the Dharma.

This isn’t the first time he’s elevated China to such a status. In previous years, he’s written on India and Nepal needing to take cues from China on how to proceed with Buddhism. 

What I've learned from all this is that Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche is not very convincing when given the chance to explain himself. If anything, he gives himself away as not knowing much on the issue but promoting his own agenda. And I’m curious as to know what his agenda is in elevating China to the status of Buddhism protector. Does it have anything to do with the fact that the Chinese make up the majority of his foreign following?